next »

[11thfloor]

The subject almost answers my own question but I might change my mind.  My question is about referencing primary sources, old annuals, magazines, other ephemera, that has been scanned and made available on-line.  Since they have been scanned in, they are exactly the same documents I'd be looking at in a research library, so if I reference them as original sources, I'm giving the exact same information for anyone wanting to follow them up or check quotations or check the context for a quote I give, as I would give if I had actually received a research grant and checked them out in, say, the British Library.  Being Australian however there is only so much of this kind of travel I can afford and besides, it hardly makes sense to get funding to look at documents I can access on-line.  But if my references are all to a small range of websites, don't you think this would look like sketchier research and give a much less solid, academic kind of impression than a series of references to a range of old primary sources?  Ought I to give the website references, do you think, or ought I just to reference the primary sources?

[infopri]

Why not provide both?  After all, one of the primary purposes of providing citations is to enable your readers to track down the original source; why not provide enough information so that they can try to find either the print or the electronic version, as their own circumstances and interest allow?  for For example, you could start with the print citation, and then continue (after the page numbers, or whatever the final element is) with, "Available as of <date> from <URL>," or whatever other electronic-citation information you want to provide.

[11thfloor]

Oh I knew people would say that.  But it isn't about doing the right thing. I knew giving both would be morally right and the most correct solution academically speaking.  This is the first time in my life I have ever considered even the slightest diversion from the most morally right option.  But, I think as soon as you put the websites in, it looks less solid a piece of work.  Doesn't anyone else think so? 

[namazu]

Oh I knew people would say that.  But it isn't about doing the right thing. I knew giving both would be morally right and the most correct solution academically speaking.  This is the first time in my life I have ever considered even the slightest diversion from the most morally right option.  But, I think as soon as you put the websites in, it looks less solid a piece of work.  Doesn't anyone else think so? 

I see why you might feel that way; you're probably right that there are some people who still distrust online sources, even if they are identical to offline sources.  Personally, though, I wouldn't think less of your scholarship for that reason, unless the websites were in some way disreputable.  It's like citing a number of papers by different authors from a single edited volume.  If the papers are good, does it really matter (and doesn't it make sense) that they happen to be together inside one cover?  You cite the paper, and then indicate the edited volume from which it came.  The website is essentially serving the same function as the edited book: bringing together papers on a particular topic.  No shame in mentioning it.  I don't know that you'd be terribly, horribly immoral to leave it off, either, but I think it would probably be better to include it.

And as Infopri said, it gives the reader options.  (And these days, I'd much rather be able to retrieve the source easily online than have to scout it out myself.)  The only difficulty is if the website changes, and the links become out of date.  Nothing you can really do about that.

[infopri]

But, I think as soon as you put the websites in, it looks less solid a piece of work.  Doesn't anyone else think so? 

No.  It might look that way if you put only the websites in.  But if you include both, there is no way your reader will even know which format you used--nor will it matter, if they are truly the same.  These days, so much printed matter is now available online (especially journal articles) that one might argue that it is inefficient and a waste of valuable research/teaching/service time to be walking to the library to get a paper copy of something that is available (often in identical form, via .pdf files) from your desk.

Maybe this is a field-specific thing?  In my field, most people cite both formats, when they can.


On preview:

The only difficulty is if the website changes, and the links become out of date.  Nothing you can really do about that.

That's a good argument for providing citations for both formats.  If the print version goes out of print, or if the online link becomes obsolete, the reader still has a prayer of finding the item.

[namazu]

That's a good argument for providing citations for both formats.  If the print version goes out of print, or if the online link becomes obsolete, the reader still has a prayer of finding the item.

Oh, yeah.  I'd always include the regular citation information along with any URL.

[larryc]

If you don't reference the fact that you did the research online, someone is bound to notice it anyway-either in the review process or worse after the article is published. Lots of use these websites for research and far more use them for teaching. Somebody is going to say "Hey look, every one of these sources is at websites X, Y, and Z!"

Then the whispering campaign about you begins. Is that what you want?

[hegemony]

I'd say just put the print references in, assuming the website versions are clear about what page they are in print.  There's nothing more infuriating than an out-of-date web reference.  You type it in and some error page appears.  In ten years, I bet few of your web references will still be accurate; in 40 years it's almost certain.  But those articles will still be at those page numbers of those journals.  Even if it were illicit to look up references on the web, in ten years no one will be able to tell that you did so, because the variety of online references will be very different.

[pandora]

My question is about referencing primary sources, old annuals, magazines, other ephemera, that has been scanned and made available on-line.  Since they have been scanned in, they are exactly the same documents I'd be looking at in a research library, so if I reference them as original sources, I'm giving the exact same information for anyone wanting to follow them up or check quotations or check the context for a quote I give, as I would give if I had actually received a research grant and checked them out in, say, the British Library.   <snip>  Ought I to give the website references, do you think, or ought I just to reference the primary sources?

I thought this thread was going to be about hiding all the porn-sites you've recently visited. . . for research purposes only!

I do a lot of research in actual archives and I use the newer digital databases of the sources that I study as well if I can't get to the library and hold the actual dusty old thing in my hands.  So my first question is a technical one about what kind of scanning we're talking about:  are these photograph-style images of your sources that have been scanned that provide an exact image of the document?  Or are they just plain text-style scanned documents in Arial font with no additional images from the original text?  If it's the latter, at some point you will probably have to check "the real thing" anyhow for accuracy and proper pagination.

More generally, I see absolutely no moral dilemma about simply providing the most basic information about these sources as scholars always have.  Providing URLs. . . ? Ugh, it's just hideous to look at, and if you end up publishing any of this research, proofreading those things is a nightmare.  Plus there is the very real problem of web-ephemerality.  I think you can feel just fine about keeping it as simple as possible.  There isn't any obligation that I know of about making your research methodology that transparent.  How you found stuff doesn't matter nearly as much as what you do with it.  I mean, you've read those sources, right?  Isn't that the hard part?  If there does happen to be one website that was useful for you in building your archive, you can simply acknowledge the scholar who built that site that at the beginning of your Endnotes section.

The basic objective about providing source information has not changed, even though the technology for accessing that information has changed:  if someone else wants to read or double check what you've quoted (which, realistically, simply does not happen that often), you give them the map to find it.  You're not obliged to provide two maps.  I think we can all just be happy that we do have access to so much more archival material than we did in the past -- and grateful to all those heroic, toiling librarians who have done the painstaking work of creating digital databases.  And I keep thinking that this drastically expanded access might actually transform some of the work that's done in my field (isn't that the classic effect of publishing technology on knowledge?).  I'm not seeing it yet in mine.  But maybe someday soon.  : )

[infopri]

The basic objective about providing source information has not changed, even though the technology for accessing that information has changed:  if someone else wants to read or double check what you've quoted (which, realistically, simply does not happen that often), you give them the map to find it.

Speak for yourself.  I would never trust another author to quote or cite someone else's work properly; I've found way too many errors.  I have seen people misquote the text and I've seen them quote it correctly but out of context (thus completely distorting its meaning).  I've found lots of citation errors (wrong page number or, worse, wrong volume number); there are some items I never did find because the citation was so inaccurate that I began to question whether the "cited item" even existed.

As a result, I always track down the original work, if I'm interested in it or if it's relevant to something I'm working on.

[the_honey_badger]

If you don't reference the fact that you did the research on line, someone is bound to notice it anyway-either in the review process or worse after the article is published. Lots of use these websites for research and far more use them for teaching. Somebody is going to say "Hey look, every one of these sources is at websites X, Y, and Z!"

Then the whispering campaign about you begins. Is that what you want?

Well bring it ON. I've already been "warned" about this in relation to a number of my periodicals (19thc) since they are *now* available in proprietary databases or, in a very few cases, are free in digitized form. The fact is that I did read entire runs both because when I did the bulk of the research they were not available in digital form and, when I completed the work, I was not among those who were privileged enough to be at an institution that could or would pay for access. 

I was told I should put in the databases anyway because "that's what people will think you used."  My answer was "I won't"    I can document the MONTHS spent in libraries where the originals are held. I also have the debt to prove I had to go to the originals so bring it on.

One question no one will answer for me is this:
If I use "The Liberator" in microfilm version no one expects me to highlight that it was photographically copied onto film but to just cite the paper itself, why is it that a digitized image of the same page suddenly needs to be noted as an image? To make finding a ref easier?   Sure, easy for those of you at "rich" schools with a big Harpers or Amer Periodicals database but, on the other hand, that student who sees that might not think to look up the paper and find out that it is available in older filmed versions and right at his library.

I went through any number of important books using the same periodicals and newspapers and with the exception of "Evans numbers"  I don't see any notation of micro film/fiche versions and I guarantee you that in some cases that is exactly what was used for some things like "The Liberator" that have been in filmed versions since the 1950s.

If something is transcribed its one thing---some of the early versions on line *were* free and transcribed (one reason I used them only as a pointer to a print version---why knew what the quality really was?)  but how exactly does a digital photograph of the original have such a great distinction from a microfilmed photograph of the original? 

[octoprof]

But, I think as soon as you put the websites in, it looks less solid a piece of work.  Doesn't anyone else think so? 

No.  It might look that way if you put only the websites in. 

There's the crux of the matter. Give the reader all the information you can so the reader can read what you read in whatever format available.

[octoprof]

If you don't reference the fact that you did the research on line, someone is bound to notice it anyway-either in the review process or worse after the article is published. Lots of use these websites for research and far more use them for teaching. Somebody is going to say "Hey look, every one of these sources is at websites X, Y, and Z!"

Then the whispering campaign about you begins. Is that what you want?

Well bring it ON. I've already been "warned" about this in relation to a number of my periodicals (19thc) since they are *now* available in proprietary databases or, in a very few cases, are free in digitized form. The fact is that I did read entire runs both because when I did the bulk of the research they were not available in digital form and, when I completed the work, I was not among those who were privileged enough to be at an institution that could or would pay for access. 

I was told I should put in the databases anyway because "that's what people will think you used."  My answer was "I won't"    I can document the MONTHS spent in libraries where the originals are held. I also have the debt to prove I had to go to the originals so bring it on.

One question no one will answer for me is this:
If I use "The Liberator" in microfilm version no one expects me to highlight that it was photographically copied onto film but to just cite the paper itself, why is it that a digitized image of the same page suddenly needs to be noted as an image? To make finding a ref easier?   Sure, easy for those of you at "rich" schools with a big Harpers or Amer Periodicals database but, on the other hand, that student who sees that might not think to look up the paper and find out that it is available in older filmed versions and right at his library.

I went through any number of important books using the same periodicals and newspapers and with the exception of "Evans numbers"  I don't see any notation of micro film/fiche versions and I guarantee you that in some cases that is exactly what was used for some things like "The Liberator" that have been in filmed versions since the 1950s.

If something is transcribed its one thing---some of the early versions on line *were* free and transcribed (one reason I used them only as a pointer to a print version---why knew what the quality really was?)  but how exactly does a digital photograph of the original have such a great distinction from a microfilmed photograph of the original? 

If you didn't access it online, there's no reason anyone should presume to require you to add the online info (should you go looking for that for all your sources you read some other way? I think not!).

[pandora]

<snip>. . . how exactly does a digital photograph of the original have such a great distinction from a microfilmed photograph of the original? 

Exactly!  I think this is precisely the "technology precedent" that makes the case for skipping all the URL info.  No one ever provides information about the microfilm version of a text (at least in my field).  I think the same standard applies here.

[octoprof]

<snip>. . . how exactly does a digital photograph of the original have such a great distinction from a microfilmed photograph of the original? 

Exactly!  I think this is precisely the "technology precedent" that makes the case for skipping all the URL info.  No one ever provides information about the microfilm version of a text (at least in my field).  I think the same standard applies here.

But, you have information that will make it easier for the reader to access exactly what you accessed and you want to supress it. Naughty, that is.