You are right about standards. There are fairly solid practices for footnoting
Web content in print media, but the presentation of the materials within the
body of one's text are less clear. I use a "golden rule" approach for giving
credit where it is due regardless of source -- I treat excepts as either
indirect or direct quotes, but if I am doing cut&paste from e.g. a newsletter I
usually present it as a pasted block prefaced by something like "I found this in
this week's.....". Either one gets the URL and date last accessed as a
footnote.

As I recall, your original message was borderline conformant with my practice
(for what that's worth). If you treated the copied materials as indirect
quotation (which my old composition teacher would argue against strenuously)
then you formatting was reasonable.

Internet-mediated communications, esp. on listservs, are evolving a less formal
practice than more traditional public discourse. This includes blurring
ownership of intellectual property ("data wants to be free", anyone?). In a
quick note to a colleague or even an "all hands" email within my company, I'd
probably follow more casual practices. But in a public forum like this, I try
to pay a bit more attention to these standards.

PS: People often reply to just one topic within an email. If the tread is on
citation practices, the question of how helpful the URL might have been is
irrelevant.

PPS: I didn't check it, so have no opinion. The original topic is not of
sufficient interest for me to take the time. But, I appreciate you taking the
effort to communicate the resource to the list, for those to whom it was
important.

Michael D. Walls


-----original message-----
>>We have an interesting case study here. Let me respond by pointing out a
couple of things this sociologist observed. First, I have posted dozens of lists
of reference links on this and other forums in response to requests for sources
of information. In many, if not most, of these lists I have included material
cut and pasted from the original source to give a context to the link I
provided. I've never included quotation marks or any other indications of direct
citation. The relationship between the posted material and the link to the
original source is obvious. Nobody has ever complained about my breach of
anybody's citation standards. Next, I did an extensive Internet search to find
style sheets for citing electronic media. I found the APA electronic style
sheet, the MLA style sheet, the Turabian electronic style sheet (boy, does that
one bring back fond memories of college days), and other style sheets, and
others.Not one of them even mentions citation standards for material directly
quoted, or cut and pasted, from an electronic medium source. And, needless to
point out, none of them even mentions citations in e- mails.So, what's the
source for demanding that quotations in e- mails linked directly and
unmistakably to a link to the original source is incorrect?Clearly, those who
have complained to me are applying print media style sheet requirements for
print media citations to electronic media use of electronic media sources.
Carried too far, this practice can get real both messy and interesting.
Finally, I provide you with an excellent case study of why IT professionals
often don't communicate with nonprofit professionals with rigid orthodoxies. In
each of my replies on this subject I have asked, "Did you find the Web site
useful?" Nobody has bothered to answer that question. Now why is that?>>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]