At 11:49 AM -0500 2/22/97, Scott T. Meissner wrote:
>I am not willing to accept these sources in the
>place of peer reviewed published articles that are
>permanently accessible.
Nor am I. We agree on this much. What is currently
being published in traditional ways stands on its
own and MUST be cited as such. WE AGREE ON THIS,
Scott. I have written to you personally about this.
I think this thread has blown way out of proportion
due to a misunderstanding. I did not, and never have
attempted to write that WWW citations are better than
or could ever replace citations of primary sources in
traditional media. I have tried to articulate that
style manuals now have "correct" citation forms for WWW
sources and that there is refereed material on the WWW
that does not exist in traditional media. It is and
will increasingly be important to cite this material
correctly in papers: both professional and student.
I have NEVER said that secondary WWW pages replace
primary sources in traditional media. NEVER. There are
and will be more PRIMARY sources on WWW pages that
will need to be cited properly. SIMPLY THAT.
I really don't want to write more on this subject.
ross
_______________________________________________________________
Ross Koning | koning at ecsu.ctstateu.edu
Biology Department | http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/
Eastern CT State University | phone: 860-465-5327
Willimantic, CT 06226 USA | fax: 860-465-4479
____________________________|__________________________________
