2 ms·
> Whenever you cite papers just because you're "politically supposed to", even though you don't think it's really intellectually useful for anyone to be aware o
by jahsome 3y ago
> Whenever you cite papers just because you're "politically supposed to", even though you don't think it's really intellectually useful for anyone to be aware of the cited paper, you're making the citations less useful for everybody.
The audacity of deciding on behalf of readers whether information is valuable to them when publishing an academic paper is quite an interesting concept to me.
I'm not published in journals, but I do have a "professional" writing background. There's only a few ways I can imagine to read into your statement. Either you think you're above citation, or so much smarter than the reader you're qualified to decide on their behalf whether it's relevant, or simply hiding it for nefarious reasons.
Any of these options, or even the perception of them, is precisely the type of behavior fostering anti intellectualism and prejudice for academia.
It's also quite ironic you repeatedly mention "politics" while your entire argument seems to hinge on seeking to deny empowering further those already in power. Isn't that exercising political capital?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- oldesthacker 3y ago> Isn't that exercising political capital? These are very good points. > ... the worst of many abusers of the citation system. Is this ad hominem argument by user "lacker" meant to distract from the omissions of the awardees Bengio, Hinton, and LeCun? Especially the first two got tons of citations for work that should have credited Schmidhuber's lab: the analysis of vanishing gradients in neural networks, the principle of generative adversarial networks, attention in neural networks, distilling neural networks, speech recognition with LSTM neural networks, self-supervised pre-training, and more. The disputes with LeCun are more recent and of lesser magnitude IMO.