debenedi@yale-com.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) (12/06/83)
Eric Holtman (whuxle!eric Sun Dec 4 12:46) posted:
Actually, I for one WOULD be interested in why someone would need
to footnote something from the net. Do you footnote your personal
conversations too??
Well, here's a reason: I'm writing a paper on USENET for an American
Studies course called Popular Culture and Mass Communications in America.
The major source for the paper is USENET articles. For example, it will
include an article of yours (whuxlb!eric Sat Jul 9 12:54) which was posted
to net.flame. Your article will be footnoted as an example of the discussions
regarding the use of the word 'faggot.' Those discussions were part of the
context in which net.motss was created. Very roughly the paper is about
this medium's effect on group decision making, democracy, controversy,
sub-cultures (or interest groups), etc. Does that answer your question?
"Now, You're Never Alone"
Another Message In The Bottle from
Robert DeBenedictisbarmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (12/06/83)
Actually, I for one WOULD be interested in why someone would need to
footnote something from the net. Do you footnote your personal
conversations too??
There is a standard form for referencing personal conversations.
Consider a case where the information in a paper comes from an
interview.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarpadpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell [Admin]) (12/06/83)
Personal conversations are usually termed "private communications", and are referable. This is especially true when people have stolen (ahem- I mean "used the informal results") of another person before the other person has published them. Personally, I have tried the following format: Tannenbauem, Andy, "The life and times of an AI project," Usenet articles, Jan.-1982 to Feb.-1983. Spafford, Gene, "Why Unix has more holes than my shoes", personal communication, Usenix Hacks Drinking Session, 1983 While this may not be formally correct, is seems to go by the ACM editors, cause that's where I stole it from. Patrick Powell P.S.- Is trb alive? or did they pull the plug?
agk@ihuxq.UUCP (Andy Kegel) (12/06/83)
Do I footnote private conversations? Of course I recognize significant contributions, especially if for publication. If you read the bibliography at the end of a paper carefully, you will sometimes note references like: [3] Private communication, Joe Schmoe, 1983. If Joe made a significant contribution to your work, you owe it to him to tell people. To do otherwise is - to my mind - plagiarism, a vile and heinous act. I suggest the proper way to reference the net in a bibliography is to cite it as a "private communication." In a paper citing a number of net sources, it seems reasonable to treat each news group as a pseudo-publication, e.g., [33] Net.rumor, Dawn Disk, 5-5-83. Signing off in 24 lines or less, -andy kegel, AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL, ihnp4!ihuxp!agk
ken@turtleva.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (12/07/83)
(Vaguely paraphrased:)
Person1: What is the proper way to reference an item read off the net?
Person2: Why would you want to do that? Do you make references to
personal conversations also?
I normally don't have conversations with 10,000 people at once. The
net is loosely something like the press, since the circulation is so
high. I think that the question was appropriate, and I do not have an
answer. Anyone else?
Ken Turkowski
CADLINC, Palo Alto
{decwrl,amd70}!turtlevax!kenmark@cbosgd.UUCP (12/07/83)
I would suggest something like
[33] Joe Blow, Usenet newsgroup net.rumor, <123@foovax.UUCP>,
December 12, 1983
Mentioning Usenet will help someone who doesn't know what net.rumor
is. Giving the Message-ID makes the reference unambiguous. If you
don't know the Message-ID, the h or H commands will give it,
or just cat the file in the spool directory.
Markneal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (12/07/83)
**************************************************************************
I have seen numerous footnotes and even bibliography entries of
the form:
Personal {correspondence|conversation} with __________________
on <date>.
I'm sure something of this form would be adequate. Perhaps
something that looked more like a normal article citation would work
better. You're breaking new ground, make the most of it.
Regards,
Neal Weidenhofer
Denelcor, Inc.
<hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!nealsmk@linus.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) (12/08/83)
Sure, a standard refernce format can be chosen (or at least one
could come close). has anyone thought of the consequences?
I, for one, would like to keep any flames I have off someone's
paper. I would feel less free in my opinions if I knew it would
haunt me later in some publication. Do people really WANT their
articles referenced? I can see from net.unix-wizards, perhaps, but
from net.jokes and net.flame also? Dare I bring up the BLKTRAN
problem. From the resulting discussion, having the person haunted
with that article later on could hurt his/her career.
Granted, that would be extreme, but let's take a hard look on the
precedent just taken. I like to sit back and wait for someone to
air views like mine, but none came so far!
Great! I'll be overruled and this will appear on the cover of TIME.
(Hi Ma) <-- She reads TIME mag.
--
--steve kramer
{allegra,genrad,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!smk (UUCP)
linus!smk@mitre-bedford (MIL)bch@unc.UUCP (12/08/83)
Personal communication is often referenced in formal papers. It such cases, however, the person being quoted is generally informed as to what is being cited and for what purpose. I sure would hate to be taken by surprise someday by seeing one of my articles in print! (Fat Chance, Howes.) Seriously, the citee should have the chance to refuse citation if at all possible. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!duke!unc!bch)
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (12/09/83)
"Actually, I for one WOULD be interested in why someone would need to footnote something from the net. Do you footnote your personal conversations too?? . . . eric holtman" Actually, Eric, it's quite common to footnote personal conversations as "personal communication", or (esp. military) "fonecon <date>". As to the net, I suppose you could give the originating site, person, and date; this would serve the purpose of a footnote, i.e., provide a pointer to other people who want to access your source of information. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
essick@uiuccsb.UUCP (12/09/83)
#R:wateng:-56800:uiuccsb:3200024:000:355 uiuccsb!essick Dec 9 01:32:00 1983 Here's the format I used to refer to a USENET article: -- .rf -- [Horton, 82] -- Horton, Mark R., -- Bell Telephone Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, -- .ul -- How to Read the Network News, -- USENET News Network net.sources, -- April 3, 1982. -- Ray Essick, University of Illinois -- (217) 333-7937 ihnp4!uiucdcs!essick essick.uiuc@rand-relay
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/09/83)
Sure, a standard refernce format can be chosen (or at least one
could come close). has anyone thought of the consequences?
I, for one, would like to keep any flames I have off someone's
paper. I would feel less free in my opinions if I knew it would
haunt me later in some publication. Do people really WANT their
articles referenced? I can see from net.unix-wizards, perhaps, but
from net.jokes and net.flame also? Dare I bring up the BLKTRAN
problem. From the resulting discussion, having the person haunted
with that article later on could hurt his/her career.
Granted, that would be extreme, but let's take a hard look on the
precedent just taken. I like to sit back and wait for someone to
air views like mine, but none came so far!
I think I can see a benefit that might out weigh any potential harm.
The possibility of being referenced would probably cut down on the amount
of hubris on the net. Why is it that people do not want to be held
accountable for what they write or to stand behind their own opinions?
Before we submit anything to this medium there is always the opportunity
to reflect upon and refine what we have written. I would think that more
people would avail themselves of that opportunity if they thought they
might be referenced. Your words are your own. If you have to eat them
someday, so be it.
If you don't want to be attached to your words you can always leave your
articles unsigned or submit them anonymously. Plenty of people do that.
(Who is rabbit!jj anyway? :-) ) I would be nice if more people made it a
rule not to say anything on the net that they wouldn't say to anyone's face.
By the way, the best thing I have done recently to foster my own peace of mind
is to unsubsribe to net.flame.
Paul Dubuc ... cbosgd!cbscc!pmdwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (12/09/83)
In my day, references had to be verifiable. That is, if I used a conversation as a reference, the prof should have been able to check with that person to verify the conversation. The checking should not have been difficult either. Look to recent events of reporters making up references that could not be verified. There have been several scandals in this area. Referencing the net could prove to be a problem in that articles tend to be dropped after a week or so and there would be no way for a prof to check, even is he has access to the net. You are better off footnoting a conversation with someone who can be reached easily. A great deal of fraud has been committed in the writing of papers and articles because references were not verifiable and the checker just let it go. T. C. Wheeler
ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (12/09/83)
Once you publish something to the net, haven't you announced it publically? Isn't the net a public forum? After all, none of us are paying to use the net (not like a PAM). When you post something, people you don't know are reading it all over the world. Why does putting it on paper make a difference? The concept that you just brought up is that publishing on paper is real publishing (after all, you can reference from a book, magazine, or newspaper), but publishing on computer media is not real publishing. This is another facet to the "is software copyrightable?" debate. I feel that if someone is quoting from private correspondence over the net, they should obtain the author's permission. However, once something is posted into a newsgroup, you have already stated your views in a public forum, and therefore must allow yourself to be quoted. (That's what's known as having the courage of your convictions.) Maybe we should realize that the net is a public forum, and think about our submissions before we post. I'm sure that if everybody kept this in mind, we'd have fewer articles; and the ones we had might be (dare I say it?) well thought out. Ariel (don't quote me, I only work here) Shattan decvax!tektronix!tekecs!ariels
peters@cubsvax.UUCP (12/09/83)
"Articles" in the net are not so much articles as informal comments...
the appropriate way to reference such things, at least in the scien-
tific literature, is: "So-and-so, Personal Communication, date."
The person being quoted should, as a courtesy, be sent a copy of the
citing document. Incidentally, this would be easier if people would
put their real names down at the bottom of the article; affiliation
and location would help, too.
Peter S. Shenkin
Columbia University Dept. of Biol. Sci., New York
{harpo,cmcl2}!rocky2!cubsvax!peterskissell@flairvax.UUCP (Kevin Kissell) (12/09/83)
"I, for one, would like to keep any flames I have off someone's
paper. I would feel less free in my opinions if I knew it would
haunt me later in some publication. Do people really WANT their
articles referenced? I can see from net.unix-wizards, perhaps, but
from net.jokes and net.flame also? Dare I bring up the BLKTRAN
problem. From the resulting discussion, having the person haunted
with that article later on could hurt his/her career."
smk@linus.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer)
(See, it's happening already!)
Precisely. Electronic mail is arguably private, but anything posted
to a network at large is rather obviously in the public domain, and will
propagate in ways that I rather doubt any of us can predict.
Perhaps the more mindlessly vociferous flamers on the net will recognize
a need for a little self-control.
Kevin D. Kissell
Fairchild R&D Labs,
Advanced Processor Development
uucp:{ucbvax!sun decvax allegra}!decwrl!flairvax!kissellwaltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (12/10/83)
------------------
Good article, Ariel. I agree. I especially like the line about
people all over the world, who you don't know, reading what you
write.
-- Waltmark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (12/10/83)
I'm sorry, but to those of you who think that anything you say is somehow temporary and cannot be referenced, I'd like to correct your misconception. Everything you post to Usenet is IN WRITING. A copy of it is kept on a large number of machines for 2 weeks, and on some machines for much longer. There are a few machines that keep copies of everything forever, although there is no official archive service. In addition, anybody who sees you say something can save a copy of it in their own directory, or send it to a hard copy device. Just because there is no easy way to look up an arbitrary Usenet reference does not mean that you can sit back, comfortably assured that next month or next year, someone won't come along and use your own words to haunt you. If you have something to say that you don't want known, don't say it in the first place. Mark Horton
smk@linus.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) (12/10/83)
Kevin wins the award for 1st person to take me up on my backwards suggestion
and quote my article! What i was really getting at was 3 things: one
some groups foster discussions that should be free from quotes,
misquoting could be a problem, and I could get in trouble for something
posted by someone pretending to be me. However, I agree if it will
stop some of the noise, then quoting has its merits.
(You may quote me on this.)
Maybe we need a net.quote.general, net.quote.unix-wizards, ...
(only kidding)
--
--steve kramer
{allegra,genrad,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!smk (UUCP)
linus!smk@mitre-bedford (MIL)laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/11/83)
Folks, I get people who quote *one* *line* of a many-lined article **NOW**. This annoys me to no end. i don't mind people quoting me, but I sure want to see it **first** because one line out of context is likely to be a lot worse than no lines at all. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (12/11/83)
If you don't want people to reproduce your network sumissions (outside
of the network) with or without attribution, you should put a copyright
notice in your "signature".
+ Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deedave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (12/11/83)
Unfortunately, Laura, there's not much you can do about that. The
same thing happens if you speak to the press, and they quote you
out of context. (Anyone who's ever been interviewed by the press
about *anything* knows about this problem.) I don't think the net
it at all unusual in this respect.
Dave Sherman
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davelaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/12/83)
Having just been misquoted by the press a few weeks ago, I know that you are right. However, if the press does a crummy job, I can write a letter to the editor or even sue them. If in some publication which I do not read, somebody decides to misquote me (or quote me out of context) I want the same ability. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (George Sicherman) (12/13/83)
Mark Horton raises an interesting point: can an article that resides simultaneously in computer memories all over the world be said to be "in writing"? Those of you who are interested in the legal implications should look up the series of cases beginning with Chicken v. Ham (the "Gramophone Libel Case") reported some years ago in _Punch_ by A. P. Herbert.
hlh@linus.UUCP (Henry L. Hall) (12/16/83)
As is the case with all referencing, one must leave it up to the
person who is quoting the article to use the appropriate tact
and concience to choose what to quote and what not to quote.
After all, even now our bosses, at least those who are enlightened
enough to know about it, are reading the net. They must also,
therefore, be enlightened enough to accept that the people in
their employ who also use the net, have their personal opinions.
If this turns out to be a problem, there is always recourrse to
a slander or libel suit. I would hope that it will never come
to become this desperate a situations.
Not really caring about flames,
(there's always /dev/null)
Henry L. Hall
{allegra, cbosgd, decvax, ihnp4} !linus!hlh {UUCP}
linus!hlh@mitre-bedford {MIL}