The Voynich Ninja

Rene, I agree that blogging can be done in a way which does not require one to look for every possible precedent. Some people just want to write what they think, and personally I'm fine with that, as long as they don't steal ideas they have read elsewhere before. It's just not fair to demand from hobby bloggers that they perform an exhaustive search. But if they have read precedents, they should mention them, plagiarism is plagiarism in every context.

So well, I hope Diane will see that there are different kinds of publications and that leisure bloggers cannot be expected to do the work required for academic publications. Some intellectual honesty is all we should expect, from everyone.

On the subject of intellectual honesty though, your statement that Diane doesn't cite D'Imperio is simply untrue. Even in the state of her blog now with many posts removed, "D'Imperio" gives 27 search results, mostly citations or references with page number:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That's just from the top search results, there's much more.
She does not hide the fact that she doesn't like D'Imperio's book, which is not forbidden in academic contexts. Many academics criticize each others' work, luckily! But that she does not refer to D'Imperio in the same way you often ignore Diane's work is objectively untrue.

Diane wrote:

Quote:I completely agree that Google searches are not enough/

But they are a start - and a first, easy step is all I was suggesting, since Searcher seems not to have done it.

Diane, please, specify what do you mean? If you know precendents, inform me.

Searcher, don't worry about it.

If it's your own idea and your own blog, you don't have to do weeks of tedious research to see if someone else independently had the same idea.



If you are submitting for publication, it's different, there are certain standards, and you have to look up the historical background before submitting, because it is expected that you are aware of the previous research and will acknowledge any that might have affected your thinking.


..
Looking up historic precedents, even a simple one, can sometimes take weeks or months and not all sources are online. If you looked up the history of every single idea that is your own idea, it might take you a year before you could post the blog. That's simply not practical.


Just be as honest as you can. If you got the idea somewhere else, credit it. If you didn't get it somewhere else, don't worry about it unless you are submitting for publication.

(12-02-2018, 07:15 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If I may sum up, I think we are all in agreement that prior subject matter should be quoted where-ever possible. Notwithstanding that, it may be a little heavy handed to demand rigorous standards of academic professionalism from people posting on their personal blogs.

But we should always remember to post sources as much as possible. Apart from anything else, it makes our job of convincing the reader much easier, as we are able to draw upon the work of other people to bolster our own case.

David, it is true that links and sources, if not must to be, but are very desirable, even for those who post their articles. The memory sometimes does a bad turn, no one can remember everything . Besides of it, it is good for readers and for those who searches a picture in the internet. For example, I hate, if I find a needed picture, but all sights or blogs place it without a data about its source. I don't know whether you saw my blog or not, but I can say that I have missed to point two sources of my comparisons to the VMs fragments which were added the next morning, moreover, my comparisons were updated according to my current observations. 
Not to point to sources or authors of quotes or rephrased quotes from books or articles and posts is quite another thing. There are many undoubtful, well known and official sources at our disposal wich, of course, must be mentioned in the post. But it doesn't concern personal conclusions of researcher, even, if they coincide or agree with someone's idea. Usually, such idea itself is absolutely not the main thing: alchemical, herbal, astrological; Manichean, alien, Italian, German - it doesn't matter at all. It doen't solve any problem, these all are suppositions and speculations if they are not corroborated by the whole idea, theory, if it is not equiped with explanations and analysis. 
If you will take a look at my blogposts, you will see that all quotes, all sources and links are present, more than enough. I don't think that I must quote and poin to those who think and thought before me that the manuscript, for example, may have an alchemical context as this is not news in my post, it is not the general idea. Truly, I didn't thought that it can be alchemical at the beginning. This idea has appeared only in view of my observations and comparisons, so it is not logical to point that my idea about alchemical context has appeared because people say so.
Diane wrote:

Quote:The aim is to help the study advance, by making clear where we got a particular idea about the manuscript

Thus, Diane may be unworried as I didn't quote anyone's own theory at all, I mentioned only my thought and well known generally formulated suppositions, discussed many times and suggested by many people in forums, blogs, Yale library description and Wikipedia without certain names, but with the point that it was supposed by many researchers earlier.

(13-02-2018, 12:17 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Searcher, don't worry about it.

If it's your own idea and your own blog, you don't have to do weeks of tedious research to see if someone else independently had the same idea.
...
Just be as honest as you can. If you got the idea somewhere else, credit it. If you didn't get it somewhere else, don't worry about it unless you are submitting for publication.

Thanks, JKP and Rene!

Anyway, all can read and judge. It appears that the main theme and aim of the blogpost is quite lost behind this diversion. Nevertheless, if someone think that I quoted someone not pointing a source, took one's theory or conception with specific details, welcome to point it out. I'm always ready for a rational discussion.

Quote:this topic flares up every three months on average. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

David, I do sympathise with you, and that is not meant in any way sarcastically.
This forum exists now for three years?

I have had to read for more than eight years things like "I was the first to say this", "you all don't know how to cite in a scholarly manner" and "people are stealing material from my blog".  The first two are easy enough to ignore but not so the third.

A little introspection may not be out of place here. The moderation has not been able to stop this issue. There was an ultimatum [will not be tolerated anymore]  and when that did not work there was a plea [can you please refrain...].
And now, bloggers are told by Diane they have to quote her in order not to be exposed to such accusations, which seems to meet with approval. I'm sure you did not mean it that way, but that's how it comes across.

I'm more than happy to leave this matter here. It is indeed totally boring, and there are many more interesting things going on.

To Koen: I posted my complaint vis-a-vis inconsistency based on a very concrete example where a "first mentioned here (and will soon be copied on some web site)" was a topic that could immediately be found in D'Imperio's index. Indeed, this has now gone away in the latest blog, and I applaud this recent improvement.