[globaloutlookDH-l] When citing emails, do people silently correct typos?

Daniel O'Donnell daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca
Mon Feb 3 18:15:01 MST 2014


I'm not an ethicist, but it seems to me there is a very real difference 
between an experimental or observational subject and a participant in a 
discussion (I'd like to emphasise, BTW, that I'm not trying to dismiss a 
different position, I'm trying to tease out what it means in hope of 
seeing if I understand correctly; so although these are statements, it 
is really an implicit question: am I right to be thinking like this?).

I'd have thought that the border is when your observe rather than 
engage. So, for example, it seems to me that one might need ethics 
approval to join even a public mailing list on some topic in order to 
study how different genders interact or how Historians interact with 
each other, and so on, rather than because of the topic itself. The 
reason for this is that your purpose is observational rather than 
engagement: you are not interested in or responding to the content of 
what people are saying, you are observing how they behave; and, perhaps 
just as importantly, you are not collecting their data or using it in 
ways they might reasonably expect: participants in an email discussion 
expect to be read for their content, not analysed for their behaviour.  
Just collecting the data, in this case, would require you to at least 
consider ethics approval (although my understanding from my wife, who 
was our ethics panel chair, is that the degree to which someone might 
have had a reasonable expectation of privacy would play a factor in 
this: you don't need to get ethics approval from newspaper columnists, 
for example, before looking for gender differences in their published 
writings). I once had to join a Neo Nazi list for some research I was 
doing on the reception of Anne Frank's diary. For that, I clearly needed 
ethics approval, because my goal was to observe them rather than 
seriously engage with their content (nothing came of the work I confess).

But joining a public mailing list because you are interested in a 
specific topic, engaging in the discussion of that topic with members of 
the list, and then responding to and engaging with the contributions 
from that list /as part of a discussion of the subject of the list/ seem 
to me to be a different type of thing. For one thing, you don't need 
ethics approval to collect the data--you are collecting it in the same 
way you collect refereed articles, by participating in the conversation.

But more importantly, your engagement with the material is neither 
experimental nor observational. You are not conducting a metastudy or 
observing how people behave while they carry out some task, you are 
working with them /in/ that task and your primary engagement with their 
content in ways they can be reasonable anticipate: discussing, citing, 
quoting, and responding to what they say on the topic of the group they 
belong to.

Moreover, the standard behaviour of the list expects this kind of 
engagement. The list is publicly archived, meaning that the default 
behaviour is permit unnegotiated public access by anybody anywhere. The 
default action of most people's mailers is to quote the message they are 
replying to (take a look at this message, for example, to see just how 
much of that goes on). And people on mailing lists get upset and/or 
worried if their messages are /not/ responded to (which certainly means 
citing and almost invariably means quoting): they write messages to 
check whether their posts were distributed and, in extreme cases, leave 
lists where they think they are being ignored.

All of these features suggest that participants on this (or any other 
mailing list) expect to have their content engaged with, on its own 
terms, by those who have access--which in the case of an 
open-membership, publicly available mailing list, means the whole world. 
I don't think anybody on this list thinks we need to ask permission 
before citing or responding to an email as part of the discussion of 
this topic, for example; but I think people would think it might go too 
far if somebody posted an email to this list without permission that, 
instead of engaging with the topic under discussion, instead quoted 
specific emails as part of a meta-discussion of how different language 
communities, genders, or employment categories wrote about the subject. 
Even on this list, a posting that was observational would need 
permission, where a posting that simply responded would not.

So my view would be that people are not "unaware participants" if the 
public status of the forum in which they contribute is known, if they 
contribute voluntarily, and if the citation (and quotation) of their 
material engages with its content in a primary way: i.e. /as/ content. 
But I'd argue that people are "unaware participants" even if they are 
knowingly participating in a public forum, if their material is being 
cited and quoted in a secondary fashion, i.e. as evidence for a larger 
observational or experimental goal not directly associated with the 
topic/subject under discussion.

Finally my reason for making this distinction is because otherwise we 
run into a very slippery slope, one that threatens all forms of 
scholarly and scientific communication. At what point do we stop 
considering the author of any scholarly or scientific to be an unaware 
subject? Is the author of a journal paper unaware? Is a speaker at an 
academic conference? Is somebody who asks a question at an academic 
conference? Is somebody who comments on a published article in a public 
forum? Somebody who tweets about an article? Somebody who posts to a 
public list? To a private list? In a personal email to a single friend? 
I can see a pretty clear line at "posting to a private list" or 
"personal email to a single friend." But after that, it seems to me that 
part of the point of the activities in question is precisely to engage 
in this kind of debate and discussion.

Anyway, a very long answer, which, as I say, is really a question: is 
this right? Or at least a reasonable understanding? I will say that it 
seems a fundamental enough threat to how normal academic discourse goes 
on in this age, that I'm going to raise the question informally tomorrow 
with our ethics board to see if I'm way out of line on this.



On 14-02-03 04:46 PM, Suzana Sukovic wrote:
> Dear all,
> An interesting discussion from the perspective of research ethics and 
> cultural sensitivity. I am not sure if I missed an explanation of the 
> topic of Daniel's article. That may help in answering some of the 
> questions.
>
> Daniel, it seems that your research has elements of ethnography so 
> it'd be worth looking at how social sciences, particularly 
> ethnographic Internet research, deal with some of these problems. The 
> issue is an approach to "unaware participants" in your study. The 
> choice of corrections will come out of decisions about approach.
>
> Generally, it's worth saying something about ethical considerations 
> and reasons for making certain choices in the paper. I would say 
> something about the nature of quotations in the section about 
> methodology rather than in a note.
>
> Nishant Shah has given some useful options.
>
> And, yes, I am also super aware how I am writing now (insert smiley).
> Cheers,
> Suzana
>
> Dr Suzana Sukovic
>
>
> Head of Learning Resource Centre
> St Vincent's College
> Locked Bag 2700, Potts Point, NSW, 1335
>
> Australia
>
> Tel: 61 2 9368 1611 ext 215
> Fax: 61 2 9356 2118
>
> http://www.stvincents.nsw.edu.au/ 
> <http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stvincents.nsw.edu.au%2F>
>
> Designed with WiseStamp - 
> <http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fr1.wisestamp.com%2Fr%2Flanding%3Fu%3Dff3eeb380c4ca423%26v%3D3.13.31%26t%3D1391470914098%26promo%3D10%26dest%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wisestamp.com%252Femail-install%253Futm_source%253Dextension%2526utm_medium%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Dpromo_10>Get 
> yours 
> <http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fr1.wisestamp.com%2Fr%2Flanding%3Fu%3Dff3eeb380c4ca423%26v%3D3.13.31%26t%3D1391470914098%26promo%3D10%26dest%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wisestamp.com%252Femail-install%253Futm_source%253Dextension%2526utm_medium%253Demail%2526utm_campaign%253Dpromo_10> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Bordalejo, Barbara 
> <bab995 at mail.usask.ca <mailto:bab995 at mail.usask.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Here you raise an important issue about language, specifically
>     about communicating in a non-native language. Yes, [sic] is
>     offensive and it is often used as a weapon: an author who corrects
>     the scholar he or she is quoting, might think this to be proof of
>     superiority.
>
>     It is true that I would be mortified if any of the quirks that can
>     be found in my written English were to be exposed as proof of my
>     general incompetence. As I write this, I wonder if my prepositions
>     are right, but also if my tone is adequate and whether this
>     message contributes to the discussion. However, I suspect that I
>     would be equally distressed (or perhaps more distressed) if anyone
>     found mistakes in my Spanish.
>
>     Part of the goal of GO::DH, at least in my mind, should be to
>     fight against the prejudices exhibited by native speakers of all
>     languages against those who are less proficient. After all, those
>     making non-native mistakes in English can, at least, speak one
>     other language. But we also should keep in mind that consideration
>     for others, which includes the opportunity to correct themselves,
>     is one of the most important qualities in a human being and proof
>     of ethical soundness in a researcher.
>
>
>     BB
>
>     On 3 Feb 2014, at 14:30, Ernesto Priego <efpriego at gmail.com
>     <mailto:efpriego at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     A final comment from me on this. I promise.
>>
>>     I'd say that "public" and "private" are not clear-cut categories.
>>     There's room for complexity and exceptions. I understand that's a
>>     can of worms that might go beyond the scope of this (now clearly
>>     fully-citeable) discussion.
>>
>>     As Isabel says a (sic) would be offensive.
>>
>>     If something I quickly typed on the train (like this message
>>     right now) were to be cited in an academic paper about writing in
>>     English (a paper authored by a native English speaker addressing
>>     a majority of native English-speaking colleagues) I would be
>>     most-distressed to be exhibited making mistakes of any type. I'd
>>     much rather be asked directly so I can explain explain myself better.
>>
>>     Then again that's just me.
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>
>>     Sent from my mobile
>>
>>     On Feb 3, 2014 7:26 PM, "igalina" <igalina at unam.mx
>>     <mailto:igalina at unam.mx>> wrote:
>>
>>         Dear Dan,
>>         You have posed a most interesting question. Although I agree
>>         that writing to the person informing them that you want to
>>         quote them would be polite I must say that I too assume that
>>         when I write on a discussion list, it is public (unless
>>         specifically closed). Especially if you are going to be
>>         citing lots of different people writing to each person and
>>         obtaining their permission is equivalent I think of life
>>         before Creative Commons when the solution was to write to the
>>         copyright owner for permission to use the material. It gets
>>         very complicated very quickly.
>>         As for the typos and mistakes in the emails,  I don't think
>>         that using [sic] is the solution. I don't know if it is just
>>         me but it seems offensive, especially given the context we
>>         are writing in. I like this idea of a footnote.
>>         Best,
>>         Isabel
>>
>>
>>         ----------
>>         Dra. Isabel Galina Russell
>>         Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas,
>>         Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
>>         igalina at unam.mx <mailto:igalina at unam.mx>
>>         @igalina
>>
>>
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         *De:* globaloutlookdh-l <globaloutlookdh-l-bounces at uleth.ca
>>         <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l-bounces at uleth.ca>> en nombre de
>>         Bordalejo, Barbara <bab995 at mail.usask.ca
>>         <mailto:bab995 at mail.usask.ca>>
>>         *Enviado:* lunes, 03 de febrero de 2014 11:02 a.m.
>>         *Para:* A list for participants in the ADHO DH Global Outlook
>>         Community
>>         *Asunto:* Re: [globaloutlookDH-l] When citing emails, do
>>         people silently correct typos?
>>         Dear Ernesto,
>>
>>         Although I agree with you on the fundamental point that one
>>         should ask before quoting a listserve post or an e-mail, I am
>>         not sure that I agree with your reasons for that.
>>
>>         We are all aware (or we should be aware) that everything we
>>         post, anywhere on the internet, at any point, could be
>>         retrieved by others. I have suffered the consequences of
>>         using irony in a reply to Humanist, which was then quoted (by
>>         a senior scholar) as if I actually had meant my words
>>         literally. Lesson 1: if you are going to use irony make sure
>>         that others are aware of it but don’t be surprised if someone
>>         ends up misinterpreting you.
>>
>>         In the past, irritated by a rude message, I hit reply and
>>         send a very angry answer to a colleague which ended up
>>         distributed to a whole list. Lesson 2: Do not answer
>>         professional messages when angry. If the anger is consuming
>>         you, at least, check who the recipient is before sending.
>>
>>         Many years ago, when I started my MA, the university’s
>>         guidelines suggested not to create an account with a name
>>         like “partyanimal” or “sexything.” I followed the
>>         instructions, it was easy as I was neither of those. However,
>>         they forgot to mention that if I ever signed an online
>>         petition to get a desk for Dana Scully, eight years later my
>>         students would still find the long lost site. Lesson 3: make
>>         sure that you are not ashamed of your TV taste or that you
>>         don’t leave a trail of evidence about it.
>>
>>         The fact that Snowden only generated mild discomfort rather
>>         than anger and mass protests, shows that many people consider
>>         online information to be public. I wouldn’t go as far. Not
>>         everything should be public, but in practice many things are.
>>
>>         When I want to make reference to an e-mail, post or even a
>>         blog entry, I contact the author. I don’t do this because I
>>         think that the person should know, I do it because it is good
>>         manners and because I am aware of the composition process of
>>         these types of texts and want to make sure that the person
>>         meant what I think he or she meant.
>>
>>         So we agree, but we have different reasons to think as we do.
>>
>>         BB
>>
>>
>>         On 3 Feb 2014, at 10:40, Ernesto Priego <efpriego at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:efpriego at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>         Hey Dan,
>>>
>>>         I did not mean to say to that "the default for contributions
>>>         to public scholarly listservs should be considered private",
>>>         but that the way one writes in an email is not the way one
>>>         would write on a public blog post, or a journal article.
>>>
>>>         Not all listservs are alike, and some offer public access to
>>>         the archive, and others don't (the latter require a membership).
>>>
>>>         So I see my replies (that are conversational) between
>>>         members in a given email lsit as precisely in a grey area,
>>>         where I am not necessarily writing with the awareness that I
>>>         will be cited publicly by others. If this happens on places
>>>         like Twitter, where people often get surprised to discover
>>>         the reach of their postings (because they more or less
>>>         assume, with different degrees of self-conciousness, that
>>>         their postings are public), it seems reasonable to me that
>>>         when one feels one is chatting amongst friends then
>>>         discovering one has been cited publicly (making typos for
>>>         example) could be a reason to be surprised.
>>>
>>>         If one wants to be really strict about it yes, I believe
>>>         that a listserv that will be completely public should
>>>         contain a terms and conditions document stating that members
>>>         are OK with their postings a) being completely public and b)
>>>         being subject to citation, reuse, etc. without previous
>>>         consent. I am a CC and OA advocate so I would be more than
>>>         happy to subscribe to that; I am saying this because I am
>>>         aware that perhaps this is something that not everyone is
>>>         conscious of (otherwise there wouldn't be such panic
>>>         sometimes when some people discover Facebook's or Tumblr's
>>>         Terms and Conditions for example). Maybe this sounds boring
>>>         and paranoid, but if email is going to be a form of
>>>         publishing we need to start thinking about the ways users
>>>         are expecting to license their postings.
>>>
>>>         When I write these words, for example, I am replying to you,
>>>         Dan, knowing that everyone else in the list will be reading,
>>>         and that the list is the ADHO DH Global Outlook Community.
>>>         My words are addressed to you and the list, and even if in
>>>         some region of my mind I am at the same time aware these
>>>         words might be read by others outside this list, I am always
>>>         writing for this list. Otherwise I would just post it
>>>         elsewhere; my blog for example.
>>>
>>>         If email listserv postings are going to be subject to
>>>         research by third-parties, then all members need to be aware
>>>         of that their right to confidentiality is being waived. In
>>>         the majority of research surveys, respondents should be
>>>         fully informed about the aims of the survey, and the
>>>         respondent’s consent to participate in the survey must be
>>>         obtained and recorded.
>>>
>>>         I am also saying this because not all people are equally
>>>         safe when being cited. This means that some scholars can be
>>>         very critical publicly and face little risk, whilst other
>>>         scholars in other settings might be more vulnerable. Often
>>>         email listservs offer a level of confidentiality (even if it
>>>         is just perceived as such) that the open web does not offer
>>>         (one can feel one is chatting in cofindence, amongst
>>>         friends, even if this is not the case and one is going on
>>>         the record at all times).
>>>
>>>         So I'd say that when it comes to citing what someone said in
>>>         an email (to a listserv or not) it's always better to be
>>>         safe and ask if it's OK to share/cite than sorry... but
>>>         that's just my personal opinion.
>>>
>>>         Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>         *
>>>         *
>>>         *
>>>         Dr Ernesto Priego
>>>         *Lecturer in Library Science
>>>         Acting Course Director, MSc/MA Electronic Publishing, City
>>>         University London *
>>>         *
>>>         City University London offers a wide range of postgraduate
>>>         courses delivered by world-leading academics. Register for
>>>         our Open Evening
>>>         <http://www.city.ac.uk/events/2014/feb/postgraduate-open-evening>
>>>         on Wednesday 19^th February to find out more.
>>>
>>>         MediaCommons' THE NEW EVERYDAY is happy to announce the
>>>         publication of a cluster on
>>>         THE MULTIMODALITY OF COMICS IN EVERYDAY LIFE,
>>>         curated by Ernesto Priego of City University London and
>>>         David N. Wright of Douglas College.
>>>         http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/tne/cluster/multimodality-comics-everyday-life
>>>
>>>         http://epriego.wordpress.com/ @ernestopriego
>>>         <https://twitter.com/ernestopriego>
>>>         Editor-in-Chief, /The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics
>>>         Scholarship**/http://www.comicsgrid.com/
>>>         Subscribe to the Comics Grid Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/iOYAj
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Daniel O'Donnell
>>>         <daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca <mailto:daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca>>
>>>         wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hi Ernesto,
>>>
>>>             I'm really not sure about your privacy paragraph. It
>>>             seems to me difficult to believe that anybody posting to
>>>             a publicly archived list with an open membership could
>>>             understand what they are saying as anything but meant
>>>             for public consumption. Does that mean, for example,
>>>             that Humanist is not a public record since it doesn't
>>>             explicitly say it is? That seems hard to believe, since
>>>             a lot of important things happen there. I'd have thought
>>>             the same of this list.
>>>
>>>             Moreover, it isn't a question of the "list owner" having
>>>             special privileges. Since the records are publicly
>>>             available to anybody on the web, and were distributed to
>>>             all members of the list, anybody in the world can cite
>>>             anything sent to a public email list. There's no
>>>             additional level of access that the owner has on a
>>>             public list.
>>>
>>>             I can see a couple of places where there might be an
>>>             expectation of privacy or where good manner might cede
>>>             privacy to a public posting.
>>>
>>>             Listservs with a closed archive, for example, might be
>>>             considered prima facie private, especially if the
>>>             membership is restricted and known. It is dangerous for
>>>             a writer to assume that something posted to such a list
>>>             will remain private. But I can certainly see how one
>>>             might be ethically obliged to confirm with the poster
>>>             before citation. Even there, however, the lists I'm on
>>>             that are really /meant/ to be private indicate it: our
>>>             department list, for example, has a header on every
>>>             message that says the contents of the list are to be
>>>             considered confidential and not to be redistributed
>>>             without prior permission.
>>>
>>>             Even on an open list, it seems to me to be good manners
>>>             not to cite clearly accidental postings--e.g. the kind
>>>             of private messages that people sometimes send to a list
>>>             in error. I don't think the sender can have any
>>>             expectation that a publicly archived
>>>             message-sent-in-error like that will not be cited by
>>>             anybody; but it seems to me that the citer has a duty in
>>>             that case to check.
>>>
>>>             But for most things on a public list, it seems to me
>>>             that the whole point of the list is to build a kind of
>>>             gray scholarly literature: a lot of our discussions on
>>>             this list, for example, contain discussions that are
>>>             clearly meant to be generalisable and influence debate
>>>             (like this conversation here, for example); others, like
>>>             announcements, cfps, job ads, etc., are clearly meant to
>>>             be redistributed.
>>>
>>>             Because it exists in a border area between the formal
>>>             and the informal (it is like formal publication in that
>>>             it is available to the community--and probably more
>>>             widely read--but unlike it in that there is no editorial
>>>             process), I think we owe a duty of respect to the people
>>>             we cite, meaning not to be too critical of word choice
>>>             or minor inconsistencies. But I know I've never thought
>>>             my participation on any public scholarly email list
>>>             (e.g. tei-l, humanist, dm-l, digitalclassicist,
>>>             globaloutlookdh-l) was private.
>>>
>>>             Do others feel that the default for contributions to
>>>             public scholarly listservs is that they should be
>>>             considered private? I confess that had never occurred to
>>>             me before.
>>>
>>>             -dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             On 14-02-03 07:14 AM, Ernesto Priego wrote:
>>>>              It is an interesting question. I suppose some minor
>>>>             typos resulting form typing too fast could be correced
>>>>             "silently". I do these typing mistakes all the time;
>>>>             especially when replying form a mobile phone.
>>>>
>>>>             As for citing emails I would think a related question
>>>>             is equally important, that of privacy. Even for
>>>>             listservs, I assume we are saying some things "in
>>>>             confidence", i.e. we write and send certain things
>>>>             because we are writing them for and sending them to a
>>>>             particuar list which means particular receivers, even
>>>>             when we sometimes don't know who are all the members.
>>>>             It's not the same as when posting openly on Twitter for
>>>>             example, when one assumes it's all public and anyone
>>>>             can read and therefore cite.
>>>>
>>>>             So before citing anything anyone said via email I would
>>>>             check with the sender if it's OK to cite them, unless
>>>>             there are some terms and conditions somewhere that say
>>>>             the owner of the list is entitled to cite any messages
>>>>             sent to the list.
>>>>
>>>>             Best,
>>>>
>>>>             e
>>>>
>>>>             *
>>>>             *
>>>>             *
>>>>             Dr Ernesto Priego
>>>>             *Lecturer in Library Science
>>>>             Acting Course Director, MSc/MA Electronic Publishing,
>>>>             City University London *
>>>>             *
>>>>             City University London offers a wide range of
>>>>             postgraduate courses delivered by world-leading
>>>>             academics. Register for our Open Evening
>>>>             <http://www.city.ac.uk/events/2014/feb/postgraduate-open-evening>
>>>>             on Wednesday 19^th February to find out more.
>>>>
>>>>             MediaCommons' THE NEW EVERYDAY is happy to announce the
>>>>             publication of a cluster on
>>>>             THE MULTIMODALITY OF COMICS IN EVERYDAY LIFE,
>>>>             curated by Ernesto Priego of City University London and
>>>>             David N. Wright of Douglas College.
>>>>             http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/tne/cluster/multimodality-comics-everyday-life
>>>>
>>>>             http://epriego.wordpress.com/ @ernestopriego
>>>>             <https://twitter.com/ernestopriego>
>>>>             Editor-in-Chief, /The Comics Grid: Journal of Comics
>>>>             Scholarship**/http://www.comicsgrid.com/
>>>>             Subscribe to the Comics Grid Newsletter:
>>>>             http://eepurl.com/iOYAj
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Daniel O'Donnell
>>>>             <daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca
>>>>             <mailto:daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                 It really is pretty cool, eh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 On 14-02-01 02:43 PM, Yasmín S. Portales Machado wrote:
>>>>>                 ¡Me encanta esta lista!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Yasmín S. Portales Machado
>>>>>
>>>>>                 --------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Marxista, Feminista y Bloguera
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Twitter: @nimlothdecuba
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Facebook
>>>>>                 http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=663817529
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Mi blog: http://yasminsilvia.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Parte de Proyecto Arcoiris
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Colectivo LGBT, anticapitalista e independiente,
>>>>>                 de Cuba
>>>>>
>>>>>                 http://proyectoarcoiris.cubava.cu/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Parte de Observatorio Crítico de Cuba
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ¡A la izquierda, pero por la izquierda!
>>>>>
>>>>>                 http://observatoriocriticodesdecuba.wordpress.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 "El feminismo ha puesto en evidencia, mejor que
>>>>>                 ninguna otra corriente de pensamiento, tanto la
>>>>>                 arbitrariedad del psicoanálisis como la
>>>>>                 insuficiencia del marxismo, es decir, ha
>>>>>                 cuestionado los dos grandes modelos totalizadores
>>>>>                 del siglo XX."
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Carlo Frabetti
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 *De:*globaloutlookdh-l
>>>>>                 [mailto:globaloutlookdh-l-bounces at uleth.ca] *En
>>>>>                 nombre de *Daniel O'Donnell
>>>>>                 *Enviado el:* Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:47 PM
>>>>>                 *Para:* globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca
>>>>>                 <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca>
>>>>>                 *Asunto:* Re: [globaloutlookDH-l] When citing
>>>>>                 emails, do people silently correct typos?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 I like that idea for 3), though I think I'll leave
>>>>>                 the explanation in now, because it needs to go
>>>>>                 through a press and editors. I confess, I don't
>>>>>                 even like the idea of correcting them: that is
>>>>>                 what email is.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 On 14-02-01 11:34 AM, Nishant Shah wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                     Hey Dan,
>>>>>                     This is a great question, and one that a lot
>>>>>                     of us working with online transcripts and with
>>>>>                     non-standard Englishes constantly face.
>>>>>                     With a collection I was editing, working with
>>>>>                     writers from Asia, Africa and Latin America,
>>>>>                     where the writers were not native speakers and
>>>>>                     also not professionally used to writing, we
>>>>>                     faced a similar dilemma which eventually, we
>>>>>                     resolved in the following ways:
>>>>>                     1. Except for when the syntax was so irregular
>>>>>                     that the citation was unintelligible, we
>>>>>                     contacted the sources and checked if they want
>>>>>                     to re-write it, or if our corrections were
>>>>>                     still representing what they meant.
>>>>>                     2. Like in oral ethnography projects, we
>>>>>                     retained the irregularities of 'written
>>>>>                     speech', and we used that as a precedence for
>>>>>                     retaining these 'errors'.
>>>>>                     3. With different registers in the language,
>>>>>                     we retained them without even high-lighting or
>>>>>                     italicising or pointing out those
>>>>>                     irregularities, because that is a judgment
>>>>>                     call we did not want to make, and we also
>>>>>                     thought that the onus of bias was on the reader.
>>>>>                     Hope this helps resolve some of your queries,
>>>>>                     Warm regards
>>>>>                     Nishant
>>>>>                     On 01-02-2014 19:21, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                         I have a question for advice from this
>>>>>                         group that might have political implications.
>>>>>
>>>>>                         In an article I'm about to submit, I cite
>>>>>                         a number of discussions on this list and
>>>>>                         humanist about the use of language,
>>>>>                         especially English. The authors are both
>>>>>                         native English speakers and non-native
>>>>>                         speakers and, as is typical in emails,
>>>>>                         there are a number of small typos.
>>>>>                         solecisms, and the like.
>>>>>
>>>>>                         Currently, I have a note at the first
>>>>>                         citation indicating that "as is normal in
>>>>>                         as conversational a medium as email
>>>>>                         correspondence, the quoted passages have
>>>>>                         small typographical errors and other
>>>>>                         solecisms. These have not been corrected
>>>>>                         or otherwise noted." My reason for this is
>>>>>                         that I don't want to put in a lot of sic
>>>>>                         or corrections in square brackets.
>>>>>                         Although I'm a terrible typo offender
>>>>>                         myself, the case can be more politicised
>>>>>                         it seems to me when dealing with
>>>>>                         non-native speakers. I'm uncomfortable
>>>>>                         acting either as judge or, worse, in my
>>>>>                         case, calling attention to
>>>>>                         "errors"--especially since I think they
>>>>>                         are really more issues of register than
>>>>>                         actual errors.
>>>>>
>>>>>                         I could silently correct them, of course,
>>>>>                         as well, but I don't like that either, in
>>>>>                         case what I think is an obvious correction
>>>>>                         turns out to misrepresent something.
>>>>>
>>>>>                         What do other people think? I've seen
>>>>>                         /sic/ used before as a form of ad hominem
>>>>>                         attack and so I generally really hate
>>>>>                         using it if I can avoid it. But since it
>>>>>                         also seems nuts to pepper the
>>>>>                         correspondence with square brackets (and
>>>>>                         since that could have the same effect as a
>>>>>                         lot of sics), I don't want to do that either.
>>>>>
>>>>>                         Is there a better solution than simply
>>>>>                         flagging the register difference, as I
>>>>>                         currently do?
>>>>>
>>>>>                         -- 
>>>>>
>>>>>                         ---
>>>>>
>>>>>                         Daniel Paul O'Donnell
>>>>>
>>>>>                         Professor of English
>>>>>
>>>>>                         University of Lethbridge
>>>>>
>>>>>                         Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
>>>>>
>>>>>                         Canada
>>>>>
>>>>>                           
>>>>>
>>>>>                         +1 403 393-2539  <tel:%2B1%20403%20393-2539>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                         _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>                         globaloutlookdh-l mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>>                         globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca  <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>>                         http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
>>>>>
>>>>>                           
>>>>>
>>>>>                         You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
>>>>>
>>>>>                           
>>>>>
>>>>>                         If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go tohttp://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l  You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                     -- 
>>>>>                     *Dr. Nishant Shah *(Ph.D. Cultural Studies)
>>>>>                     *International Tandem Partner *, Centre for
>>>>>                     Digital Cultures
>>>>>                     <http://www.leuphana.de/en/zentren/cdc.html>Lüneburg,
>>>>>                     Germany
>>>>>                     *Director Research *, The Centre for Internet
>>>>>                     & Society, Bangalore <http://cis-india.org/>
>>>>>                     *Phone*: India: +91-974-007-4884
>>>>>                     <tel:%2B91-974-007-4884>; Germany:
>>>>>                     +49-176-841-660-87 <tel:%2B49-176-841-660-87>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>                     globaloutlookdh-l mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>>                     globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca  <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>>                     http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
>>>>>
>>>>>                       
>>>>>
>>>>>                     You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
>>>>>
>>>>>                       
>>>>>
>>>>>                     If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go tohttp://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l  You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 -- 
>>>>>                 ---
>>>>>                 Daniel Paul O'Donnell
>>>>>                 Professor of English
>>>>>                 University of Lethbridge
>>>>>                 Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
>>>>>                 Canada
>>>>>                   
>>>>>                 +1 403 393-2539  <tel:%2B1%20403%20393-2539>
>>>>
>>>>                 -- 
>>>>                 ---
>>>>                 Daniel Paul O'Donnell
>>>>                 Professor of English
>>>>                 University of Lethbridge
>>>>                 Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
>>>>                 Canada
>>>>
>>>>                 +1 403 393-2539  <tel:%2B1%20403%20393-2539>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>                 globaloutlookdh-l mailing list
>>>>                 globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca
>>>>                 <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca>
>>>>                 http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
>>>>
>>>>                 You are currently subscribed to this list in
>>>>                 NON-digest mode. This means you receive every
>>>>                 message as it is posted.
>>>>
>>>>                 If this represents too much traffic, you can also
>>>>                 subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single
>>>>                 email once a day containing the entire day's
>>>>                 postings. To change your settings go to
>>>>                 http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l
>>>>                 You can request a password reminder from this page
>>>>                 if you have forgotten yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>             -- 
>>>             ---
>>>             Daniel Paul O'Donnell
>>>             Professor of English
>>>             University of Lethbridge
>>>             Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
>>>             Canada
>>>
>>>             +1 403 393-2539  <tel:%2B1%20403%20393-2539>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         globaloutlookdh-l mailing list
>>>         globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca>
>>>         http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
>>>
>>>         You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest
>>>         mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
>>>
>>>         If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe
>>>         in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day
>>>         containing the entire day's postings. To change your
>>>         settings go to
>>>         http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l
>>>         You can request a password reminder from this page if you
>>>         have forgotten yours.
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         globaloutlookdh-l mailing list
>>         globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca>
>>         http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
>>
>>         You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode.
>>         This means you receive every message as it is posted.
>>
>>         If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe
>>         in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day
>>         containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings
>>         go to
>>         http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l
>>         You can request a password reminder from this page if you
>>         have forgotten yours.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     globaloutlookdh-l mailing list
>>     globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca>
>>     http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
>>
>>     You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode.
>>     This means you receive every message as it is posted.
>>
>>     If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in
>>     DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing
>>     the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to
>>     http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You
>>     can request a password reminder from this page if you have
>>     forgotten yours.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     globaloutlookdh-l mailing list
>     globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca <mailto:globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca>
>     http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
>
>     You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This
>     means you receive every message as it is posted.
>
>     If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in
>     DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing
>     the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to
>     http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You can
>     request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten
>     yours.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> globaloutlookdh-l mailing list
> globaloutlookdh-l at uleth.ca
> http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
>
> You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
>
> If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.

-- 
---
Daniel Paul O'Donnell
Professor of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Canada

+1 403 393-2539

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.uleth.ca/pipermail/globaloutlookdh-l/attachments/20140203/ec1bf793/attachment.html>


More information about the globaloutlookdh-l mailing list