Giving your sources, when and why

[HoHun]

Hi Jemiba,

This is an actual forum rule (bolded in the original rules):

Give your sources. This is vital to allow other forum members to judge your contribution appropriately and to appropriately credit the original source.

(See https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/pages/rules/ )

It doesn't say "non-compliant posts will be deleted immediately", but I personally think this would be an excellent idea.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Jemiba]

Hi Jemiba,

This is an actual forum rule (bolded in the original rules):

Give your sources. This is vital to allow other forum members to judge your contribution appropriately and to appropriately credit the original source.

(See https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/pages/rules/ )

It doesn't say "non-compliant posts will be deleted immediately", but I personally think this would be an excellent idea.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I think it's obvious, nevertheless: This rule principally is referring to posting pictures, drawings or data from books,
mags, websites, etc., as in the majority of posts here, containing such data. Must admit, that in most cases I would
be overcharged to judge, if the 3-view of, say, the Sukhoi Checkmate, published in an issue of magazine X is based
on a tiny drawing from a manufacturers brochure, or just made from photos.

What we are talking about is, giving the basis, a draftsman, posting his work here, has used. And saying more, than
what can be expressed by Scott's source grading, could have negative effects for authors, I'm afraid. Saying "For my
drawing I used quite a good, but not very detailed drawing (source grade 4" makes clear, that smaller details
probably are speculative, not more. But saying "I used the drawing N° Z 043857 from the archive of the Deutsche Museum" could well bring others to suss that source (sources not always are easy to find !), and then maybe, the next book about that type or project will be written by someone else.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Jemiba,

If you're fine with Justo's posting style, I totally respect that and don't actually need an explanation for your decision. I'm entirely happy with considering moderation a black box of which I only know input and output, but nothing about the actual circuitry ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[klem]

Let me say a few words about the question, because we all turn around the pot without being able to name things by their names. Hohun says: "This is an actual forum rule (bolded in the original rules):" Give your sources. This is vital to allow Other Forum Members to judge your contribution Appropriaty and to appropriatly credit the original source. "Justo says:" I have prefered not to include too mary texts because all this material will be published ... "Jemiba says: COULD Well Bring Others to Suss that Source (Sources Not Always Are Easy To Find!), And then Maybe, the Next Book About That Type or Project Will Be Written by Someone Else. " So based on these few affiramations, we must conclude that the main goal is the disclosure of the source, but this source so well kept is the result of research work and so much effort and time for a Library rat which finds itself stuck in a position either to publish a find and hide for a time the source of its information or disclose it before terms. Of the other also in the case of non-disclosure exists of coercive means to lead to disclosure- I doubt it- because we cannot force someone to give us their work except perhaps by philanthropy. And even here on SPF, it must be said many of us monopolize this information which is legitimate for reasons that we all know. This precise point remains a real dilemma of ethics not easy to solve.

 

[Jemiba]

The "Give your sources" rule generally to data, drawings or photos, that weren't created by the one, who posted them .
For drawings, photos or data, he created by himself, principally his own name would be sufficient.
To the best of my best knowledge, that's the way to handle it in other fora, too.

... and then we are in the problem to decide, if this contribution was posted in the correct section, that means, is it
a depiction of the real thing, or is it more of a What-If ? And where is the dividing line here ?
And just to spill some beans from that mysterious black box, this question isn't without differences in opinion in that
noble circle of the forum staff, too.
How long can a drawing, or a rendering be regarded as appropriate to the ...projects section, and when it should rather
be posted in the User-Artwork-and-Models section ?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The purpose of the forum rule is to allow forum members identify the original source of the data or image presented and also to correctly give credit to the source. It generally presupposes that the data or image has been taken from a published book, magazine or website.

Sometimes, the user can't provide the source as they didn't record it. Sometimes, the information is from personal knowledge or a picture taken by the user.

In the specific example of Justo's drawings, we've discussed this before.

Justo uses multiple sources, mainly secondary. He often adds plausible details that aren't necessarily based on the source drawings. So they must be regarded as speculative, not a replacement for original sources, but in the nature of a visualisation of an aircraft that could have resulted from the real project drawings.

So long are the drawings are labelled as such, I don't have an issue.

The broader idea on users, authors (or future authors) having to disclose sources if they post original artwork based on real source documents - no, I don't think they have to specifically, though it's useful to indicate the provenance of the drawing. E.g. I could post a P.1121 drawing by Barrie Hygate from my book and say its "based on original manufacturer drawings", I don't have to disclose where Barrie got the source drawings from or the specific drawing numbers involved.

I agree there's a grey area with user generated drawings. In general, I believe speculative drawings are better placed in User Artwork than project topics, but this is an area where moderators don't all agree. If someone tries to make an accurate drawing based on good source material, like Chris Gibson does in his books, then that could correctly sit in the project topic just a validly as a Pilot Press drawing from Air International. Neither are actually original manufacturer drawings.

And that's without even mentioning how some manufacturer drawings are themselves incorrect...