----------------------------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