Feminist SF Wiki:Citing sources: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| 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== | ||
Revision as of 09:38, 5 November 2006
Ideally, factual statements that are not immediately, obviously verifiable should be referenced.
Personal research 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 Basically, to be citeable, unpublished research must be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. 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.