Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/JSTOR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citations[edit]

The expected citations are a bit more cumbersome than one would normally write:

  • According to the documentation for {{cite journal}}, the |access-date= parameter is Not required for linked documents that do not change.
  • One would normally use the |jstor= parameter instead of |url= and |via=.

So for the example citation

  • {{cite journal |last=Ziff |first=David |title=Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant |journal=[[Columbia Law Review]] |accessdate=14 April 2014 |volume=105 |issue=3 |pages=841–872 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4099480 |date=April 2005 |registration=yes |via=[[JSTOR]]}}

So I would have written the example citation as:

  • {{cite journal |last=Ziff |first=David |title=Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant |journal=[[Columbia Law Review]] |volume=105 |issue=3 |pages=841–872 |date=April 2005 |jstor=4099480 |registration=yes }}
  • Ziff, David (April 2005). "Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant". Columbia Law Review 105 (3): 841–872. JSTOR 4099480. (registration required (help)). 

which contains the same links as the previous version. Would that be an acceptable alternative in this context? Kanguole 16:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole, thanks for this. I know that, regardless of what the documentation says, some people really like having access dates for all sources with URL; personally, I've never seen the appeal, but that's neither here nor there. Your second point is good, and I would maybe suggest putting that up as an alternative format (compare the examples at WP:OUP where a couple of different formats are presented). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Kanguole, that is an elegant citation solution. Think I'll start using that - I like its explicit rendering of the JSTOR reference number. Additionally, rendering the hyperlinked JSTOR reference # directly before the "registration required" is much clearer than hyperlinking the article title at far remove from the final "registration required" message. Good visual communication.
Agreed also on your reading of access date usage, which has nothing to do with personal preference, but actual need of verifiers and those who might search &/or archive cited version: access dates are highly appropriate for volatile content &/or unstable URLs, like newspaper articles or online journal publications, which frequently have content addendums, deletions, and editorial corrections, not to mention site re-organizations and disappearances. JSTOR's archives offer "Stable URLs" that aren't going anywhere anytime within HTTP's lifetime and the content is static. Access date for cited JSTOR content is absolutely useless visual noise. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kanguole: Note that the |jstor= and |via= parameters serve distinct purposes: the former is an identifier equivalent to |doi=, |issn=, |arxiv=, etc.; while the latter is an indicator of where you found the article cited. Thus, a cited journal article found on Project MUSE, but also available on JSTOR, might have |jstor=123456 and |via=Project MUSE. And in consequence of this, despite its apparent redundancy, an article found on JSTOR should have both |jstor=123456 and |via=JSTOR.
Also, having |access-date= on these citations is actually an error; it's just that it's being suppressed when |url= is also included. As you've noted, |accessdate= is only needed, and should only be included, when the cited source is in some sense ephemeral and might have been different depending on when you accessed it. I'm not aware of any journals, online or not, that change published articles without preserving history (not that they don't exist, but I believe they are rare and, as this is an unsound editorial practice, not likely to be very reliable to begin with).
And finally, I believe using |url= to cite any article on JSTOR should be strongly discouraged. Using |jstor= to generate the link gives us central control of how the link is generated (including if JSTOR changes their link format again, as they did from /pss/ to /stable/ recently), how it is formatted, enables structured metadata (an URL is opaque; the |jstor= parameter is not), and gives readers a choice of ways to get at the cited source (jstor, doi, arxiv, pubmed, etc.).
I believe this narrows the number of "correct" examples to provide on this page considerably; with suitable support in the citation module of indicating open access content, possibly even to just one. --Xover (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, hadn't thought about it like that. I think if someone has the JSTOR ID, this is more than likely because they are accessing it through JSTOR - but providing the ID does open other access avenues. One concern with omitting URL entirely would be that people may not realize that the JSTOR ID will link to the same place. Also, can we use JSTOR ID with tools like Special:LinkSearch? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Special:LinkSearch seems to find links created with |jstor=, e.g. [1]. Kanguole 10:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The |jstor= parameter supplies an identifier, but it also indicates that the article may be accessed through JSTOR, so the |via= parameter is unnecessary in this case. Besides, "JSTOR 4099480 – via JSTOR" would look rather bad. Kanguole 10:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
To summarize my understanding:
(1) General case, Registration required: I favor using both |jstor=12345 and |registration=yes - without redundant |via=JSTOR - for the typical use, as in @Kanguole:'s original post, second example.
(2) Atypical case, Registration not required: For JSTOR Daily articles, newly released from archive to even unregistered public readers (unlike Register & Read, these articles also allow ability to download & print), but certainly not open access per their Terms & Conditions, simply leave off the registration parameter, without using open access template following - @Xover:, that was a mistake on my part. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)