4 ms·

"A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com" suggests this is done already for those following the link. If you do, he lists these

by mortov 13y ago

"A fully referenced version of this article can be found at monbiot.com" suggests this is done already for those following the link. If you do, he lists these : References: 1. Anna Minton, ?2006. The privatisation of public space. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. http://www.annaminton.com/Privatepublicspace.pdf http://www.annaminton.com/Privatepublicspace.pdf 2. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/articles/pdfs/asbos-and-human-rights-2004.pdf http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/articles/pdfs/a... 3. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty... 4. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/17/protester-receives-olympic-asbo http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/17/protester-rec... 5. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty... 6. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty-s-briefing-on-the-draft-anti-social-behaviour-bill-feb-2013-.pdf http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy13/liberty... 7. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/antisocialbehaviourcrimeandpolicingbill.html http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/antisocialbehavi... 8. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0066/lbill_2013-20140066_en_1.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-20... 9. See also: http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/11/11/the-birth-of-a-police-state-uk-police-to-be-granted-sweeping-new-powers-2/ http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/11/11/the-birth-of-a-po... 10. http://reformclause1.org.uk/files/opinion.pdf http://reformclause1.org.uk/files/opinion.pdf 11. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/18/right-to-protest-anti-social-behaviour-crime-policing-bill http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/18/right-to-protest-... 12. By phone, 6th January 2013. Various independent sources cited including Liberty - a well respected organization covering human rights issues in the UK. And of course, Parliament's own official publications of the bill.

gaius 13y ago
Of those only 7 and 8 can be considered valid. Liberty, whether you agree with them or not (on some issues I do, on some I don't) no-one can deny is a lobbying group with an agenda. And I am pretty sure even Wikipaedia frowns on using Wikipaedia as a reference, why does the Guardian get a free pass to reference the Guardian? Scriptonite is just some guy's blog!
- callum85 13y ago
  There's nothing wrong with an article referencing something from another article in the same paper. It doesn't count as a circular reference if the articles are by separate, identifiable authors. Wikipedia needs stricter citation rules because it's harder to verify authorship.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Why can't references to (allegedly) biased source be references? Every author has an agenda, knowingly or unknowingly. Unless they referenced papers are false or lie they still may reference facts that allow you to form your own opinion - just don't take every conclusion at face value. At least the author provides you with the references so you can go an check for yourself. Also: Why are you excluding reference 1? It's a paper written for the RICS, which is an institution of the royal charter. They probably have their own agenda, but I'd not expect them to publish false information.
- stevejones 13y ago
  7 and 8 are government sources. The government has an agenda, and by your logic are therefore invalid. (everyone has an agenda you nut, otherwise they would do nothing)
danjordan 13y ago
Why isn't there a service that overlays references on articles instead of having to search for them?

by mortov 13y ago

gaius 13y ago

Of those only 7 and 8 can be considered valid. Liberty, whether you agree with them or not (on some issues I do, on some I don't) no-one can deny is a lobbying group with an agenda. And I am pretty sure even Wikipaedia frowns on using Wikipaedia as a reference, why does the Guardian get a free pass to reference the Guardian? Scriptonite is just some guy's blog!

callum85 13y ago
There's nothing wrong with an article referencing something from another article in the same paper. It doesn't count as a circular reference if the articles are by separate, identifiable authors. Wikipedia needs stricter citation rules because it's harder to verify authorship.
Xylakant 13y ago
Why can't references to (allegedly) biased source be references? Every author has an agenda, knowingly or unknowingly. Unless they referenced papers are false or lie they still may reference facts that allow you to form your own opinion - just don't take every conclusion at face value. At least the author provides you with the references so you can go an check for yourself. Also: Why are you excluding reference 1? It's a paper written for the RICS, which is an institution of the royal charter. They probably have their own agenda, but I'd not expect them to publish false information.
stevejones 13y ago
7 and 8 are government sources. The government has an agenda, and by your logic are therefore invalid. (everyone has an agenda you nut, otherwise they would do nothing)

danjordan 13y ago

Why isn't there a service that overlays references on articles instead of having to search for them?