Interesting.
As to the point about secondary citation, it is standard practice in classes that teach about research and writing to cover how to do secondary citation. For example look at _http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/apadocu.html_ (http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/apadocu.html)
The way we should approach citing a reference *through* someone else's citation is "so and so as cited in such and such"
It's really a matter of courtesy that we cite *in some way* the actual source which we actually consulted. Of course that isn't the issue here. It would appear, reading-between-the-lines, that exact quotes or paraphrases were lifted from the Wikipedia article without either en-quoting, or acknowledging the source whatsoever. Or perhaps merely acknowledging it by way of a simple bibliography, which really isn't sufficient if you are quoting.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000500000000... )
----- WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
From: WJhonson@aol.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 12 August, 2008 6:41:10 AM GMT +10:00 Brisbane Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The dangers of not citing Wikipedia
Interesting.
As to the point about secondary citation, it is standard practice in classes that teach about research and writing to cover how to do secondary citation. For example look at _http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/apadocu.html_ (http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/apadocu.html)
The way we should approach citing a reference *through* someone else's
citation is "so and so as cited in such and such"
It's really a matter of courtesy that we cite *in some way* the actual
source which we actually consulted. Of course that isn't the issue here. It would appear, reading-between-the-lines, that exact quotes or paraphrases were lifted from the Wikipedia article without either en-quoting, or acknowledging the source whatsoever. Or perhaps merely acknowledging it by way of a simple bibliography, which really isn't sufficient if you are quoting.
Will Johnson
Good point. I do the "as cited by" thing for published papers, but for wikipedia with its mix of anonymous, and pseudonymous users, and its continual evolution, it just doesn't look right to say "as cited by Wikipedia user 204.23.144.2 at 13:00 UTC on August 12, 2008" (if you even feel like taking the time to figure out which user it was that actually put the citation in given how many revisions are on many articles).
Cheers,
Peter
2008/8/11 WJhonson@aol.com:
Interesting.
As to the point about secondary citation, it is standard practice in classes that teach about research and writing to cover how to do secondary citation. For example look at _http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/apadocu.html_ (http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/apadocu.html)
The way we should approach citing a reference *through* someone else's citation is "so and so as cited in such and such"
It's really a matter of courtesy that we cite *in some way* the actual source which we actually consulted. Of course that isn't the issue here. It would appear, reading-between-the-lines, that exact quotes or paraphrases were lifted from the Wikipedia article without either en-quoting, or acknowledging the source whatsoever. Or perhaps merely acknowledging it by way of a simple bibliography, which really isn't sufficient if you are quoting.
As I understand it, that's for what you've only looked at the "such and such" source and are just taking its word about what it says in "so and so". In that case, your source for the information is "such and such", so that's the source you need to cite. That's a bad idea, generally, though. It's just better to actually find a copy of "so and so" and then cite that directly. Especially when you have no idea who the person claiming that "so and so" includes the information is, which is the case with Wikipedia.
I thought so. It didn't make sense that you could consult a bibliography or extensive list of references without citing it.
Fred
Interesting.
As to the point about secondary citation, it is standard practice in classes that teach about research and writing to cover how to do secondary citation. For example look at _http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/apadocu.html_ (http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/apadocu.html)
The way we should approach citing a reference *through* someone else's citation is "so and so as cited in such and such"
It's really a matter of courtesy that we cite *in some way* the actual source which we actually consulted. Of course that isn't the issue here. It would appear, reading-between-the-lines, that exact quotes or paraphrases were lifted from the Wikipedia article without either en-quoting, or acknowledging the source whatsoever. Or perhaps merely acknowledging it by way of a simple bibliography, which really isn't sufficient if you are quoting.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000500000000... ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l