[LINK] Copyright questions

[Jan Whitaker]

At 12:03 PM 25/03/2011, Tom Koltai wrote:
>that is usually sufficient for a
>bibliography.
>(This was in fact the only style of citations for over five hundred
>years, until the advent of the ubiquitous google Dewey replacement.)

Not exactly true. Before electronic access and still today, there is 
the field of publisher information or at least a source for the 
document. You don't need Dewey for that at all. ISBN, yes, but that's 
a very different coding system.

As for reasons, why is it only academic purposes? That implies 
referencing is limited to scholarship. We include a referencing 
requirement in our professional development program so that there is 
documentation of the ideas (you didn't just make it up), support of 
arguments or counter-arguments, and credit to the originator. Those 
aren't academic reasons, but are good professional practice.

Am I good at it? I'm awful at it. Still, it's good professional 
discipline and makes people think deeper about things instead of 
working only on the surface, particularly if a company's long-term 
existence relies on what is being presented. Synthesis of ideas is 
good. Originality and initiative is good. Blowing smoke isn't good.

Jan



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _