The MLA Handbook encourages writers to list the URL that they see in their browsers unless the source identifies a DOI or associated with it. A good litmus test might be this: if your works-cited-list entry adequately achieves the primary goal of vouching for your work, then ask yourself whether providing a URL will help readers wishing to retrace your footsteps.
HOW TO MAKE A FOOTNOTE OF A WEBSITE MLA 8 HOW TO
When deciding whether and how to include a URL in a works-cited-list entry, you should balance the goals of testifying and retracing. By doing so, you are vouching, “I was here.” Similarly, you would document a letter in a private collection, even though it might not be accessible to your readers. You would document a performance, even though your readers can’t attend it. Ensuring the enduring availability and retrievability of a source is not the primary objective of documentation, even though the Internet allows for the retrieval of online works referred to in other online works. In this post, I offer commonsense guidelines on treating URLs in works-cited-list entries.įirst, it is important to keep in mind that documentation has two main goals: it should testify to the veracity of your research and provide readers with information about your source that allows them to retrace your steps. Although writers can avoid these problems by following the handbook’s recommendation to use s and DOIs when such information is available, URLs are often the only option. URLs may also be inaccessible when the pages to which they refer are behind a paywall. The new MLA Handbook recommends including URLs in works-cited-list entries for online works, but it also notes their drawbacks: they can cause clutter, become obsolete, and have limited use in a print work.
0 kommentar(er)
