APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-03 > 1238018378


From: Drew Smith <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Citing Facebook
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:59:38 -0400
References: <mailman.163.1238002048.23215.apg@rootsweb.com> <0FDD0BA4-261A-45F6-A329-CD52F97B8059@att.net><01d701c9ad8d$4d8e5fa0$e8ab1ee0$@net>
In-Reply-To: <01d701c9ad8d$4d8e5fa0$e8ab1ee0$@net>


On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:04 PM, <> wrote:
> Carolyn, I love answering questions with questions <g>. So, as we ponder
> what to cite, let me ask a couple of generic questions and we'll see who
> among the tweeters on this group has the courage to speak up first: How,
> exactly, would that Twitter message differ from an "old-fashioned" telephone
> call or letter---or a now ho-hum e-mail or even a newfangled text message?
> What are the defining elements? With that answer in mind, how should they be
> presented?

It wouldn't differ.

The defining elements are (1) what type of communication it is, (2)
who sent it, (3) who it was sent to, (4) when it was sent.

In this case, (1) is "tweet", possibly modified as either "private" or
"public," (2) is the name of the person who sent it, or only their
Twitter name if their real name isn't known, (3) is included if the
tweet was sent privately, or to a limited group (but otherwise the
type might be "public tweet" if it wasn't limited), and (4) would be a
date and time, because more than one tweet could be sent in a day.

Using the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.) as a model, sections
17.208 and 17.209 on pages 706-707 are relevant. So a tweet might
appear in a note as one of the following:

1. John Tweeting Genealogist, private tweet to author, March 25, 2009,
5:53 PM ET.
2. genetweeter, public tweet, March 25, 2009, 5:58 PM ET.

***

Drew Smith


This thread: