Feminist SF Wiki:Citing sources - Revision history

Lquilter: notes

2009-03-09T15:34:40Z

notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 9 March 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:
	==External Links==		==External Links==
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia Citing Sources]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia Citing Sources]

			==See also==
			* [[FSFwiki:Privacy policy]] regarding citations supporting connections between pseudonyms and real life names



	[[Category:Style guide\|{{PAGENAME}}]]		[[Category:Style guide\|{{PAGENAME}}]]
			[[category:FSFwiki admin index\|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Lquilter: fix

2009-02-26T14:15:48Z

fix

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:15, 26 February 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:


	[[Category:Style guide\|{{~~PAGEAME~~}}]]		[[Category:Style guide\|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Lquilter: cn

2009-02-26T14:15:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:15, 26 February 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:
	# critiquable by any review.		# critiquable by any review.

	Statements which are more along the lines of an individual observation than independent research should be made carefully and indicated that they are the reactions of ''some'', not necessarily all. This is important, because not all feminists will have the same reaction to a characterization, term, or plot twist. This does not mean your observation is invalid, or untrue. If it was notable to you, though, it might be notable to others; and it might help raise someone else's consciousness or affirm someone else's sense. In fact, this probably suggests that your observation should be included, attributed accurately (is it a statement of fact? is it your reading? is it a reading that you and every other person you know has made? is it a reading that you and every other feminist you know has made?), and ''linked'' to another page tha explains more about this phenomena.		Statements which are more along the lines of an individual observation than independent research should be made carefully and indicated that they are the reactions of ''some'', not necessarily all, and ideally with some specific cites to blogs, papers, etc. This is important, because not all feminists will have the same reaction to a characterization, term, or plot twist. This does not mean your observation is invalid, or untrue. If it was notable to you, though, it might be notable to others; and it might help raise someone else's consciousness or affirm someone else's sense. In fact, this probably suggests that your observation should be included, attributed accurately (is it a statement of fact? is it your reading? is it a reading that you and every other person you know has made? is it a reading that you and every other feminist you know has made?), and ''linked'' to another page tha explains more about this phenomena.

	Reasonably supported rants are permitted, too, but since a wiki is not a personal publishing platform, but a collaborative endeavor, one may not expect one's rant to remain untouched, even by people with whom one disagrees vehemently.		Reasonably supported rants are permitted, too, but since a wiki is not a personal publishing platform, but a collaborative endeavor, one may not expect one's rant to remain untouched, even by people with whom one disagrees vehemently.
Line 19:		Line 19:


	[[Category:Style guide]]		[[Category:Style guide\|{{PAGEAME}}]]

Lquilter: Citing sources moved to FSFwiki:Citing sources

2007-02-19T20:09:26Z

Citing sources moved to FSFwiki:Citing sources

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:09, 19 February 2007
(No difference)

Lquilter: style guide

2007-02-19T02:42:04Z

style guide

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 18 February 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:


	[[Category:Style ~~Guide~~]]		[[Category:Style guide]]

Lquilter: even rants are okay but will be edited

2007-01-04T17:59:16Z

even rants are okay but will be edited

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:59, 4 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ideally, factual statements that are not immediately, obviously verifiable should be referenced.		Ideally, factual statements that are not immediately, obviously verifiable should be referenced.

	==Personal research must be referenced, attributed, reviewable, and critiquable==		==Personal research is permissible==

			But it must be referenced, attributed, reviewable, and critiquable ...

	Provisionally, personal research is okay, but it needs to be described and credited as such, by a recognizable and findable identity--either a real name or a well-established pseudonym with history, reputation, and a chain of connections to a real person who has met the person under the pseudonym. Research not yet published must be able to be supported, and intended for publication of some sort. Web publication is fine. If appropriate, research may be published at http://feministsf.net/ . Basically, to be citeable, unpublished research must be		Provisionally, personal research is okay, but it needs to be described and credited as such, by a recognizable and findable identity--either a real name or a well-established pseudonym with history, reputation, and a chain of connections to a real person who has met the person under the pseudonym. Research not yet published must be able to be supported, and intended for publication of some sort. Web publication is fine. If appropriate, research may be published at http://feministsf.net/ . Basically, to be citeable, unpublished research must be
	# attributed to an ascertainable individual (''by'' that individual);		# attributed to an ascertainable individual (''by'' that individual);
Line 8:		Line 11:

	Statements which are more along the lines of an individual observation than independent research should be made carefully and indicated that they are the reactions of ''some'', not necessarily all. This is important, because not all feminists will have the same reaction to a characterization, term, or plot twist. This does not mean your observation is invalid, or untrue. If it was notable to you, though, it might be notable to others; and it might help raise someone else's consciousness or affirm someone else's sense. In fact, this probably suggests that your observation should be included, attributed accurately (is it a statement of fact? is it your reading? is it a reading that you and every other person you know has made? is it a reading that you and every other feminist you know has made?), and ''linked'' to another page tha explains more about this phenomena.		Statements which are more along the lines of an individual observation than independent research should be made carefully and indicated that they are the reactions of ''some'', not necessarily all. This is important, because not all feminists will have the same reaction to a characterization, term, or plot twist. This does not mean your observation is invalid, or untrue. If it was notable to you, though, it might be notable to others; and it might help raise someone else's consciousness or affirm someone else's sense. In fact, this probably suggests that your observation should be included, attributed accurately (is it a statement of fact? is it your reading? is it a reading that you and every other person you know has made? is it a reading that you and every other feminist you know has made?), and ''linked'' to another page tha explains more about this phenomena.

			Reasonably supported rants are permitted, too, but since a wiki is not a personal publishing platform, but a collaborative endeavor, one may not expect one's rant to remain untouched, even by people with whom one disagrees vehemently.

	==External Links==		==External Links==

Lquilter: /* Personal research must be referenced, attributed, reviewable, and critiquable */

2006-11-05T17:38:02Z

Personal research must be referenced, attributed, reviewable, and critiquable

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:38, 5 November 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	# attributed to an ascertainable individual (''by'' that individual);		# attributed to an ascertainable individual (''by'' that individual);
	# reviewable on demand; and		# reviewable on demand; and
	# critiquable by any review.		# critiquable by any review.






			Statements which are more along the lines of an individual observation than independent research should be made carefully and indicated that they are the reactions of ''some'', not necessarily all. This is important, because not all feminists will have the same reaction to a characterization, term, or plot twist. This does not mean your observation is invalid, or untrue. If it was notable to you, though, it might be notable to others; and it might help raise someone else's consciousness or affirm someone else's sense. In fact, this probably suggests that your observation should be included, attributed accurately (is it a statement of fact? is it your reading? is it a reading that you and every other person you know has made? is it a reading that you and every other feminist you know has made?), and ''linked'' to another page tha explains more about this phenomena.

	==External Links==		==External Links==

Lquilter at 17:22, 5 November 2006

2006-11-05T17:22:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:22, 5 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ideally, factual statements that are not immediately, obviously verifiable should be referenced.		Ideally, factual statements that are not immediately, obviously verifiable should be referenced.

	Provisionally, personal research is okay, but it needs to be described and credited as such, by a recognizable and findable identity--either a real name or a well-established pseudonym with history, reputation, and a chain of connections to a real person who has met the person under the pseudonym. Research not yet published must be able to be supported, and intended for publication of some sort. Web publication is fine. If appropriate, research may be published at http://feministsf.net/ . Basically, to be citeable, research must be		==Personal research must be referenced, attributed, reviewable, and critiquable==
	# ~~credited~~ to an ascertainable individual;		Provisionally, personal research is okay, but it needs to be described and credited as such, by a recognizable and findable identity--either a real name or a well-established pseudonym with history, reputation, and a chain of connections to a real person who has met the person under the pseudonym. Research not yet published must be able to be supported, and intended for publication of some sort. Web publication is fine. If appropriate, research may be published at http://feministsf.net/ . Basically, to be citeable, unpublished research must be
			# attributed to an ascertainable individual (''by'' that individual);
	# reviewable on demand; and		# reviewable on demand; and
	# critiquable by any review.		# critiquable by any review.

Lquilter at 17:19, 5 November 2006

2006-11-05T17:19:35Z

New page

Ideally, factual statements that are not immediately, obviously verifiable should be referenced.

Provisionally, personal research is okay, but it needs to be described and credited as such, by a recognizable and findable identity--either a real name or a well-established pseudonym with history, reputation, and a chain of connections to a real person who has met the person under the pseudonym. Research not yet published must be able to be supported, and intended for publication of some sort. Web publication is fine. If appropriate, research may be published at http://feministsf.net/ . Basically, to be citeable, research must be
# credited to an ascertainable individual;
# reviewable on demand; and
# critiquable by any review.

==External Links==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia Citing Sources]

[[Category:Style Guide]]