In the discussion "Research which began at the website", we wondered what the best way to publish a reference to a stackexchange discussion thread.

Presumably it would be the publication's standard for a URL. Is that the best way? (I would think so but I wonder).

I notice that if you truncate the title that is in the URL it goes to the same place. What is the expected permanence of the id number of the question?

Somewhat related, the attribution required link in the footer of every page leads to a blog post explaining the expected reference/attribution under the cc-wiki licensing. – Isaac Mar 31 '11 at 14:24
you should accept Geoff's answer, it is much better than mine! :) – Jeff Atwood Apr 4 '11 at 4:31
@Jeff: your answer was more of a direct response to my initial question (and I hadn't seen the 'cite' link work yet.). But now changed so that people will look for it rather than the plain URL because that's really what Asaf is looking for. – Mitch Apr 4 '11 at 12:50
up vote 24 down vote accepted

We have implemented citations using the same model as MO using both Bibtex and amsref. Click link, then click cite on the link popup.

link menu panel

citation panel

I could only find Is that what you were referring to? – Mitch Apr 3 '11 at 22:03
Much obliged. I might be using that very soon too! – Asaf Karagila Apr 3 '11 at 22:21
@Jeff & Geoff: Thanks! That's very useful. – Willie Wong Apr 4 '11 at 22:13
This is so cool. I will use it to cite Whoa! It works awesomely. My only complaint is that "how published" is inadequate and should be "Mathematics Stack Exchange" or something more descriptive. – Carl Brannen Apr 5 '11 at 0:24
Oeh I'd like something similar for Fitness :D – Ivo Flipse Apr 5 '11 at 15:12

The abbreviated form

is probably sufficient and easier for print publication, since it would have to be typed in by interested readers anyway.

Is it possible to add a "cite" button like on MathOverflow? – Asaf Karagila Apr 1 '11 at 8:42
@Asaf: It's already there. Click on the link button right below the posts. The second number is your user number which is used for stuff like the famous publicist badge of which we're reminded every now and then by a css-popup, so it can be safely deleted. – t.b. Apr 2 '11 at 17:53
@Theo: On MO you can have a BibTeX/AMSref code automatically generated. I meant something like that. – Asaf Karagila Apr 2 '11 at 19:15
@Asaf: actually, that is not a bad suggestion. It may also be useful for sites like physics, tcs, or stats, so I suggest that you should bring it over to Meta.SO – Willie Wong Apr 2 '11 at 20:39
@Willie: I am very lazy (which is why I turn to mathematics), so I hope that someone picks the ball which I have just created and never even dropped ;-) – Asaf Karagila Apr 2 '11 at 20:48

It depends on what referencing method you use. There are standard ways of referencing a website. In the social sciences, the Harvard method is used frequently. I know that scientific papers may well use a different method to Harvard, but I will show you the Harvard reference below out of interest (the part that goes in the bibliography).

Dalgas, G. 2011. What is a good standard for publishing a reference to a stackexchange thread? answer. Available: [2015, 26 October].

In the body of the text, I think a number such as $^1$ or [1] is common for the citation in scientific texts. In a social science text this would be cited in the body as (Dalgas, 2011). I have referenced Geoff's answer because I think it is rare that you will reference a question. Disclaimer: there are many different versions of Harvard and no universal one. I have put "answer" in lower-case because I usullay put subtitles in a lower-case, and only the first letter of the title in upper-case. The URL had to be escaped because with no back-ticks it was automatically converted into a hyperlink, but it is usually in plain text. Today's date at the end of the URL indicates the date that the website was accessed on (websites can move).

I understand your expectation that a question will be rare to reference, but often, even though there is a single accepted answer, it turns out that a number of answers are correct and offer insight. Also, it is often useful to see the question statement first, which may have subtle differences from what is expected in the referencing paper. – Mitch Oct 26 '15 at 13:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .