User:Visviva/Finding citations
Citation best practices[edit]
- Citations should comply with Wiktionary standard format, as set forth at WT:QUOTE.
- Citations should be associated with the definition they support. If you can't tell which definition your citation supports, then either the definitions need work, or the citation is not usable.
- Each citation should add some unique value to the entry.
- Citations should always be verifiable. Assuming you found your translation online, this means you should always include a link to the original resource. You can create a link by putting square brackets around the URL, like this: [http://www.we.need/sources/that/we/can/actually/verify.php?id=777]. If you don't do this, it means that you either expect other editors to do your work for you, or you expect them to take you at your word. Neither of these is particularly acceptable in the wiki context.
Examples[edit]
The Googles[edit]
There are five Google search services that are of frequent use in citing Wiktionary entries: Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archives, Google Groups, and Google web/site search. In addition, Google Patents, discussed under #Patent searches, provides a useful search engine for US patents. These services share many common properties.
Effective Googling[edit]
- Phrases and wildcards
- Other search operators
- Collocation fishing
Google Books[edit]
- Useful search operators
- Filtering out scannos
- Snippet view
- Amazon
- Recently-published books that have only snippet view or no preview on b.g.c. are frequently viewable on Amazon. Amazon itself does not have a linguistically-sophisticated search service, so in most cases the best approach is to use b.g.c. to locate the specific work and page you want, then click through to Amazon and see if it offers a "look inside this book" option.
- Pitfalls
- A few of the more recent books on b.g.c. have been published as ebooks only. These are not considered to meet the "durably archived" requirement of Wiktionary.
The end of the line[edit]
In some cases, even using all of the above techniques it is never possible to get more than a sentence fragment from Google Books, Scholar or News Archives. You then have to make a value judgment as to whether the information you do have is sufficient to make a useful contribution to the entry.
Google Scholar[edit]
- Pitfalls
- In addition to journal articles, Google Scholar indexes many papers that are posted on academic websites, but have not actually been published (or were published in a very different form). These are not considered "durably archived" for Wiktionary purposes.
Google News Archives[edit]
- Pitfalls
- Google News Archives includes many online-only news sources, which are not considered "durably archived" for Wiktionary purposes.
Google Groups[edit]
- Pitfalls
- Google Groups also includes by default many online fora that are not included in Usenet. These are not considered durably archived, but most can be excluded by clicking the "search Google Groups" radio button.
- Because Usenet is simply a giant unmoderated forum, the frequency of typographical error is quite high.
Google Web and Site Search[edit]
- Useful sites to search
- Durability
- The vast majority of online text is not durably archived and therefore not suited to verifying Wiktionary entries.
Hathi Trust[edit]
Certain public-domain books that are not available in full text on Google Books can be viewed via the Hathi Trust.
Corpus searches[edit]
- US English
- British English
- Historical English
- Middle English
Patent searches[edit]
Patents are generally disfavored if other sources are available; however, they may be the best or only source for obscure or dated technical terms.
- Google Patents and USPTO
- WIPO
- EPO
- Others
Closed resources[edit]
Numerous other resources are available for those fortunate enough to have (or be able to afford) access. Because citations should be verifiable by other editors, these sources are to be avoided when satisfactory citations can be gleaned from freely-available sources.