Fanlore talk:Citation

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

--Doro 15:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Public content - anyone with an Internet connection can access it [...] In general, you may quote, cite, and link public content.

Does this include wayback links?

do not quote limited access content and You may link to the main page of list, but you may not quote or cite content.

Given the context, I understand why I shoulnd't cite someone who doesn't want to be cited but why am I not allowed to quote? Can't I quote it as "[...] was posted to a mailing list in 2001" and then sign it with my user name (user:frogspace) without mentioning the OP (or the list, if they don't want to be linked to)? Isn't that the same as saying "As far as I remember [...] was posted to a handful of mailing lists between 1998 and 2000" (personal recollection user:frogspace)? In both cases I vouch for the reliabilty of the information with my name without dragging the OP into it while at the same time marking it as a subjective account.

What I'm trying to get at is the question of how do I handle a situation where I want to give my POV and describe what I have seen and experienced as an eyewitness? The way I understand the PPOV policy that should be possible, I just can't find anything about it in the citation rules.

Kaiz 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this include wayback links?

Yes! Since the page is in beta right now--meaning it's in flux, and thank you for the feedback :-), I'll add the Wayback Machine into the examples. Basically, treat Wayback links like public sources and follow the conventions for the source (e.g. if the creator asks for people to link to her warning page, do that rather than linking directly to a story, or picture, or whatever).

Can't I quote it as "[...] was posted to a mailing list in 2001" and then sign it with my user name (user:frogspace) without mentioning the OP (or the list, if they don't want to be linked to)?

The idea here was just that we shouldn't directly quote sources that aren't publicly accessible--meaning basically, that if the reader can't view the content directly without some kind of intervention (e.g. typing in a password, or getting a password from someone, or signing in to Yahoo groups and then requesting membership to a list, joining a LJ comm, etc.) then the content isn't public.

So, you could say something like (made up example): One SGA mailing list in August 2008 had a lengthy debate about the topic of photo manips at actor cons. But something like, In August of 2008 on the John/Rodney mailing list, Jane Fan sparked a month-long, heated debate by saying: "I really wish that people would stop giving photo manips to the actors at cons!" would not be okay--because of the quoting of Jane's words, not because of the mention of which mailing list she to which she posted.

Does that clarify things or make them more opaque? From your example, I'm not quite sure if I've understood your question correctly.

--Doro 09:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Basically, treat Wayback links like public sources and follow the conventions for the source
Oh, good. I wasn't sure about that because it could be that someone took down a page on purpose, didn't know about Wayback at the time and then moved on.
Does that clarify things or make them more opaque?
Hmm, I'm not sure. Does this mean I could paraphrase what Jane Fan said without mentioning her name?
An example I can think of is the definition of chanslash that was posted to the chanslash mailing list in one of the very first mails. The mailing list doesn't exist anymore and even if it did, it had restricted membership and a policy that it was forbidden to talk off-list about anything that happened on the list. Chanslash is a term that could end up in the glossary and as such it would be useful to have the original definition because it shows how the meaning has changed. Given your explanation, I could say that the mailing list gave a definition but the way I understand it, I couldn't say what the definition was. Am I wrong?

The only exception is if the content creator/s have explicitly allowed you to do so.

There are emails that I posted to DNF (the mailing list) with dates of when changes were made to the archive. DNF is a membership list so the post are not accessible unless you join which you can do so freely. How should I or anyone quote from them such that you will know it was done with my permission? --elgraves 04:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly quote yourself at any time, and the edit history will show that you are the one that added it, which I think makes your implicit permission to quote yourself clear. --Betty 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing fic

(I am not sure where to post general wiki-wide questions, so if there's a better place for this, please let me know!)

Concerning fic citations - is there any general formatting policy? I've seen a bunch of fic linked in reference footnotes, e.g. "An example is AuthorX's "Awesome Fic of Awesomeness"(footnote)" - and the footnote is simply a link to the fic. To me, in those cases, it makes more sense to link the fic directly and forgo the footnote, as it's not providing any extra info, and jumping down to it just adds an extra step for the reader. In other places the footnotes seems reasonable, e.g. "This is a popular trend in X/Y fics(footnote with title and link to example fic.)" Or is the list of referenced fics at the bottom of more use to readers?

Is there any consensus on this? Or is it anything goes? --Xparrot 08:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about official guidelines (I don't think there are any, but I'm not 100% sure), but I tend to go with the footnotes, because it allows the information for when it was last available (in case it vanishes or is locked later), also in case the fanwork already has (or might get at some point) an entry of its own, the internal wikilink can be in the text, and the external one in the footnote. --Ratcreature 09:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If a fanwork has its own entry, why does it need an external link in the footnote? Seems like it'd be easier to just keep the link on the fanwork's own page (that way if a fanwork moves, one doesn't have to go change the external link on every page that references it, but only on the one page?)
I'm mostly thinking about long pages with lots of footnotes - more convenient if fic-links can be clicked on in-text (and the footnote could state the last accessed date, if that's important?) --Xparrot 11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Because even if there is an article if you just want to read it or check out the original yourself an external link is more convenient and it's nice to have that on the same page, but if you want to know the history or read about some controversy surrounding it or whatever an internallink is the way to go. Also, for a lot of fic that had enough influence or discussions and stuff that you expect that there will be an internal entry eventually, that page may not exist yet, so if you put in the wikilink it goes nowhere and is of no help to the reader, so the additional footnote gives at least the location. If you put in just an external link someone has to remember to edit that to go to the internal one once that exists in all places that mention the fic.--Ratcreature 12:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[note to myself:] I think the a citation style for episodes/games/movies should totally be on the policy page, we need those all the time. (No-one's going to scroll through the APA pages just for correctly citing a Buffy episode.) I'll try and include that myself, but if someone beats me to it, np :) --lian 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Fanlore
Browse Categories
Help
Shortcuts for Editors
Toolbox