"When I write about freedom, individualism, political organization, education, literature, among other topics, I am borrowing from countless numbers of ideas from hundreds of authors I have read through the years; and these authors have borrowed ideas from preceding authors, after a while it's hard to tell where an idea was first conceived."
Yes, many times I exactly have thought that. So good to see that others feel the same.
In the free realm of formulating your own stories, articles and art citing is nothing to crack ones mind about.
Today I postet my first article WITH citation and it was a hell lot of work. Why? Because I want entry in the steemstem room. Either I commit to the rules or I leave it.
Now as I experience both styles - the free one and the not so free one - I can say that both have their advantages and disadvantages. Fun aspects and boring ones.
Thank you for bringing this up, it always bugged me, too.
P.S. I came here from @laylasophias post and saw your comment which made me curios.
Thanks for the comment.
I'm not sure what steemstem room is but I assume it has to do with posts on scientific or technical matters. If you have to use citation to be part of the community than I understand your choice; it's like a lot of things in life, you either commit to the rules or be apart from it.
To me the fetish with annotation and citation comes from Academia which is the so-called institutional authority of knowledge. Interestingly, people complain about how things are at the present moment with Academia and other organizations in society but continue to use the same methods.
some of the academic members just forget that they are normal people:) as I see it many are swimming in shark tanks. As Rupert Sheldrake, for example, pointed this out so humorously about his fellow academics who never would admit officially that his unconventional approach is refreshing and unusual.
Only behind the curtains.
Nevertheless there is so much fear of loosing reputation. Though Sheldrake himself is strictly scientific. But what he means is that bringing up non heard theses, questions or subjects of science became dogmatic. Which I feel seems to be true somehow.
So the "open mind" to a so far non proven subject which is THE principle in science became rare in one way.
I guess the method is not so much the problem but the established reputations which are threatened when a new kid on the block turns things upside down.
Well said.