Welcome Guest!
 FOS Forum
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
citing two kinds of sources  Peter Suber
 Jan 16, 2002 11:42 PST 
--=====================_-1964311671==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


FOS subscribers,

This posting contains no FOS news, so you might want to delete it now. But
it does contain reflections on a scholarly custom evolving before our eyes
on the internet.

When I summarize a news story or scholarly article in the newsletter, I
have two sources. One is the full news story or full-text article I'm
summarizing. The other is the web page, email list, discussion forum,
current awareness service, blog, or friend who alerted me to the
former. When I first learn about an article in the same place or from the
same organization that published it, then the two sources are the same.

I always credit the first kind of source by linking to the full story or
full-text article.

How hard should I try to credit the second kind of source?

The rules of scholarly citation generally cover the first but not the
second kind of source. Most non-scholarly electronic publications also
disregard or hide the second kind of source. These practices may be
justified by the traditional function of a citation: to help readers
deepen the inquiry, follow-up the author's discussion, read further on the
same subject, verify that the author has quoted or paraphrased accurately,
or examine the provenance of the cited facts or the credentials of the
cited authority. Giving readers access to the first kind of source is
necessary for these tasks, while giving them access to the second kind is
not.

But now nearly all blogs give credit to both kinds of sources, and a
growing number of online newsletters are doing the same. Their reason is
not to help readers follow-up the specific item containing the citation,
but to show gratitude to the labor of others and to introduce readers to
resources they might find useful. These are good reasons and I share
them. Citing two sources rather than one is more time-consuming for the
writer and perhaps more confusing for the reader, but it has benefits that
might outweigh these costs.

Starting with the next issue of the newsletter, I will experiment with a
way of giving credit to both kinds of sources. I'll try to credit the
second kind of source whenever I didn't find a story on my own or through
some kind of email alert from the story's publisher or from a person or
organization behind the story, unless the story is so large that I hear
about it simultaneously from many sources. If this becomes too
time-consuming for me, or too confusing for you, I'll tweak the
experiment. But I do want to show gratitude to my sources and introduce
you to resources that you might find useful.

I'll continue to make the first kind of citation in the form of a
link. I'll make the second kind of citation in two parts. Inside the
newsletter, I'll thank sources by name, without links. Outside the
newsletter, I'll maintain a list of my most helpful sources, with
links.   If you want a link to a named source, you can consult my page of
sources. I've separated names from links because most of the items I
publish are short and I don't want to follow a short item with two links,
especially if the second one will be repeated several other times in the
same issue. Moreover, because I publish in ASCII (so far), I can't shorten
my credits by linking from an arbitrary phrase. I can only make a link
from a full URL.

I'm telling you this partly to invite comment and partly to have a full
description to cite in the newsletter, so that I won't have to repeat it there.

My most helpful sources
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm
(I'll link to this page from every issue of the newsletter.)

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Peter



----------
Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy
Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374
Email pet-@earlham.edu
Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters

Editor, The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/


--=====================_-1964311671==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html><div>FOS subscribers,</div>
<br>
<div>This posting contains no FOS news, so you might want to delete it
now.  But it does contain reflections on a scholarly custom evolving
before our eyes on the internet.</div>
<br>
<div>When I summarize a news story or scholarly article in the
newsletter, I have two sources.  One is the full news story or
full-text article I'm summarizing.  The other is the web page, email
list, discussion forum, current awareness service, blog, or friend who
alerted me to the former.  When I first learn about an article in
the same place or from the same organization that published it, then the
two sources are the same.</div>
<br>
<div>I always credit the first kind of source by linking to the full
story or full-text article.  </div>
<br>
<div>How hard should I try to credit the second kind of source? 
</div>
<br>
<div>The rules of scholarly citation generally cover the first but not
the second kind of source.  Most non-scholarly electronic
publications also disregard or hide the second kind of source. 
These practices may be justified by the traditional function of a
citation:  to help readers deepen the inquiry, follow-up the
author's discussion, read further on the same subject, verify that the
author has quoted or paraphrased accurately, or examine the provenance of
the cited facts or the credentials of the cited authority.  Giving
readers access to the first kind of source is necessary for these tasks,
while giving them access to the second kind is not.  </div>
<br>
<div>But now nearly all blogs give credit to both kinds of sources, and a
growing number of online newsletters are doing the same.  Their
reason is not to help readers follow-up the specific item containing the
citation, but to show gratitude to the labor of others and to introduce
readers to resources they might find useful.  These are good reasons
and I share them.  Citing two sources rather than one is more
time-consuming for the writer and perhaps more confusing for the reader,
but it has benefits that might outweigh these costs.  </div>
<br>
<div>Starting with the next issue of the newsletter, I will experiment
with a way of giving credit to both kinds of sources.  I'll try to
credit the second kind of source whenever I didn't find a story on my own
or through some kind of email alert from the story's publisher or from a
person or organization behind the story, unless the story is so large
that I hear about it simultaneously from many sources.  If this
becomes too time-consuming for me, or too confusing for you, I'll tweak
the experiment.  But I do want to show gratitude to my sources and
introduce you to resources that you might find useful.</div>
<br>
<div>I'll continue to make the first kind of citation in the form of a
link.  I'll make the second kind of citation in two parts. 
Inside the newsletter, I'll thank sources by name, without links. 
Outside the newsletter, I'll maintain a list of my most helpful sources,
with links.   If you want a link to a named source, you can
consult my page of sources.  I've separated names from links because
most of the items I publish are short and I don't want to follow a short
item with two links, especially if the second one will be repeated
several other times in the same issue.  Moreover, because I publish
in ASCII (so far), I can't shorten my credits by linking from an
arbitrary phrase.  I can only make a link from a full URL.</div>
<br>
<div>I'm telling you this partly to invite comment and partly to have a
full description to cite in the newsletter, so that I won't have to
repeat it there.</div>
<br>
<div>My most helpful sources</div>
<div><a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm</a></div>
<div>(I'll link to this page from every issue of the newsletter.)</div>
<br>
<div>Let me know what you think.</div>
<br>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Peter</div>
<br>

<br>
<hr>
<font color="#808080">Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy <br>
Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374<br>
Email pet-@earlham.edu <br>
Web
<a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters" eudora="autourl">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters</a><br><br>
Editor, </font><font color="#808080">The Free Online Scholarship
Newsletter<br>
<a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/" eudora="autourl">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/</a></font>

</html>

--=====================_-1964311671==_.ALT--
	
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Developers
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 Internet
 Music
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Software
 Sports
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.