Roll Call Vote, please?
singhals
Hey, all y'all ...
Maybe it's me, maybe it's not. But ---
I write you a letter saying (whatever) about my family. You
casually pass on the interesting bits to another party, who was in
desperate need of a column for the next day, and uses it, giving an
en passant mention to you as the source.
Up to here, I'm OK with it. Here's my sticking point:
I see the article, recognize the "voice" as my own, but ask for
permission to republish it in my newsletter; when it's published, it
gives the impression that you have independently come to the same
conclusion I reached.
*That* doesn't seem right. You didn't reach my conclusion, you
simply repeated my conclusion. Not fair for me to quote myself in a
way that will mislead most readers.
What's your take? Am I just being picky, or is something fishy in
Denmark ?
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
donkelly
Even from sparse details it appears to be fishy somewhere.
One of our oft written tenents as genealogy researchers is to give
credit for what we use.
don
donkelly <ocol...@comcast.net>
Bob Melson
Picky and paranoid. Seems to me you're creating a problem here
where none exists. YOU are the original source of information in
the later article. You have every right, IMNSHO, to publish that
information in your newsletter, tho' you may not republish the later
article without permission due to copyright considerations - and I'd
question why you'd want to do anything more than mention it, if even
that.
Suspicious Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
Bob Melson <amia...@mypacks.net>
Ian Goddard
No, I don't think you're being picky.
OTOH I think your options are (a) to point out to the 3rd party that
you were, in fact, the source and ask for a correction clarifying
this and also ask the 2nd party to join you in that (if the 2nd
party really were me I'd like to think that I'd disclaim being the
source without prodding); and, if that fails, (b) to set the record
straight in your newsletter including the original letter in full
(or as full as possible, given that there might be material not for
publication).
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
Wes Groleau
singhals wrote:
> I write you a letter saying (whatever) about my family. You
> casually pass on the interesting bits to another party, who was in
> desperate need of a column for the next day, and uses it, giving an
> en passant mention to you as the source.
I would write the columnist and ask him/her to correct the
attribution. I would also ask him/her in the future to "do the
homework" to properly attribute the _real_ source of any hearsay.
Not because I have some desperate need to see my name in print but
because it helps all scholars to know where the information actually
came from.
(And before the flames fly, I am well aware I have not done very
well at following my own advice in the past.)
> I see the article, recognize the "voice" as my own, but ask for
> permission to republish it in my newsletter; when it's published, it
Why would you ask someone else's permission to publish your own
words?
> *That* doesn't seem right. You didn't reach my conclusion, you
> simply repeated my conclusion. Not fair for me to quote myself in a
> way that will mislead most readers.
If you are the source, why should you even need to mention either of
the other two people? The only reason I could see for that would be
if one of them got it wrong and you were alerting others of that
fact.
--
Wes Groleau
Fossilization =E2=80=A6 to teachers.
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=3D1476
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
J. Hugh Sullivan
Actually you were not his source. It was the "another party".
However, since he published I think honesty dictates that he check
the original source (Mrs. Singhals) to verify. And he should give
proper credit. I'd be on him like a duck on a Junebug - assuming you
can prove you were the original.
Failure to give proper credit is the main reason I don't divulge my
info except on a limited basis and only one-on-one.
To ease up a bit, genealogy has become popular and we think we don't
need training wheels. When we tire of erasing paper entries we ask
about a computer program. We look at Ancestry and LDS records,
assume they are without error, and enter 10,000 names. We don't
check sources, we don't prove or disprove what we find (well, I do
and I expect you do).
When I point one finger of blame at another, three fingers point to
me. Those who have a smidgen of knowledge need to impart it to those
who don't. I remember when Bruce, Bob Velke and others were here and
we could profit from their knowledge. I didn't always agree with the
purists but we had a chance to discuss and modify our opinions if
necessary. Maybe they have passed the torch to us.
Maybe what we need is a website for "How to Genealogy" and everyone
could be referred to that.
Sorry, I got carried away and strayed from your problem. Or, maybe I
should be carried away.
Hugh
Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
Huntersglenn
Unfortunately, if you quote what was in the other newsletter, the
one that's already been published, then you can't avoid quoting
yourself. If it was me, I'd ignore the article and write my own
article, using my notes, etc. and publish that - that way you don't
end up having to quote yourself from another article, and might even
end up providing more insight than what the first published article
has, since it was just a bit of information that you had originally
passed on.
As far as pickiness goes, I don't think it was right for the third
party to have used your information in their column without first
getting your permission. Might have been legal, since they
presumably obtained permission from the person to who you wrote the
letter to, and that gives that person control over the contents of
the letter (although that can sometimes be up for debate as well),
but legal doesn't always equal right.
If you decide to go on and use the already published article, you
could preface it with a note detailing how that article came into
being, just as you did here, and that what's in the article is your
conclusion, and not that of the column writer. It still results in
you basically quoting yourself, but does put the column/article into
perspective and should eliminate confusion as to who drew the
conclusions that were reached.
Take care,
Cathy
Huntersglenn <hunter...@cox.net>
ka7suz
> Hey, all y'all ...[snip]
>
> *That* doesn't seem right. You didn't reach my conclusion, you
> simply repeated my conclusion. Not fair for me to quote myself in a
> way that will mislead most readers.
>
> Denmark ?
>
I know my opinion will bring howls of outrage...it always does.
I do not 'publish' my research on the internet (someone else has
already done a hatchet job on some of my lines and will not amend or
suggest 'their' research has conflicts.) When your proven/
documented 'conclusions' are debated or ignored, one tends to pass
on opportunities to share. So saying, I do have a handful of
trusted, friends which I KNOW do not share willy-nilly and who are
as determined as I am to prove facts or gather enough for a
'preponderance of evidence' (leaving room for adjustment)
conclusion.
So, Cheryl, I would never authorize use of my work in publications
hard copy or interent and would certainly resent misuse of it.
But, also my question for the members of this list. I have recently
been alerted that someone 'only needs my parents names' to do the
genealogy of an adopted grandchild. Normally I would not hesitate
to help a child to which some relationship -- EXCEPT the person who
will request says 'she can do the rest from here' - which I suppose
is on the interent. This is not a person I wish to develop a
relationship with, to teach her, or explain to her that she can not
do the rest 'from here.' Suggestions welcome. :-)
JoAnn
ka7suz <ka7...@concentric.net>
Joe Makowiec
> Might have been legal, since they presumably obtained permission
> from the person to who you wrote the letter to, and that gives that
> person control over the contents of the letter (although that can
> sometimes be up for debate as well), but legal doesn't always equal
> right.
>
I Am Not A Lawyer. However, As I Understand It, it's well-
established that the writer of the letter retains copyright, even if
somebody else posesses the physical letter. So they can offer the
(physical) letter for sale, but cannot offer its contents for
publication.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Joe Makowiec <mako...@invalid.invalid>
Ian Goddard
> Maybe what we need is a website for "How to Genealogy" and everyone
> could be referred to that.
>
This was intended as an FAQ for soc.genealogy.britain but it may be
more generally useful: http://www.genealogy-britain.org.uk
singhals
> Even from sparse details it appears to be fishy somewhere.
>
> One of our oft written tenents as genealogy researchers is to give
> credit for what we use.
>
I appreciate (very much!) the multiple assertions of my right to get
credit, but credit isn't my issue. I've got several things under my
belt that I never received credit for and in several instances was
unaware I should have received credit, so ehhh, what's one more?
My issue is more -- if I tell Dr. B something, and he tells J. Hugh,
and J. Hugh publishes it ... is it fair to the reader for me to cite
Hugh's publication as support for what I said?
Seems to me that is misleading.
But I do appreciate your kind thoughts about due credit! (g)
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Bob Melson
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 18:35, singhals (sing...@erols.com) opined:
<snip>
> My issue is more -- if I tell Dr. B something, and he tells J. Hugh,
> and J. Hugh publishes it ... is it fair to the reader for me to cite
> Hugh's publication as support for what I said?
In a word, no. You cite _your_ original research and conclusions.
So-what Ol' Bob
Gene Y.
Cheryl,
If I understand you correctly, yes it would be misleading and even
possibly unethical. What you would be doing is basically saying
that because I said it and Dr. B and J. Hugh repeated it it must be
true because I've just said it again. Sort of like circular
reasoning.
--
Gene Y.
"Gene Y." <n2...@cfl.rr.com>
Steve Hayes
> I appreciate (very much!) the multiple assertions of my right to get
> credit, but credit isn't my issue. I've got several things under my
> belt that I never received credit for and in several instances was
> unaware I should have received credit, so ehhh, what's one more?
>
> My issue is more -- if I tell Dr. B something, and he tells J. Hugh,
> and J. Hugh publishes it ... is it fair to the reader for me to cite
> Hugh's publication as support for what I said?
>
> Seems to me that is misleading.
>
> But I do appreciate your kind thoughts about due credit! (g)
>
It's becoming increasingly common in genealogy as more people share
family information.
I solicited information from family members, compiled it into a
family trea, which i sent to the people who provided me with
information. They then compiled their own family tree, getting their
information from mine and other sources. When I record sources in my
computer files, I sometimes cite these family trees, which include
information that came from me in the first place.
In another field I've found a view strongly supported by an
impressive number of citations of various expert researchers, but on
closer examination it turns out that they are all citing a single
source, who had no evidence but was merely speculating.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net>
Wes Groleau
> My issue is more -- if I tell Dr. B something, and he tells J. Hugh,
> and J. Hugh publishes it ... is it fair to the reader for me to cite
> Hugh's publication as support for what I said?
>
> Seems to me that is misleading.
>
Indeed. That would be using your point to prove your point.
--
Wes Groleau
"Discussion"
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=44
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
Huntersglenn
> I appreciate (very much!) the multiple assertions of my right to get
> credit, but credit isn't my issue. I've got several things under my
> belt that I never received credit for and in several instances was
> unaware I should have received credit, so ehhh, what's one more?
>
> My issue is more -- if I tell Dr. B something, and he tells J. Hugh,
> and J. Hugh publishes it ... is it fair to the reader for me to cite
> Hugh's publication as support for what I said?
>
> Seems to me that is misleading.
>
> But I do appreciate your kind thoughts about due credit! (g)
>
Ah, I understand it now.
If 'J. Hugh' used your information and presented it in a way that
you feel is better than you could have presented it, then you should
do what I mentioned above, and ask 'J. Hugh' if he supports what you
said (I know that sounds as if I'm ordering you to do something, and
I'm not. Just can't think of a different way to write it). If
that's a yes, then you'd be safe to quote or cite that column as
support and not have it be misleading to your readers. But if you
can't get an answer from 'J. Hugh', or the answer is no, then it
would be misleading, and you'd need to present your own facts and
theories and not cite the column at all.
And, I think the most important thing here is something that you
wrote - you yourself feel that it would be misleading, which tells
me that you don't feel comfortable citing that column - good enough
reason for me for you to not cite it, no matter what any of us say.
Ian Goddard
Credit is only one side of it. The other is that if any readers of
the newsletter make use of the information they need to know its
true origin.
J. Hugh Sullivan
I would start your article this way, Cheryl...
I was pleased to note that J. Hugh used my conclusions as the basis
for his recently published article. Such a nice compliment to my
thorough research is appreciated.
That establishes you as the authority and eliminates the need to
answer the fair play question in my opinion. You have cited the
report, salvaged your ego and made another man honest. And it leaves
J. Hugh with nowhere to hide. Sweetness is often a killer.
Wes Groleau
> In another field I've found a view strongly supported by an
> impressive number of citations of various expert researchers, but on
> closer examination it turns out that they are all citing a single
> source, who had no evidence but was merely speculating.
>
I've often wondered, when a historian cites numerous sources from
the middle ages as evidence that King Y killed King X in 200 A.D.,
does he really know all those sources weren't based on the 200 A.D.
equivalent of the National Enquirer?
In the early 1980s, I had a Psychology major roommate, who was fond
of saying something like
"Psychological literature is
- 10% empirical research
- 30% stuff that seems like it ought to be true
- 60% quoting the 30%"
And then I wonder whether Chesterton was saying the 10% destroyed
the 30% ....
--
Wes Groleau
It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
-- G. K. Chesterton
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
Kris
> In another field I've found a view strongly supported by an
> impressive number of citations of various expert researchers, but on
> closer examination it turns out that they are all citing a single
> source, who had no evidence but was merely speculating.
>
This reminds me of a situation in my own tree that I haven't done
any digging on in awhile. When I first started, it looked like
determining my husband's gg-grandfather would be easy, since
"everyone else" already had done the leg work. Unfortunately, the
connection seems to be based solely, so far, anyway, on research
published in a big, expensive, out-of-print book that I haven't been
able to get my hands on yet.
I think I'll put that guy on my to-do list this year. Thanks for
the reminder. :-)
Kris <m...@invalid.invalid>
Wes Groleau
> connection seems to be based solely, so far, anyway, on research
> published in a big, expensive, out-of-print book that I haven't been
>
Can you state the title and author? (And the name of the person?)
--
Wes Groleau
An example of how important grammar points are deferred
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1560
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
singhals
> > In another field I've found a view strongly supported by an
> > impressive number of citations of various expert researchers, but on
> > closer examination it turns out that they are all citing a single
> > source, who had no evidence but was merely speculating.
> >
>
> This reminds me of a situation in my own tree that I haven't done
> any digging on in awhile. When I first started, it looked like
> determining my husband's gg-grandfather would be easy, since
> "everyone else" already had done the leg work. Unfortunately, the
> published in a big, expensive, out-of-print book that I haven't been
>
> I think I'll put that guy on my to-do list this year. Thanks for
> the reminder. :-)
>
> Kris <m...@invalid.invalid>
Might want to name names and book titles. There's an amazing width
of access sloshing around her.
Cheryl
Kris
> > connection seems to be based solely, so far, anyway, on research
> > published in a big, expensive, out-of-print book that I haven't been
> >
> > Kris
>
> Can you state the title and author? (And the name of the person?)
>
Thanks, Wes (and Cheryl!) but I've found that the Allen County
Library has the book and they're sending me the pages I need. So --
here's hoping the author sourced this work, which will at least give
me an idea of where to start.
Kris
Why are my posts not appearing as they are written? I understand
this is a moderated group -- does the software strip attributions
and add other information to the post that is displayed?
[ The answer is "Yes". Within bounds, Methods posts all appear
in the same format that's been used for almost two decades now.
The moderator uses a set of macros to move posts into standard
format, usually achieving the desired result but occasionally
producing spectacularly mangled posts. (I try not to let those
messes loose on the group, and deal with them manually ... ;) )
Cheers, Mod ]
Kris <m...@invalid.invalid>