3) Sources that don’t exist

This is one step beyond the two blank sources earlier. These are specifically the ones that are listed in the citations but do not exist. Take the example of Jeremy Rifkin in the report. He’s mentioned one time in a quote on page 28 and cited as #6. Now, even ignoring that #6 is a completely different subject that you’ll see in the next section, there’s a problem: The formatting is nonsense. Sometimes you’ll see “Author, Page #,” others you’ll see “Author (Year)” or a mix involving title, author, year, and page. Rarely in these pieces do you get a full citation but the bibliography is at least far more consistent. Rifkin is listed in that.

…kind of. He’s in the bibliography and sourced but nothing of his exists. Just a name and page number all four times he is cited. Nothing more.

An alternative example is perhaps even more malicious one. It’s one thing to simply leave nothing but what if you give the wrong info? Meet Citron.

Yes, the link’s broken in the bibliography too. I got it.

Proper reference in the bibliography and after getting the right link, I found myself a valid source. …At least, until the details mattered.

The first time it happens is #18. The bibliography and source match well together. It’s a 44 page PDF that goes from introduction to conclusion. Both the PDF and the citation state that it begins on page 373, so why is anyone being told to go to page 253? It doesn’t just happen there either.

Six times Citron is mentioned like this.

Six times the number does not make sense. This is the only source in the bibliography. Technically citation #120 gives a different work to use, however it’s the last one (edit: I had mistakenly said there was an additional writer. This is false, Keats is her own name too. Sorry about that.) There is absolutely nothing anyone can draw from this. The source does not exist and if you don’t check the details, you will never see that it does.