Feminist SF Wiki:Citing sources: Difference between revisions
(style guide) |
(notes) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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 17: | Line 17: | ||
* [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]] | |||
[[Category:Style guide|{{PAGENAME}}]] | |||
[[category:FSFwiki admin index|{{PAGENAME}}]] | |||
Latest revision as of 07:34, 9 March 2009
Ideally, factual statements that are not immediately, obviously verifiable should be referenced.
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
- attributed to an ascertainable individual (by that individual);
- reviewable on demand; and
- 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, 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.
External Links
See also
- FSFwiki:Privacy policy regarding citations supporting connections between pseudonyms and real life names