Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of reference management software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pahi (talk | contribs) at 15:02, 7 June 2017 (→On splitting the "General" table into "Proprietary" and "Libre" software). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconEducation List‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing List‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Database connectivity

The database connectivity table is biased towards the needs of academics in the sciences and tech sectors and so is misleading as to the real capabilities of the applications listed. Going by the table, RefWorks' connectivity looks terrible because (except for PubMed) all it offers falls under the "other" column. Now, I'm not a fan of RefWorks. In fact, I found the Wikipedia article because I was looking at alternatives. But the table ought to be rethought. Here are two columns that could be added, for instance. --Kartavyam (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software JSTOR ATLA Religion Database
Aigaion ? ?
BibDesk ? ?
Biblioscape ? ?
BibSonomy ? ?
Bibus ? ?
CiteULike ? ?
Connotea ? ?
EndNote ? ?
JabRef ? ?
ProCite ? ?
Pybliographer ? ?
refbase ? ?
RefDB ? ?
Reference Manager ? ?
RefWorks Yes Yes
Sente ? ?
Wikindx ? ?
Zotero ? ?
Software JSTOR ATLA Religion Database
It is currently limited, but I'd hardly call it 'biased.' We should eventually add MANY more online databases (in addition to ATLA & JSTOR). Feel free to add these! --Karnesky (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well "bias" is not necessarily intentional. As for adding columns to the table, is the best thing to just add columns with a bunch of question marks to the article itself? Or should new columns be staged on the discussion page and then moved to the article when they've been filled enough (e.g. > 50%). BTW, the table fragment above was intended for staging, people should feel free to edit it and add what they know. --Kartavyam (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, neither: someone would do the leg work of looking up references (such as the other comparisons that this article links to) so that they could complete the other columns. One should not rely on their personal experience testing applications for adding information anyway. Rather than long tables on the talk page (such as the one above), a simple list of the databases that should be added might be more helpful. Perhaps a table would be o.k. on a subpage, but it seems "heavy" for a discussion page & would be harder to track & is unusual to find on other talk pages. If most of the rows can be completed, I think it is fine for their to be question marks in the main article. --Karnesky (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this ideal scenario is not something I can contribute to, for lack of time. As for personal experience, there's a difference between what somebody who relies on the marketing literature and documentation but does not use the software can tell you and what somebody who actually uses the software can tell you. For instance, yes, RefWorks exports to BibTeX but what the RefWorks people don't tell you is that it does not treat accented characters in a safe way (BibTeX chokes on what is exported by RefWorks) and it creates utterly useless keys to use in \cite commands. I've had to write my own python tool to clean up what RefWorks exports. In effect, this makes the BibTeX export capability of RefWorks useless for people who can't or don't want to deal with cleaning up the mess. This is a piece of information that could materially impact whether someone wants to use RefWorks or not but you don't get that from the literature provided by the company nor from people who perform a mere cursory inspection of the software. Only actual experience with the software will reveal this shortcoming. --Kartavyam (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:NOR. I never said we should rely on marketing literature--in many cases, features will be documented by some third party (such as those we link to) that hopefully satisfy WP:RS. --Karnesky (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the databases that are added should not be a function so much of what each software supports, or what its marketing says, but what's potentially useful to various scholars (probably a lot more contentious!). For example, the current list very biased to sciences (pub med, IEEE, arXiv) and not the needs of e.g. Humanities scholars (say ... JSTOR would be a good inclusion there). However until I finish writing my thesis I don't have time to add this so feel free to ignore me. When I'm done I may come back and adjust it if no-one else has in the meantime. (For the record I use Endnote, for my secondary sources only. I'm finding it a bitch especially as I deal with Classics, whose ancient authors need to be cited in a specific way, along with object catalogues and specific abbreviations for special collections, along with the modern secondary sources in the usual styles, but it just cannot support two or more styles of referencing succesfully (it claims to, but implementation wise it sucks)). GermanicusCaesar (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

API and developer extension points

I'm not sure if its what the previous commenter was after or not, but it would be really useful if this comparison could include whether or not each project offers api for working with the references/citations. For instance, I am trying to build an app which searches EndNote references and I learned that it only offers a C/C++ API (only desktop version of course). I was hoping the web version would offer some kind of web API for accessing the references, but no luck. Now I'm wondering if any of these other projects offer this capability. Other API/developer extension points could be interesting to catalogue as well. --Lmsurprenant (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliograph

Hi, I am the developer of the open source online bibliographic data manager Bibliograph (Website, GitHub, Sourceforge, Demo), which would fit very well into the list. Bibliograph is in constant development since 2006 and has been used in production at the Law Department of Humboldt-University Berlin since 2010. It is free to use, change and distribute. But before I start adding the info, I need to make sure that this doesn't violate any guidelines. Do I need a separate page before? Does it meet the standards of notability? Thanks for feedback Panyasan (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential mistake

I am not familiar with the information presented here, but I think I hove found a mistake. "BibBase Christian Fritz 2005 2013-07 (v3) Free No proprietary centrally-hosted website, intended for publication pages" This is one of the table entries. How can a program have a cost of free but be not free (look at the table if this doesn't make sense)? Again, I do not know the software but I believe it at least needs some clarification. Guy who couldn't get a username (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC) After looking back over the article, I found that there are several such entries. Can we work on a way to clarify this? Guy who couldn't get a username (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mendeley is not free software

Mendeley's license and terms of use clearly do not meet the definition of free software. So I am changing it's entry in the 'General' table to reflect this. SCRA5071 (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Comparison of reference management software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Comparison of reference management software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On splitting the "General" table into "Proprietary" and "Libre" software

Splitting the "General" table into "Proprietary" and "Libre" software is not as good as keeping it united.

a) An alphabetical list allows readers to easily find the software package if they look for the name. A split table means that they have to look in two tables.

b) There is a color coded column with the heading "Free software" (yes|no) which makes it very easy to see in a combined table if a software is proprietary or not.

c) It does not make sense to include a column "Free software = no" in a table labelled "Proprietary software", and neither does "Free software = yes" in a table labelled "Libre software", but deleting this column in the split table would make it indeed harder to distinguish proprietary from free software. For these reasons, I propose to revert the split table to list all software alphabetically, regardless of whether it is proprietary or "libre".

Pahi (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_reference_management_software&oldid=784299578"