| Okay Rating
This article has an Okay rating. This article could use some expansion. |
Rare footage of the elusive "citation". Biologists are unable to classify it due to lack of sources.
Ah, the useful but readily exploitable citation. A marking which many readers quickly pass off as fact.[1] It has been conclusively proven[2] that the citation can be easily exploited to produce meaningless results. Here are some examples of how they can be exploited, in decreasing likelihood of success:
- Reference a nonexistent book.[3]
- Reference a real book in a language your readers won't understand. (Ex. Citing an esperanto source in a deutsch dictionary.[4]
- Reference deadlinks.[5]
- Reference a nonexistent passage within a real book.[6]
- Reference a real book without stating the location within the book.[4]
- Reference another of your websites under a different domain.[7]
- Reference irrelevant material.[8]
- Reference irrelevant material but make it look relevant[9]
- Reference yourself.[10]
There are also other ways to increase likelihood of success, such as citing multiple sources.[11][12][13] The optimal way to exploit this is by citing three (or two) sources, as fewer[11][12] or more[11][12][13][14] may arouse suspicion and curiosity, respectively.
Einstein, Hawking, Prof. Obscure, et al.[11][12][13]
This site is more factually accurate than Wikipedia, and is paradox-free.[10]
"References"[]
- ↑ Smith, John. A study on human unawareness, 2004, p.266
- ↑ Ibid. p.44
- ↑ Smith, John. Nihil p.120
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Smith, John. Nenio, 2005
- ↑ Totally legit site
- ↑ Ibid. p.999
- ↑ Verifiability and it's inherent flaws
- ↑ CIA
- ↑ Relevance Homepage
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Citation
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Google
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 DuckDuckGo
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Yahoo
- ↑ Bing