Citation Tools: Can We Trust Them Yet?
A recent blog post at Shinylib raises an interesting issue that should be on the radar screen of anyone who helps students format citations: the citation tools we recommend are not to be trusted yet. I've been using ProCite 5 for a decade now, and have fooled around with Zotero, EndNote, and RefWorks, a fair amount. I've also used the citation export features from most databases that our library subscribes to. In the end, I have always found that some errors or problems exist in the automatically formatted citations that require me to do some hands-on clean up work with.
Just as it is dangerous to promote spellcheck features in word processors as 100% reliable, so to is it problematic to encourage a blind faith in the citation-creation tools in various electronic systems. I haven't checked any of the tools yet, but I wonder if they have wrestled yet with how to update the rules for creating citations in the new MLA style.
Related Post on Digital Reference
posted by Stephen Francoeur @ 10:08 AM
2 Comments
Links to this post
2 Comments:
Very true. When talking to students about RefWorks, I have two major caveats. I tell that that it's not a "magic bibliography creator" any more than PPT is a "magic presentation creator." There are just too many places for errors to creep in (mostly at the import stage) for them to blindly trust that it will all be OK.
The second caution is that RefWorks is quite good at standard forms of citation (books, journal articles, book chapters) but just because it has "map" or "personal interview" or the like in the list of formats, that doesn't mean it will do a very good job with it.
Actually, it's not RefWorks' fault -- it's the metadata from the databases. If you notice, the APA databases have almost perfect citations (PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PsycBOOKS). But right -- we always say the only "perfect" APA citations come from a human brain combined with the manual.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home