19-04-2017, 01:46 AM
(This post was last modified: 19-04-2017, 02:00 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: clarity
)
My principle is simple.
There's no good reason, and no excuse for reading, repeating, re-using or even distorting material you read first in some other Voynich researcher's work, yet allowing others to imagine the matter a fruit of your own research.
You use it; you say where you got it. Simple. Otherwise, it might be thought the omission is a means to convey the false impression that you, yourself, are the person who did the work.
It's not so bad if you forget, and add an appeal for information about precedents - I do that all the time.
But any of the old-timers know when a new insight, opinion, conclusions from research first appeared on the scene. And if you want to check priority, just look at the publication dates (not web-pages, of course. Papers published in blogs or in hard copy give this information).
As example - I'd be very grateful to hear of any prior hint of connection made, in Voynich studies, between Guglielmo Libri and Fr. Beckx before I published several posts from the research I was then doing. Had anyone noticed the connection, or investigated, written about or brought it to the notice of other Voynicheros before?
In what is just one instance of the myriad over the past eight years - and certainly not only in connection with my work contributed online - I see the matter now being made use of and actually published by another person (at least one) without my having been given the courtesy of request for permission, nor subsequent acknowledgement on re-use.
As I say, that small detail is just one among the considerable number of such 'errors of omission' - which affect my ability to track ideas to their source as much as anyone else's.
I'm certainly not the first to have then decided, as I then did, not to share any more of that investigation online - it won't appear now until it appears in hardcopy.
There's no good reason to hamper newcomers' efforts to survey earlier work and trace those now-prevalent assertions to their source. To re-evaluate the evidence on which commonly-held notions were first based is the essence of scholarship - in the real world.
There's no good reason for giving a false impression, by simply announcing as if the idea were your own, that some new finding is yours when you've actually read or heard it from the person who took time and trouble to do real research
No good reason.
There's no good reason, and no excuse for reading, repeating, re-using or even distorting material you read first in some other Voynich researcher's work, yet allowing others to imagine the matter a fruit of your own research.
You use it; you say where you got it. Simple. Otherwise, it might be thought the omission is a means to convey the false impression that you, yourself, are the person who did the work.
It's not so bad if you forget, and add an appeal for information about precedents - I do that all the time.
But any of the old-timers know when a new insight, opinion, conclusions from research first appeared on the scene. And if you want to check priority, just look at the publication dates (not web-pages, of course. Papers published in blogs or in hard copy give this information).
As example - I'd be very grateful to hear of any prior hint of connection made, in Voynich studies, between Guglielmo Libri and Fr. Beckx before I published several posts from the research I was then doing. Had anyone noticed the connection, or investigated, written about or brought it to the notice of other Voynicheros before?
In what is just one instance of the myriad over the past eight years - and certainly not only in connection with my work contributed online - I see the matter now being made use of and actually published by another person (at least one) without my having been given the courtesy of request for permission, nor subsequent acknowledgement on re-use.
As I say, that small detail is just one among the considerable number of such 'errors of omission' - which affect my ability to track ideas to their source as much as anyone else's.
I'm certainly not the first to have then decided, as I then did, not to share any more of that investigation online - it won't appear now until it appears in hardcopy.
There's no good reason to hamper newcomers' efforts to survey earlier work and trace those now-prevalent assertions to their source. To re-evaluate the evidence on which commonly-held notions were first based is the essence of scholarship - in the real world.
There's no good reason for giving a false impression, by simply announcing as if the idea were your own, that some new finding is yours when you've actually read or heard it from the person who took time and trouble to do real research
No good reason.