GitHub can be a little to good at pushing this. I've been taken to task for not having docs for my Open Source project which is on GitHub.
"But I do, they are on this website here and there is a link to them at the very top of the README!"
Didn't matter, I got told off for what was really "you don't have docs in the usual place on GitHub."
Very frustrating.
@patio11 I think it was made a comment in a blog about don't put Open Source on GitHub because you really build up GitHub's name not your own, which is an interesting point to discuss. EDIT: found it https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/do-not-en...
"This is one reason why, while I love OSS, I would suggest people not immediately throw their OSS on Github. That makes it very easy for developers to consume your code, but it does not make it easy for you to show the impact of that code to other people, particularly to non-technical stakeholders. To the extent that people's lives are meaningfully improved by your code, the credit (and observable citations) often goes to Github rather than going to you. If you're going to spend weeks or months of time writing meaningful OSS libraries, make a stand-alone web presence for them."
(For my project I'm using GitHub Git, Github issues, but everything else is on a website on a domain I control.)
So the real issue, it seems to me, is GitHub should be making it very clear, somehow, to users how to cite their sources? Most journals have a "suggested citation" blurb in every article's webpage.
Does git have built-in citation management?
That would be awesome, btw. That would arguably elevate git to the level of email: made by hackers for hackers, now universal to the fabric of modern life.
Comments
GitHub can be a little to good at pushing this. I've been taken to task for not having docs for my Open Source project which is on GitHub.
"But I do, they are on this website here and there is a link to them at the very top of the README!"
Didn't matter, I got told off for what was really "you don't have docs in the usual place on GitHub."
Very frustrating.
@patio11 I think it was made a comment in a blog about don't put Open Source on GitHub because you really build up GitHub's name not your own, which is an interesting point to discuss. EDIT: found it https://training.kalzumeus.com/newsletters/archive/do-not-en...
"This is one reason why, while I love OSS, I would suggest people not immediately throw their OSS on Github. That makes it very easy for developers to consume your code, but it does not make it easy for you to show the impact of that code to other people, particularly to non-technical stakeholders. To the extent that people's lives are meaningfully improved by your code, the credit (and observable citations) often goes to Github rather than going to you. If you're going to spend weeks or months of time writing meaningful OSS libraries, make a stand-alone web presence for them."
(For my project I'm using GitHub Git, Github issues, but everything else is on a website on a domain I control.)
So the real issue, it seems to me, is GitHub should be making it very clear, somehow, to users how to cite their sources? Most journals have a "suggested citation" blurb in every article's webpage.
Does git have built-in citation management?
That would be awesome, btw. That would arguably elevate git to the level of email: made by hackers for hackers, now universal to the fabric of modern life.