----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Summary: Online Citations - Part 1
 
The following is the summary of a question I asked here last week about
how to properly cite online documents.  The original question was
essentially:
 
   "Does anyone here know if there is any formal consensus yet on the
   format for referencing electronic sources when citing them in a
   publication?  [...]
 
   In particular, I'm thinking of how to reference a FAQ.  These are
   not "published" sources in the usual sense, and are often updated and
   revised.  They do not necessarily have a number of pages, a place of
   publication, and never an ISBN or even ISSN number.  I certainly
   don't want to use one for research on an article and not credit the
   author, so how should we do this?  I assume a URL would certainly be
   part of an online citation, but would you treat it like a serial pub,
   a book, something else?  [...]
 
I recieved only four direct responses, but they did seem to cover the
issue pretty well.  Three of these mentioned a work by Xia Li and
Nancy Crane, titled "Electronic Style:  A Guide to Citing Electronic
Information".  It is a 65 page guide published in 1993 by Meckler
Publishing (Westport, Conn).  Connie Manson <[log in to unmask]>
describes this as a good reference, but not all-encompassing.  She states,
 
   "I don't necessarily agree with the style Li & Crane use, and
   certainly haven't adopted it unquestioningly.  BUT:  I *really*
   applaud their attempt; they've identified & asked many of the right
   questions, and have really tried to get a handle on this very
   slippery problem.  When we try to cite electronic stuff, we DO look
   to Li & Crane for guidance, ideas, etc."
 
Apparently the issues are not completely resolved yet to everyone's
satisfaction, and the range of responses indicates that there are
different opinions as to the suitability of including formal references
to online material in a published work.  There is obviously a wide
range of material online with varying amounts of reliability and
usefulness, and I think we're seeing that people do distiguish between
e-mail, FAQs, resource guides, and official documentation.  Some online
documents may very well not have a place as cited works.  Gerald (Jerry)
Evenden <[log in to unmask]> zeroed in on this in his critique of
citing FAQs.  He states,
 
   "...FAQs are the creation of one (or a small group) of individuals
   who take the time for its construction.  There is no "peer review"
   (maybe a few flames) and the author(s) have no higher authority to
   answer to.  Thus, one must take them with a grain of salt and
   personally verify extractions that are useful...."
 
In a recent discussion of this problem on GIS-L/comp.infosystems.gis,
I've seen similar sentiments.  The lack of peer review, transience of
documents (which also often cover subjects that rapidly go out of date),
and inaccuracy of facts stated in online documents all contribute to
diminishing the legitamacy of this medium as a vehicle for "publishing"
a work.  (Here's a problem begging to be addressed)!
 
A couple of responses brought up the point that a reference is cited in
a work so that any reader can expand his or her knowledge of your
subject, and also check your assumptions and conclusions against prior
work.  Connie Manson <[log in to unmask]> describes this point
like so:
 
   "First, you need to recognize WHY you're doing a bib cite.  Isn't it
   to uniquely, unquestioning identify an item, so that a user (at any
   time, in any place) can seek that item and know (absolutely) whether
   they found it or not.  (It's like replicatibility in a scientific
   experiment.)"
 
I'd also say about another reason to cite a work is to acknowledge
another's effort.  Whether it's printed with ink or magnets and
electricity should make no difference; if the author taught you
something, you should give him or her credit.
 
Manson goes on to mention that it can be very frustrating to a reader
who cannot find an electonic source because it may no longer be at the
source mentioned in the citation.  Perhaps this is hinting that a work's
too vaugely located or impermanently stored shouldn't be referenced?
Evenden suggests that indeed a FAQ is not worth a citation, but his
reason has to do with the document's reliability.  He says,
 
   "I personally would not cite a "fact" found in a FAQ.  If necessary,
   I would hunt down the author of the "fact" and, if it is usable info,
   cite him as a "written" or "oral" communication."
 
(continued next messgae)
---
 ~ GISnet BBS  303-447-0927  Boulder, Colorado