Citing Sources

[+silverquill]

When I first started creating waymarks, way back when, I thought it was fine to take a photo or two, get coordinates, and copy something from Wikipedia. Gulp. How things have changed.

 

There have been other threads about the need to cite sources and indicate quoted material. I would probably stop short of leveling charges of plagiarism, but I do take citing sources seriously.

 

The question I want to raise, however, is this: What is the correct or best way to cite sources and quoted material within the description of a waymark? As someone who reviews a lot of waymarks, I see all sorts of approaches to this. Since hardly any categories specify anything in this regard, I let most of them pass as long as something is there.

 

Here are what I consider to be good guidelines.

 

1. All quoted material must be clearly indicated. The best way to do this is with quotation marks. That is what they are for, after all. Alternatively, especially for large passages, setting the quote off some way, through indentation or use of italics, for instance, may be acceptable - as long as it is clear.

 

2. The name of the source must be given. Often all I see is a (visit link) as the citation. This is better than nothing, but it does not identify the source unless one chooses to click through. It would be far better to use something like: Quoted from: Really Cool Web Site (visit link). If there is an identified author, he should be acknowledged as well.

 

3. Clickable web link (URL) if the material is from a web site. This must be included in the body of the description with the quoted material, NOT just in a variable field at the bottom. The description should stand on its own. Although URLs will be converted to clickable links, I find it better to use embedded hyperlinks. It took me awhile to realize how simple this is, and I am using it a lot more, not just for citing sources, but to link to other waymarks (usually my own) or other outside sources. We don't want to go overboard, like Wikipedia, but hyperlinks can add a lot to a waymark.

 

4. Citing general sources. IF my waymark has involved a significant amount of research, I usually do my own writing, summary, based on these sources. Then I try to give relevant sources at the end of the description. I do this not only for integrity, but to make the waymark more useful as an informational resource.

 

Examples: Well, I have many but I'll give just two, from my short visit to Japan. The first is for the mythical beings, Agyo and Ungyo. Here I use a short quote along with original writing, links to outside sources and to other waymarks. The other is for Ino Chukei,the legendary cartographer of Japan, where research is summarized and sources cited.

 

Obviously I'm still learning about this, and I've not got it perfect. So, I'd welcome hearing from others on how you approach this in your own waymarks and how you handle this when reviewing wayarks. Should we specify in our category posting instructions how attributions are to be done?

[+Ianatlarge]

I will admit to having varied a great deal in listing source material in my waymarks, more than I should, however, I believe that the necessity comes down to the category of waymark. Obviously, for example, a flippant piece of neon adorning an eatery requires no provenance, while a historical statue waymark, of an obscure figure, should include the source of whatever information can be scrounged. Another example would be a waymark of a controversial subject. In this case the source of the information given should be listed in the waymark.

 

I also suggest, for important information, copying the original material into the waymark (subject to excessive size and copyright restrictions). I say this due to the sometimes ephemeral nature of the internet. Things come, things can stay, but sometimes they do not. If we are thinking of Waymarking as having a long future it is better to copy such source material.

 

I believe that those categories, which would be best served by a formal requirement to list source material, add this to their category description. Top of my head, I would start with "Statues of Historical Figures".

[+lumbricus]

...

Here are what I consider to be good guidelines.

 

1. All quoted material must be clearly indicated. The best way to do this is with quotation marks. That is what they are for, after all. Alternatively, especially for large passages, setting the quote off some way, through indentation or use of italics, for instance, may be acceptable - as long as it is clear.

 

2. The name of the source must be given. Often all I see is a (visit link) as the citation. This is better than nothing, but it does not identify the source unless one chooses to click through. It would be far better to use something like: Quoted from: Really Cool Web Site (visit link). If there is an identified author, he should be acknowledged as well.

 

3. Clickable web link (URL) if the material is from a web site. This must be included in the body of the description with the quoted material, NOT just in a variable field at the bottom. The description should stand on its own. Although URLs will be converted to clickable links, I find it better to use embedded hyperlinks. It took me awhile to realize how simple this is, and I am using it a lot more, not just for citing sources, but to link to other waymarks (usually my own) or other outside sources. We don't want to go overboard, like Wikipedia, but hyperlinks can add a lot to a waymark.

 

4. Citing general sources. IF my waymark has involved a significant amount of research, I usually do my own writing, summary, based on these sources. Then I try to give relevant sources at the end of the description. I do this not only for integrity, but to make the waymark more useful as an informational resource...

 

Well written.

I'm reviewing a lot of waymarks at the moment. I would say 2 from 5 have to be declined with the please to cite right. It takes a lot of time to copy sentences into google to see that they are 100% equal.

 

Perhaps we should write with Bootron about this. Perhaps he could add 'Citing Sources Guidelines' to all Waymarking categories. It's annoying to discuss why you declined a waymark if there is nothing written about 'citing' in the category description.

[+3l diesel]

Perhaps waymarkers could be more "professional" and use a formal referencing technique as used in academic papers. As an example, I might say something like

 

"Silverquill" (nom de plume) [2012] commented 'All quoted material must be clearly indicated.' [1]

 

I am trying to write a paper at present and have found "http://www.citethisforme.com/website" to be quite useful, along with "http://www.harvardgenerator.com/". These were the first two that came up in a google search, and both are free to use (but at least one pleads for donations - but I would suspect that this is aimed at writers who expect some reward/return on their efforts). The reference for the above quote from "cite this for me" is

 

[1] Forums.Groundspeak.com (2012) Citing Sources - Groundspeak Forums. [online] Available at: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=297259 [Accessed: 15 Jun 2012].

 

A book reference (also from "cite this for me") might look like

 

Olofsson, U. and Lewis, R. (2006) Handbook of Railway Vehicle Dynamics, Ch5. Tribology of the Wheel – Rail Contact. CRC Press.

 

As we don't want to unnecessarily burden hobbyists of varying abilities and enthusiasm, I would suggest that a formal reference be encouraged, but not mandated in a category description.

Edited June 15, 2012 by 3l diesel

[GT.US]

One other important thing to remember, even if you are paraphrasing, and not copying word for word, you must also cite your sources.

[+silverquill]

Perhaps waymarkers could be more "professional" and use a formal referencing technique as used in academic papers.

 

Well, there have been a few, but very few times when I've done this. If it is merely a web site, then I think it is enough to identify the name of the web site and give the URL. The only time I've used the more formal citation is when the quotation or source is actually from a book or other publication that has been made available online. Sometimes these sources will have a link to "preferred citation format" which will give the exact wording for the citation. This is very helpful.

 

Few of us would know, or even know how to find, or maybe even realize the existence of this more academic format for citations. IF a category is going to require, or even suggest, this as a format to be used, then I think it is imperative that the format, or at least a source for the format, be given clearly in the category's posting instructions. It MIGHT be desirable for certain historical categories or others that might commonly entail research. But, I have no intention of implementing anything close to this. I think it would be good way to kill a category and discourage overall participation.

 

On the other hand, I am seriously considering adding some of the guidelines, mentioned in my original post, to some of my categories.

 

GT.US - Yes, it is good to give sources even when material is summarized! I do this frequently and this is illustrated in one of the examples in my original post.

[+bpratt]

Perhaps waymarkers could be more "professional" and use a formal referencing technique as used in academic papers.

 

Well, there have been a few, but very few times when I've done this. If it is merely a web site, then I think it is enough to identify the name of the web site and give the URL. The only time I've used the more formal citation is when the quotation or source is actually from a book or other publication that has been made available online. Sometimes these sources will have a link to "preferred citation format" which will give the exact wording for the citation. This is very helpful.

 

Few of us would know, or even know how to find, or maybe even realize the existence of this more academic format for citations. IF a category is going to require, or even suggest, this as a format to be used, then I think it is imperative that the format, or at least a source for the format, be given clearly in the category's posting instructions. It MIGHT be desirable for certain historical categories or others that might commonly entail research. But, I have no intention of implementing anything close to this. I think it would be good way to kill a category and discourage overall participation.

 

On the other hand, I am seriously considering adding some of the guidelines, mentioned in my original post, to some of my categories.

 

GT.US - Yes, it is good to give sources even when material is summarized! I do this frequently and this is illustrated in one of the examples in my original post.

 

I fear that it may scare some folks off if we make this more formal then need be.We do need to give credit where it is do but lets not forget the fun.

[GT.US]

Some people don't understand the difference between plagiarism and fair use.

 

As long as you cite your source, you are protecting yourself from any accusation of plagiarism. Plagiarism being representing someone else's work as your own.

 

If I don't see any sources in a waymark, I will try to say something like "If you used other webpages, pamphlets, signs, etc. to create this waymark please list them as your source, even if you didn't quote directly".

[+Lat34North]

As a suggestion – If the material you wish to site “IS COPYWRITED” (not all information on the web is, but I think you should always cite the source). Then rather than copying the text to your waymark, add a link to the information.

 

Example, for more information see <a target="_blank" href="url"> name of web site</a>. [Not implying all you have to do is add the link, but to be used as part of your own write up]

 

Oh, this only works if the information has been published to the web, want work for a book.

 

That also has the advantage of allowing the viewer of your waymark to decide if they wish to see the information.

 

Don’t even want to think about stuff that is public domain and/or the copywrite has expired (more the 75 years old). This whole thing can really be a can of worms. My thought, always cite the source. I have started trying to put quoted material in a blockquote.

 

Example:

 

<blockquote>

“quoted text”

</blockquote>

Source ------

 

Here is a site I have used for footnotes:

 

Chapter 7. How to Write Footnotes and Endnotes in MLA Style

http://www.aresearchguide.com/7footnot.html

Edited June 18, 2012 by Lat34North

[GT.US]

As a suggestion – If the material you wish to site “IS COPYWRITED” (not all information on the web is, but I think you should always cite the source). Then rather than copying the text to your waymark, add a link to the information.

 

Example, for more information see <a target="_blank" href="url"> name of web site</a>. [Not implying all you have to do is add the link, but to be used as part of your own write up]

 

Oh, this only works if the information has been published to the web, want work for a book.

 

That also has the advantage of allowing the viewer of your waymark to decide if they wish to see the information.

 

Don’t even want to think about stuff that is public domain and/or the copywrite has expired (more the 75 years old). This whole thing can really be a can of worms. My thought, always cite the source. I have started trying to put quoted material in a blockquote.

 

Example:

 

<blockquote>

“quoted text”

</blockquote>

Source ------

 

Here is a site I have used for footnotes:

 

Chapter 7. How to Write Footnotes and Endnotes in MLA Style

http://www.aresearchguide.com/7footnot.html

 

Even if you aren't committing copyright infringement when you copy from another site, if you represent someone else's work as your own you are committing plagiarism. You should always cite your sources, whether copyrighted or not.

[+fi67]

What is copyright? It is a legal protection for creative work. The artist (the copyright holder) has the right to decide what may be done with the work and how it can be used. This does not need a registration or the such, it is am automatism: you are the copyright holder of your texts or pictures as soon as you have created them.

 

There is NO such thing as copyright free material, with the sole exception of expired rights (70 years after the death of the artist). What exists are more or less free licenses that can be used for the work, a well-known one is Creative Commons that is used by Wikipedia but there are others, and you can create your own if you have a lot of time and are a lawyer. They may allow free redistribution of the material; some allow changes, some don't.

 

When the license is not that free, you are still allowed to cite a certain part of this work. This is called "fair use" and it is heavily complicated what exactly and how much is allowed. It depends on many factors.

 

However, you always have to mark your quotation somehow and state the source. This applies for non-free material as well as for free licenses and public domain material. Because if you don't, you implicitly pretend to be the author of this work which is plagiarism.

 

On the other hand there are things that do not fall under copyrights. You may not paraphrase a novel, because the characters and the plot are creative work and covered by copyright, not only the language.

 

But historic facts are not creative work. When you tell the story you learned in your own words, this does not infringe anybody's copyrights, you are the copyright owner of this new work. Of course, I really mean "your own words"; just replacing synonyms and changing some adjectives will not do.

 

It may be good practice, helpful for researchers, increase your credibility and over all highly recommended to attribute all the sources of your research. But there is no legal obligation to do so. Waymarking should not try to achieve academic standards, raising the bar too high will result in damage to the whole game.

[+3l diesel]

Now here is another one, that you good people may be able to help with... Can I use an image (photograph or drawing) "legally" ie not infringe copyright if I nominate the source (and of course I am referring to the use of a fraction of the original work)?

[Country_Wife]

I never feel comfortable using someone else's images. But when I'm posting on the net, I'm quite happy to link to the source. I do something like this

Charles Bird King's portrait of John Brant on eighteeentwelve.ca

[+fi67]

Now here is another one, that you good people may be able to help with... Can I use an image (photograph or drawing) "legally" ie not infringe copyright if I nominate the source (and of course I am referring to the use of a fraction of the original work)?

 

Only when the artist died before 1942. There are "fair use" cases for pictures, but they are much harder to justify than written works.

[GT.US]

 

There is NO such thing as copyright free material, with the sole exception of expired rights (70 years after the death of the artist).

 

Curious useless trivia, the titles of books and publications cannot be copyrighted.