Re: [tips] Plagiarism & general knowledge

[Christopher Green]

You make an interesting point about future readers, Mike. It is hard to know 
what they will have read, believe, or "know." On the other hand, over-citation 
(of the obvious) can undermine the credibility of a writer as easily as 
under-citation. I don't think there's a single "right" answer here, but the old 
advice to undergrads that you should have at least on citation for every claim 
one makes is obvious overkill in the actual published literature. There is a 
judgment call to be made.

I think you may have misread what I said in my example about James: viz., if I 
mentioned his participation in spiritualism in an article intended for a 
history of psych journal, I might not provide a citation for the claim because 
it is well known in that readership. (Of course, if the article were centrally 
about James' spiritualism, then I probably would cite because I would be likely 
be adjudicating among the details of various accounts and interpretations of 
that fact.) On the other hand, if i were writing for non-historians, I would 
probably provide a citation or two because the claim would be new and perhaps 
startling to many members of that readership.

Neither of these are hard and fast "rules." Context is king. They were just 
illustrative examples.

Best,
Chris
-
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Mike Palij  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 08:42:39 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
>> Many good points, Dap! You even have these kinds of differences
>> among different subfields of psychology, not just different nationalities.
>> For instance, every historian of psychology knows that William James
>> was highly active in the spiritualist movement from the 1880s until
>> his death, but many non-historian psychologists don't  know it. So,
>> I would be unlikely to cite this fact if I were writing for a history of
>> psychology journal.
> 
> Chris, what you say above is somewhat confusing.  Are you saying:
> 
> (1) You would not mention that Williams James was into spiritualism in
> a history of psychology article,
> 
> or
> 
> (2) If you mention that William James was into spiritualism in a history
> of psychology article, you would not cite a specific source or provide a
> reference.
> 
> Point (1) is puzzling because you are stating this as general rule but
> one has to make the inference that relevance and context would determine
> whether or not you state that James was into spiritualism.  Moreover,
> it is understandable if you are making a minor point or offhand comment
> and do not cite a source and do not provide a reference, but surely
> you would cite a source if you are making a substantial point, right?
> This leads to point (2).  Again, if you are making a minor statement
> about James's involvement in spiritualism, it is understandable that
> you might not cite a source but students who read your article and
> are surprised about James involvement in spiritualism would wonder
> what the basis is for this statement.  I guess this comes down to who
> one thinks is one's audience -- only historians of psychology or a
> much larger readership of both professional psychologists, professionals
> in other areas, and students.  I understand that one could limit how
> one writes so that one writes only for the group that one has the greatest
> "common ground" (i.e., expert to expert presentation instead of
> expert to novice presentation) but I am then reminded of my experiences
> reading articles in mathematics and math statistics journals where
> one might come across a statement like the following:
> 
> "It is well-known that the basis of the Cholesky decomposition of a matrix
> is most efficient and "
> 
> The old joke, of course, is that one uses "it is well-known" when one
> is too lazy to find a reference that actually supports the assertion.
> Not that I am saying Chris is guilty of such a thing or even other
> psychologists -- it's a lot easier to get away with such a dodge in math. ;-)
> 
> So, I guess it comes down to how narrow or how broad the
> audience is that one is presently writing for.  However, one should
> keep in mind that what is "common knowledge" today may not be
> so in the future, for example:
> 
> "It is well known that Underwood and colleagues have shown that
> a single store model of memory is most consistent with the results
> of memory studies and that proactive interference is the primary
> mechanism of forgetting."
> 
> In the 1950s and early 1960s, most experimental psychologists
> and even "ordinary" psychologists ;-) would be familiar with this
> perspective, primarily because of the following article:
> 
> Underwood, B. J. (1957). Interference and forgetting.
> Psychological review, 64(1), 49.
> 
> And the devastating demonstration that the Brown-Peterson memory
> task's results could be explained purely by proactive interference and
> there was no need t

Re: [tips] Plagiarism & general knowledge

[Christopher Green]

Yes to all that, Claudia. I also think there are differences between the 
reasons we make students cite and the reasons we, as professionals, cite in our 
own publications. (Students must prove their knowledge, but when we're writing 
to our own disciplinary subgroup, and our work is at all known to that 
subgroup, establishing our general credibility is not so much at issue.) The 
differences are probably not explicit enough to many of us, and they are 
probably not necessary to make clear to (undergrad) students.

Trying to loop back to the question of self-citation, I usually find discussion 
of this "problem" overgrown with too much "school marmism" to take entirely 
seriously. If you are trying to take credit for an idea twice, that is a 
problem, but I have often found myself in the situation of writing two or more 
papers about the same material to two or more distinct audiences: e.g., (1) 
about a Canadian psychological event to Canadian and American audiences, (2) 
about the work of Charles Babbage to cog/comp scientists and to historians, (3) 
about early sport psychology to psychologists and to baseball enthusiasts. I 
usually nominally cite my previous work to cover my behind, but the whole point 
of writing two papers on the same topic is to highlight different aspects 
according to the audience's interests and to make different assumptions about 
what the audience's knowledge base is likely to be.

Best,
Chris
-
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 5:57 PM, Claudia Stanny  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, Chris!
> 
> This is my thinking, also. Citation is not just about giving credit to avoid 
> a charge of plagiarism. Citation is how we establish our scholarly 
> credentials and communicate to our audience. 
> 
> Audience is especially tricky for students, but many assume their audience is 
> their professor (who knows everything! so why cite what is known to that 
> reader?). So I also emphasize to students that part of the culture of 
> citation is demonstrating that you know the literature. So you cite the 
> critical works, even if they are well known to most of the readers or the 
> work is well know. Although the Little Albert study probably appears in every 
> intro psych text book and is a cultural meme of sorts, students indicate 
> their scholarship by citing the report of this work (and, interestingly, some 
> textbook authors reveal themselves as having relied on a secondary source 
> when they misspell Rosalie's name  😱). The audience might well know where 
> this appeared and doesn't necessarily need the citation, but including it 
> signals that the writer has accessed the primary literature and read it. 
> 
> Similarly, accuracy of citations reflects on the care and scholarship of the 
> author. These are subtle cues for expertise, but I think it would be helpful 
> to make students aware of this side of authorship. Helps defuse the sense 
> that citation practices are arbitrary hoops created for students to make them 
> crazy.
> 
> Best,
> Claudia
> 
> 
> _
>  
> Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D.  
> Director
> Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
> BLDG 53 Suite 201
> University of West Florida
> Pensacola, FL  32514
>  
> Phone:   (850) 857-6355 (direct) or  473-7435 (CUTLA)
> 
> csta...@uwf.edu
> 
> CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/offices/cutla/
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Christopher Green  wrote:
>>  
>> 
>> Many good points, Dap! You even have these kinds of differences among 
>> different subfields of psychology, not just different nationalities. For 
>> instance, every historian of psychology knows that William James was highly 
>> active in the spiritualist movement from the 1880s until his death, but many 
>> non-historian psychologists don't  know it. So, I would be unlikely to cite 
>> this fact if I were writing for a history of psychology journal. I might do 
>> so, however, if I were writing for a generalist journal or an experimental 
>> journal. The issue isn't so much how I came to know it as it is whether my 
>> readers are likely to be aware of it as part of their general knowledge.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Chris
>> -
>> Christopher D. Green
>> Department of Psychology
>> York University
>> Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
>> Canada
>> 
>> chri...@yorku.ca
>> 
> 
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=51311
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-51311-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa332

Re: [tips] Plagiarism & general knowledge

[Mike Palij]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 08:42:39 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:

Many good points, Dap! You even have these kinds of differences
among different subfields of psychology, not just different 
nationalities.

For instance, every historian of psychology knows that William James
was highly active in the spiritualist movement from the 1880s until
his death, but many non-historian psychologists don't  know it. So,
I would be unlikely to cite this fact if I were writing for a history 
of

psychology journal.


Chris, what you say above is somewhat confusing.  Are you saying:

(1) You would not mention that Williams James was into spiritualism in
a history of psychology article,

or

(2) If you mention that William James was into spiritualism in a history
of psychology article, you would not cite a specific source or provide a
reference.

Point (1) is puzzling because you are stating this as general rule but
one has to make the inference that relevance and context would determine
whether or not you state that James was into spiritualism.  Moreover,
it is understandable if you are making a minor point or offhand comment
and do not cite a source and do not provide a reference, but surely
you would cite a source if you are making a substantial point, right?
This leads to point (2).  Again, if you are making a minor statement
about James's involvement in spiritualism, it is understandable that
you might not cite a source but students who read your article and
are surprised about James involvement in spiritualism would wonder
what the basis is for this statement.  I guess this comes down to who
one thinks is one's audience -- only historians of psychology or a
much larger readership of both professional psychologists, professionals
in other areas, and students.  I understand that one could limit how
one writes so that one writes only for the group that one has the 
greatest

"common ground" (i.e., expert to expert presentation instead of
expert to novice presentation) but I am then reminded of my experiences
reading articles in mathematics and math statistics journals where
one might come across a statement like the following:

"It is well-known that the basis of the Cholesky decomposition of a 
matrix

is most efficient and "

The old joke, of course, is that one uses "it is well-known" when one
is too lazy to find a reference that actually supports the assertion.
Not that I am saying Chris is guilty of such a thing or even other
psychologists -- it's a lot easier to get away with such a dodge in 
math. ;-)


So, I guess it comes down to how narrow or how broad the
audience is that one is presently writing for.  However, one should
keep in mind that what is "common knowledge" today may not be
so in the future, for example:

"It is well known that Underwood and colleagues have shown that
a single store model of memory is most consistent with the results
of memory studies and that proactive interference is the primary
mechanism of forgetting."

In the 1950s and early 1960s, most experimental psychologists
and even "ordinary" psychologists ;-) would be familiar with this
perspective, primarily because of the following article:

Underwood, B. J. (1957). Interference and forgetting.
Psychological review, 64(1), 49.

And the devastating demonstration that the Brown-Peterson memory
task's results could be explained purely by proactive interference and
there was no need to assume decay as a process of forgetting (see:

Keppel, G., & Underwood, B. J. (1962). Proactive inhibition in
short-term retention of single items. Journal of verbal learning
and verbal behavior, 1(3), 153-161.

I won't bother citing sources for the well-know research by Wickens
with the Release from PI procedure that demonstrated that semantic
processing occurs in short-term memory, supporting the theoretical
position that a duplex model of memory was unnecessary and a
single store model was to be preferred. ;-)


I might do so, however, if I were writing for a generalist journal or
an experimental journal. The issue isn't so much how I came to know
it as it is whether my readers are likely to be aware of it as part of
their general knowledge.


I think you mix up two different issues in the statements above.
First, your concern with common ground (i.e., shared knowledge
between writer and reader) is appropriate but the problem is
that you will never really know what your reader knows, either now
or in the future.  What is general knowledge today may be forgotten
a decade from now.  Similarly, what is specialized knowledge today
may become general in the future -- consider the 1959 paper by
Deese that Roddy Roediger & Kathleen McDermott made famous
with false memory inducement procedure (the DRM procedure).

Second, I think it is important to know what source a writer is
relying upon for the assertions he/she is making.  Again, the
classic example is Freud's iceberg.  People who have presented
this metaphor cite sources that do not support their claim.  I

re: [tips] Plagiarism & general knowledge

[Mike Palij]

Playing devil's advocate, I don't think that there is any relationship
between plagiarism and general knowledge, in part, because
the situations where plagiarism is most important, namely specialized
knowledge areas from the sciences to the humanities to the arts
and so on, don't constitute general knowledge (e.g., how does the
Welch t-test differ from the Students [actually Fisher] t-test?).
This should be common knowledge among psychologists, right?
What psychologist worth his/her salt would not know this? ;-)

The construct of "general knowledge" you describe below assumes
a common sociocultural experience among all individuals along with
a uniform educational system that makes sure that certain "propositions"
(i.e., assertions that can be factual, "alternate facts", cultural 
beliefs,

and so on).  To take a ridiculous example, in the original movie
"The Planet of the Apes", Charlton Heston's character is brought before
a board of judicial apes where he is examined on "commonly known"
aspects of ape religion and culture.  To the apes, since all apes should
know these things, it is almost axiomatic that all intelligent beings 
would

also know these things.  But "Taylor" has no idea what the correct
answers are to the questions he is being asked because he has no
experience with ape culture -- but to the apes this lack of knowledge
is evidence that "Taylor" is a mental defective because he lacks
knowledge that all apes would be able to answer.  Of course, this
is an example from fiction but it does make the point that it is absurd
to assume that "everyone" in a society has the same knowledge.

More practically, conflicts between different belief systems
(e.g., religion vs science, Marxist vs capitalism, Trumpism vs 
rationality, etc.)

make very different assumptions about the nature of reality which
results in very different funds of knowledge and what constitutes
valid knowledge.  Billionaires that don't believe in global warming
or climate change probably don't care or believe the science
that support those positions -- they can "buy" their own scientists
to provide their own "alternative facts" to "falsify" the claims of
mainstream climate scientists.  A somewhat more dramatic
example of the clash of beliefs, remember that in the 1950s
Sir Ronald Fisher argued in favor of the Tobacco companies
because he rightly said that there was only a correlation between
cigarette smoking and various illnesses like cancer -- public
health experts argued that cigarette smoking caused the illness
but as Fisher pointed out, the correlation does not arise from
controlled experimentation with humans, that correlation could
be interpreted as showing that people who would go on to get
cancer, heart disease, lung disease, etc., was drawn to smoking
because, perhaps, it provided some benefit from a subjective
perspective.  Of course, Fisher is correct on this point and one
has to remember that the proper experimentation (i.e.,
random assignment of people to smoking and non-smoking
conditions lasting decades) has never been done and, for
ethical reasons, can never be done.  Nonetheless, drawing
upon evidence from a variety of sources, it is a pretty good
bet that smoking is bad for a person (people in their 90s
who have smoked everyday of their adult life notwithstanding).
But the Tobacco companies can still claim that there is no
experimental evidence with humans that demonstrates a
causal relationship between smoking and physical illness.
People working for tobacco companies or have their wealth
in tobacco company stock probably comfort themselves
with that last statement.

So, what is "general knowledge"?  This is really hard to
know unless we survey for it (and don't be surprised about
what people don't know).  However,  in certain areas, people
who participate in the activities of that area, certain conventions
may be put forth as knowledge that everyone in that area
should have.  Ph.D. psychologists are presumed to know
APA style, basic research design, basic statistical analysis,
and so on.  If they don't have knowledge in these areas, their
education may be deemed deficient.  However, other types
of knowledge, such as Freudian theory, may be considered
optional or, in the extreme, represents a false explanation
of mental illness and human behavior and should not be taught
(it is only historical accident and the role of Freudian theory
in pop culture that has resulted in a fair number of people
having some basic ideas of Freudian theory -- it would be
a mistake to assume that everyone has this knowledge).

And let's not forget that a lot of people "know" some really
dumb things, like that people only us 10% of their brains
(see the Neuromyths thread from earlier this week).  General
knowledge of this sort is just "fake knowledge".

And remember, if you think that you know something that is common
knowledge but cannot identify a source for it -- like where did
Freud refer to the mind as being like an iceberg -- per

Re: [tips] Plagiarism & general knowledge

[Claudia Stanny]

Thanks, Chris!

This is my thinking, also. Citation is not just about giving credit to
avoid a charge of plagiarism. Citation is how we establish our scholarly
credentials and communicate to our audience.

Audience is especially tricky for students, but many assume their audience
is their professor (who knows everything! so why cite what is known to that
reader?). So I also emphasize to students that part of the culture of
citation is demonstrating that *you *know the literature. So you cite the
critical works, even if they are well known to most of the readers or the
work is well know. Although the Little Albert study probably appears in
every intro psych text book and is a cultural meme of sorts, students
indicate their scholarship by citing the report of this work (and,
interestingly, some textbook authors reveal themselves as having relied on
a secondary source when they misspell Rosalie's name  😱). The audience
might well know where this appeared and doesn't necessarily need the
citation, but including it signals that the writer has accessed the primary
literature and read it.

Similarly, accuracy of citations reflects on the care and scholarship of
the author. These are subtle cues for expertise, but I think it would be
helpful to make students aware of this side of authorship. Helps defuse the
sense that citation practices are arbitrary hoops created for students to
make them crazy.

Best,
Claudia


_

Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D.
Director
Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
BLDG 53 Suite 201
University of West Florida
Pensacola, FL  32514

Phone:   (850) 857-6355 (direct) or  473-7435 (CUTLA)

csta...@uwf.edu

CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/offices/cutla/ 


On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Christopher Green  wrote:

>
> Many good points, Dap! You even have these kinds of differences among
> different subfields of psychology, not just different nationalities. For
> instance, every historian of psychology knows that William James was highly
> active in the spiritualist movement from the 1880s until his death, but
> many non-historian psychologists don't  know it. So, I would be unlikely to
> cite this fact if I were writing for a history of psychology journal. I
> might do so, however, if I were writing for a generalist journal or an
> experimental journal. The issue isn't so much how I came to know it as it
> is whether my readers are likely to be aware of it as part of their general
> knowledge.
>
> Best,
> Chris
> -
> Christopher D. Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
> Canada
>
> chri...@yorku.ca
>
>

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51311
or send a blank email to 
leave-51311-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Plagiarism & general knowledge

[Christopher Green]

Many good points, Dap! You even have these kinds of differences among different 
subfields of psychology, not just different nationalities. For instance, every 
historian of psychology knows that William James was highly active in the 
spiritualist movement from the 1880s until his death, but many non-historian 
psychologists don't  know it. So, I would be unlikely to cite this fact if I 
were writing for a history of psychology journal. I might do so, however, if I 
were writing for a generalist journal or an experimental journal. The issue 
isn't so much how I came to know it as it is whether my readers are likely to 
be aware of it as part of their general knowledge.

Best,
Chris
-
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 3:37 PM, Dap Louw  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> I have always struggled to determine where to draw the line between 
> plagiarism and general knowledge.  The general view in South Africa is that 
> you do not have to use a reference if the information has become general 
> knowledge.  In other words,  According to Freud the psyche consists of the 
> id, ego and superego   or   Watson was an American psychologist  does not 
> need a reference. 
> 
> However, it often gets tricky.  Allow me to use a pretty naive example (my 
> apologies):
> 
> *  Columbus arrived in America in 1492.  I assume every American knows this, 
> but probably less than 0,001% of South Africans do.  Does it mean that South 
> Africans have to use a reference but not Americans?  My family and I spent 
> some time in the US and I therefore knew it.  Am I excluded? 
> 
> *  Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12 October.  
> Is this general kowledge in the US? If so, what about:
> 
> *   Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12 October 
> at 14:00  (fictitious). 
> 
> *   Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12 October 
> at 14:00 and saw a three dead whales floating in the sea (fictitious)
> 
> When do we start using references in these cases?  I assume very few 
> Americans would know about the whales, but what about American history 
> lecturers who see this as general knowledge among themselves?
> 
> In South Africa we have a system of external examiners for thesis and 
> dissertations.  In most cases at least one (sometimes all) of them must be 
> from an international university.  They see the thesis/dissertation for the 
> first time when they receive it.  In many cases these external examiners 
> focus more on correct referencing, list of references and other technical 
> aspects, rather than the content, often postponing the students’ graduation.  
> Not to mention the obsession (fetish?) with the different academic systems of 
> reference (Harvard, APA, Oxford, Vancouver, MLA, etc) --- of which there are 
> a few thousand.
> 
> Please say you understand my frustration! ☺
> 
> Dap
> 
>  
> 
> Dap Louw
> Extraordinary Professor: Psychology
> Buitengewone Professor: Sielkunde
> Faculty / Fakulteit: The Humanities / Geesteswetenskappe
> PO Box / Posbus 339, Bloemfontein 9300, Republic of South Africa / Republiek 
> van Suid-Afrika
> 27(0)43 841 1193
> 27(0)83 391 8331
> lou...@ufs.ac.za
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> University of the Free State:
> This message and its contents are subject to a disclaimer.
> Please refer to http://www.ufs.ac.za/disclaimer for full details. 
> 
> Universiteit van die Vrystaat:
> Hierdie boodskap en sy inhoud is aan 'n vrywaringsklousule onderhewig.
> Volledige besonderhede is by http://www.ufs.ac.za/disclaimer vrywaring 
> beskikbaar.
> 
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=51309
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-51309-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51310
or send a blank email to 
leave-51310-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Plagiarism & general knowledge

[Dap Louw]

I have always struggled to determine where to draw the line between plagiarism 
and general knowledge.  The general view in South Africa is that you do not 
have to use a reference if the information has become general knowledge.  In 
other words,  According to Freud the psyche consists of the id, ego and 
superego   or   Watson was an American psychologist  does not need a reference.

However, it often gets tricky.  Allow me to use a pretty naive example (my 
apologies):

*  Columbus arrived in America in 1492.  I assume every American knows this, 
but probably less than 0,001% of South Africans do.  Does it mean that South 
Africans have to use a reference but not Americans?  My family and I spent some 
time in the US and I therefore knew it.  Am I excluded?

*  Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12 October.  Is 
this general kowledge in the US? If so, what about:

*   Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12 October at 
14:00  (fictitious).

*   Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12 October at 
14:00 and saw a three dead whales floating in the sea (fictitious)

When do we start using references in these cases?  I assume very few Americans 
would know about the whales, but what about American history lecturers who see 
this as general knowledge among themselves?

In South Africa we have a system of external examiners for thesis and 
dissertations.  In most cases at least one (sometimes all) of them must be from 
an international university.  They see the thesis/dissertation for the first 
time when they receive it.  In many cases these external examiners focus more 
on correct referencing, list of references and other technical aspects, rather 
than the content, often postponing the students’ graduation.  Not to mention 
the obsession (fetish?) with the different academic systems of reference 
(Harvard, APA, Oxford, Vancouver, MLA, etc) --- of which there are a few 
thousand.

Please say you understand my frustration! ☺

Dap

[UFS Logo]

Dap Louw
Extraordinary Professor: Psychology
Buitengewone Professor: Sielkunde
Faculty / Fakulteit: The Humanities / Geesteswetenskappe
PO Box / Posbus 339, Bloemfontein 9300, Republic of South Africa / Republiek 
van Suid-Afrika
[http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_tel.jpg]27(0)43 841 1193
[http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_cel.jpg]27(0)83 391 8331
[http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_mail.jpg]lou...@ufs.ac.za
[http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_facebook.png][http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_twitter.png][http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/icon_youtube.png]

[http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/inspire.jpg]

[http://apps.ufs.ac.za/emailsignature/siteimages/inspireer.jpg]






_

University of the Free State: This message and its contents are subject to a 
disclaimer. 
Please refer to  http://www.ufs.ac.za/disclaimer for full details. 

Universiteit van die Vrystaat: 
Hierdie boodskap en sy inhoud is aan 'n vrywaringsklousule onderhewig. 
Volledige besonderhede is by http://www.ufs.ac.za/vrywaring  beskikbaar. 
_

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51309
or send a blank email to 
leave-51309-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu