Toolbar: should ‘references’ be ‘referent

[Alex Hough]

The ‘references’ drop down in a tiddler's toolbar shows titles of
tiddlers which link to that tiddler. Would it be more accurate to
refer to this collection of links as ‘referents’?

Other Wikipedia uses 'What links here' , Wikispaces uses 'back
links' : both these seem clunky and lack the charm TiddlyWiki exudes.

How does the following sound?;
The referents to this tiddler are SiteTitle and MainMenu
SiteTitle and MainMenu reference this tiddler

Maybe the ambiguity created by the fact that is that ‘references’ can
be either a plural or a verb:
*This references that.
*The references are …

Alex

[Alex Hough]

Looking at config.commands.references, i am thinking can links and
references be used interchangeably.

This is the default:
<<<
merge(config.commands.references,{
text: "references",
tooltip: "Show tiddlers that link to this one",
popupNone: "No references"});
<<<

I think this is more poetic:
<<<
This in a systemConfig
merge(config.commands.references,{
text: "Referents",
tooltip: "Show tiddlers that reference this one",
popupNone: "nothing links here"});
<<<

Perhaps it has a haikuesque feel

referents
show tiddlers that reference this
nothing links here

Alex

[FND]

> The �references� drop down in a tiddler's toolbar shows titles of

> tiddlers which link to that tiddler. Would it be more accurate to

> refer to this collection of links as �referents�?

Doesn't "referent" denote the original entity, the passive thing which
is being referenced (in contrast to the active thing which doing the
referencing)?
(<ESL disclaimer> - it's been a while since I've concerned myself with
Saussure et al.)

I can see where you're coming from, as "references" is ambiguous at best
here (since the direction is unclear), but don't regard it as a big issue.

> Other Wikipedia uses 'What links here' , Wikispaces uses 'back
> links' : both these seem clunky and lack the charm TiddlyWiki exudes.

I believe "backlink" is now the generally accepted term for an inbound link.

-- F.

[Eric Shulman]

>         text: "Referents",
>         tooltip: "Show tiddlers that reference this one",
>         popupNone: "nothing links here"});

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/referent

According to the above URL, a "referent" is "the object or event to
which a term or symbol refers". For any given link, the "referent" is
the *destination* of the link. The tiddler that is the *origin* of
that link would be more correctly termed a "referer" (i.e., an object
or event that refers to another object or event).

Thus, the menu item might be labeled "referers". However, although it
is a proper word, I don't particularly care for it. It seems awkward
and inarticulate in some way. I think we should just stick with
"references"... it works just fine for most people.

-e

[Alex Hough]

Backlink is very computer culture orientated, but it is unambiguous.  I see that it is common language now, thanks for that FND.

Referent has four meanings according to Wolfum Alpha [1]:

referent | having reference
proposition | the first term in a proposition; the term to which other terms relate
referring term | something that refers; a term that refers to another term
significance | something referred to; the object of a reference

The third is the most useful. A TiddlyWiki tooltip comes in handy to define the context - this is one of the joys of tiddly texts.

Heinz von Forster said [2]:
"…the villain turns out to be Language, hiding behind the story’s hero: Language. How can this be understood? When attempting to understand language, language is its own best enemy, for its appearance contradicts its function. In its appearance it seems to be denotative, monologing about things in the world: in its dialogical function it is connotative, appealing to concepts in the other’s mind. How can one get from appearance to function or from function to appearance, since one needs the one for the other? A catch 22, a vicious circle, a case of perverted-or better-inverted  logic; a logic Aristotle would not dream of, except in his nightmares."

Eric, I am with you when it comes to the elegance of ‘referers’. I am sure ‘references’ works well for most users.

I am not sure references are used as much as they could, tucked away as they are. TW does backlinks better than other wikis where you go to another page to view them. I vote for a promotion for the reference referent backlink coalition.

[1] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=referent

[2] Von Foerster, H., 1987. Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation of design : Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1986, 207 pages, $24.95. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 32(3), 311-318.