TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2010-09 > 1285782798
From: Rick Van Dusen <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Website source question.
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:53:18 -0700
References: <2010928232750.473417@Terry><4CA2B487.firstname.lastname@example.org> <007901cb5fd7$6ef49080$4cddb180$@net><4CA3717E.email@example.com>
The Date Viewed element is not critical with a book. For example, I've
read _Tin Horns and Calico_ a few different times since the 1960s. It
was published in 1945 and reprinted once. I've seen and read the first
in a few different libraries and I own a copy of the second edition.
Anything I cite from that book is in the book; if you can find a copy,
you can see it.
However, on the Internet, lifespans are measured in days and weeks.
Websites come and go, and pages are changed even more often. What I find
and read today might not be there tomorrow. Therefore, my citation of
"Webpages of Fiona Robison" which I viewed and gleaned from on 24
January 2002 is not going to be found by my readers because somewhere
along the way, it vanished; it's forever gone AFAIK. Therefore, a Web
source actually needs an "I saw it on that date, but I won't guarantee
it's still there" disclaimer, which is understood by all and thus
implied by the inclusion of the retrieval date.
Does that help you?
Rae Jean wrote:
> For citations pertaining to online websites, I do not include the _date
> viewed/accessed_ as part of my citation. I suppose the _date viewed_
> element could be considered important but I have never understood why.
> I do not note the date I view books but I do include their copyright
> date. Websites are not like a book in that they have an ever changing
> copyright so perhaps the _date viewed/accessed_ element is used instead
> of a copyright date.
> Generally I use the _main page address of the website_ for the URL...
> example for the current discussion would be www.findagrave.com.
> By choice, for my personal websites, I include citations that are in
> bibliography format. This, of course, is not as detailed as a full
> footnote would be. The citations often change as I find more reliable
> sources for the online details.
> ~ Rae Jean
|Re: [TMG] Website source question. by Rick Van Dusen <>|