Francoise
Francoise Herrmann
fherrmann who-is-at igc.org
Referencing on-line knowledge
Discussions on the x-lists once cycled in considerable
detail over the issue of referencing on-line communication
with concerns cycling over two issues: how and whether
to cite such sources of information. Among the
hesitations voiced over the issue of whether to cite such
sources, the following concerns were voiced: the
potentially inhibitive impact of quoting messages on the
spontaneity of discursive activity on the lists; the right
to refuse being cited under certain conditions such as the
existence of a better printed source of reference; and the
apparent contradiction of attributing authorship in the
joint social construction of activity, from a
socio-cultural perspective. These concerns were
nonetheless voiced with concensual awareness of the public
nature of on-line communication and that of the
impossibility to really control the fate of electronic
text. With one dissenting voice where concern for the
overtones of elitist protectionism accompanying the above
hesitations was expressed.
Each of these concerns and issues are voiced in the
following posts:
The potentially inhibitive impact of quoting messages:
" [...] What concerns me enough to raise it with the list is
whether the practice of quoting our messages here, particularly in
print in formal scholarly publications, might not have an
inhibiting effect on the free-wheeling nature of our exchanges,
which I value highly.
This new medium inherits some of its properties from the genres of
casual, if serious, academic conversation and others from the
genres of written scholarly discourse. But those two activity
types have very different functions, norms, and criteria of
valuation in our community. Conversational discourse has a degree
of ephemerality that frees us to venture, to risk, to explore
ideas, and leaves us free to change or evolve our views in the
dynamics of dialogue. What we say at any particular moment may not
be long-considered and a settled, committed view or claim.
When we write for publication, we have, usually, had long prior
consideration, many relevant conversations, and ample opportunity
to revise our views toward some temporarily stable or satisfying
position. Those who read us do so assuming we have done this.
(Lemke, J. April 11th, 1994- xlchc. Quoting xfamily messages)
" [...] Published papers, however, are much more socially-crafted
works, whether
by explicit editorial recommendations or by the author simply
knowing from experience what would be accepted and what
wouldn't.
The rules of the latter game have been established for a much
longer time than the former, and by intermixing the two games I
think we'll be inviting abuse and scaring off reputable
scholars from engaging in sharing their spur-of-the-moment
speculations on lists."
(Serich, S. April 12th, 1994 -xlchc- Re: Quoting xfamily messages)
The right to refuse permission to be cited:
" [...] There's no solution that satisfies everybody, but the one
that makes the most sense to me is that we should expect (though
obviously we can't enforce) that anyone quoted from a forum like
this should have to right to refuse to be quoted, or to have the
particular passage quoted. I occasionally say things in the heat
of the moment which, on reflection, I not only wouldn't want
quoted, but don't even agree with -- and that I'd _never_
conventionally publish. " (Hunt, R. -April 12th, 1994- xlchc. Re:
Quoting xfamily messages)
" [...] When deciding whether to cite xfamily discourse, my own
criteria would run something like this:
1. Has it been said better or equally well by the same person "in
print" ? If so, give preference to that more accessible and more
enduring source. Check with the author to find out.
2. Does the author now feel s/he was mistaken and would rather not
be cited as saying this ? If so, respect her/his preference. Check
with the author to find out.
3. If the author is not accessible within a reasonable time-frame,
make it clear that the context is a less-than-formal public forum,
to protect the author's right to distance her/himself from the
statement at a future date.[...] (Serpell, R. April 12th, 1994.
xlchc- citation and renegotiability)
"[...] My own feeling is that messages on email are in the public
domain and are therefore quotable. However, I think it is
important:
a. to make clear that the source is email (and therefore not as
"considered" as a regularly published paper), and
b. to ask permission of the author and to accept her/his right to
refuse.[...]" (Wells, G. April 13th, 1994. xlchc -Re: Referencing
e-mail)
A dissenting voice concerned with elitist protectionism as an
exclusionary device (i.e.; backlash):
"[...] I must admit that I have a hard time reading messages with
a *straight* gaze- but the recent postings on quoting LCHC message
bits strikes me as the most odd kind of privileged protectionism--
In my work, I find that my usual experience is that my writing or
expressed ideas (such as they are) typically are plagiarized in
the most obvious and explicit fashion. The next tactic people use
is to use footnoting, rather than an explicit textual citation.
Now, I don't want to sound like a one trick horse here, but I have
chatted about this practice with other minority colleagues, and lo
and behold it is a common complaint. We are not cited enough and
often are ripped off. We don't have access to the *construction*
of knowledge, and so we don't have *ideas* or ownership rights. I
would love to be worried about being cited out of context! Who is
worried about this practice? Who has not so far written a message
about being worried about this? How come *we* always have to bring
up this thorny issue of exclusion and systemic bias. As I write
at the top of all my drafts-- Please cite this work without asking
the author for permission. (Bryson, M. April 12th, 1994. xlchc -
Re: Quoting xfamily messages)
Resolving the apparent contradiction of attributing authorship in
the joint construction of activity, in a socio-cultural
perspective:
"[...] 1. Technical issue: how to honest (i.e., what is a
technique) in acknowledgment and referring to e-mail messages if
an author wants to be honest. (If the author does want to be
honest -- nothing can help:-( 2. Global issue: how (and why) to
define personal contribution from collaboration (such as our
network discussions). In some degree, this endeavor of tracking
personal contributions contradict sociocultural theories of
activity that insist that any original contributions are heavily
rooted in contributions of other participants (current and
former). In this regard, completely honest and exhaustive
appreciation of others' ideas is impossible and even dangerous
(because it separates people and destroys collaboration and trust
-- it happens when people become preoccupied with competition of
their
contributions :-( -- another depressing reality of our life).
However, if, instead of exhaustive search for ownership of ideas,
the issue is interpretation of others' ideas to move on, the
problem of accurate reference become real and important one.[...]
(Matusov, E. April 14th, 1994. xlchc. Re: Xfamily quotation)
"[...] In fact, this form easily allows an interesting variant I
hope we shall see increasingly often: AB, C.; DE, F.; GH, I. &
JK, L. (19xx) Idea / argument / insight / ... gained in
co-operative e-mail exchanges on forum <name of the list> / in
oral discussion at xy-conference in yz. Nobody can ban from this
(scientific) world promulgation and distortion of ideas with false
or without credit. But everybody could stick to a scheme like the
above in giving due and appropriate credit and thus heighten
chances of being given due and appropriate credit (under whatever
public sign the one or many active entities at the origin of an
idea have chosen to be identifiable in the scientific community).
With old dreams of a better scientific community, Alfred." (Lang,
A. April 13th, 1994. xlchc- Re- Quoting xfamily messages. )
The uncontrollable nature of electronic text:
"[...] I THINK WE SHOULD EXPECT THAT ANYONE QUOTED FROM A FORUM
SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT OF REFUSAL (WHICH MEANS THAT ETIQUETTE WOULD
HAVE IT THAT WE SHOULD ASK PERMISSION TO QUOTE BEFORE QUOTING)
BUT I ALSO THINK WE OUGHT TO ACCEPT THAT WHILE THIS WRITING IS
RELATIVELY SPONTANEOUS IT IS IN THE "PUBLIC DOMAIN" AND THEREFORE
WE DON'T HAVE MUCH CONTROL OVER IT'S FATE AS RUSS COMMENTED.
(Newman, J. April 12th, 1994, xlchc. Re: Quoting xfamily messages)
In the interim, guidelines have appeared in various
Manuals of Style (e.g.; ) and, in particular, in
the latest (Fourth) 1994 edition of the Publication
Manual of the APA (American Psychological Association). The APA
guidelines for referencing electronic media, suggest that the same
principles for referencing published materials also apply to
electronic media (i.e.; to credit the author and to make such
material available to readers). The authors of the APA Publication
Manual, however, also make clear that no standard for referencing
on-line information have yet emerged, leaving questions such as
the differences between on-line "contribution" and "personal
communication" or "insignificant exchange" un-separated.
Questions that appeared at the forefront of issues in the
conversational extracts cited above; and ones that become
relevant, perhaps, when the community of users comprises
"x-spurts" (setting aside the joking term and the x-spurts' own
belief that "experts" do not exist), many of whom were widely
known (i.e.; cited), both within their respective fields of
knowledge and across disciplinary boundaries. And discarding the
low contribution value (e.g.; $0.02) that many listers affixed to
their posts often as an expression of timidity, modesty and
humility. As one lister pointed out, a "commodization" of ideas
occurs in the academic world which is un-paralleled in worlds of
more modest circumstance, pointing to a set of potentially
underlying commercial interests.
In this study, where citations have been paramount both as
source of information and corroborating evidence, the
guidelines of the welcoming document were used, with a
wonderful un-expected outcome. In the Welcoming Document
to list subscription the protocol was to ask for citation
permission. Following these guidelines, however, the
protocol became an important methodological process,
through which I gained invaluable insight. Soliciting
permission via e-mail enabled me to make contacts with
community members. In turn, these contacts both provided
me with terrific feedback and the triangulation that I
needed for the participant-observations that I was making.
During these side-channeled conversations I also gained
much in terms of understanding participation on the lists.
In general participants were pleased to see their work
cited as a sort of recognition of their participatory
efforts. And when participants made suggestions for
improvement, it was to point out important arguments and
finer points that I had missed. Only one participant
ever refused citation permission and this was on the
grounds that the extract was an insignificant exchange.
Beyond the triangulation of my observations then, entering
this process, also corroborated the epistemological
dimensions of the activity system under investigation-
currently under focus in this chapter.