Despite the fact that I agree that providing full references
are in the best interests of a Statalist poster, I strongly
disagree that such posters should be publicly denigrated on
the list for failing to provide such. This issue has gone
from appropriate gentle reminders to what I see as
inappropriate flamings.
Realistically, I think more harm will come to Statlist from a
a continuation of flaming than if the whole issue was ignored.
Why not let those who do not help themselves (by providing
full references) simply be ignored? If the list has become a
"what's in it for me?" exercize for responders, they should
simply stop responding.
My impression is that the recently-flamed posters are also
recent additions to the list... Isn't it clear that flaming
is simply not the way we should be welcoming new participants?
I invite Statalist members to use their personal judgment
concerning whether to refuse to answer postings with incomplete
references and to consider leaving the list if they believe
their personal gain (a potentially useful reference) justifies
flaming.
Tom
-----------------------------------
Thomas J. Steichen
[email protected]
-----------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of n j cox
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:44 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: st: Incomplete references are not acceptable
Despite many requests and a detailed exhortation in the
FAQ, postings with incomplete references (name(s) and date only or
even names alone) persist. It should be self-evident that incomplete
references are obscure to very many; only complete references are
helpful. Also, the implication that you care only about people in your
own sub-discipline who may know the answer is insensitive, if not mildly
offensive.
I invite Statalist members to refuse to answer postings with
incomplete references and to complain personally to
people who insist on ignoring good practice.
People who want to participate in an alternative list based
on different principles should feel free to set it up and
run it their way. Otherwise, expect the disapproval of those who have
worked hard to set high standards on this list and to
maintain them. Statalist is free and there is no charge
for the quick, correct and helpful answers likely if you ask
clear questions, but there is not a free ride for people who
won't even think carefully about their postings.
Nick
[email protected]
Erasmo Giambona wrote
.... Stock-Yogo ... Stock-Wright (2000)
Mahabir Priydarshini wrote
Eaton's and Tamura's (1994)
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
-----------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message, including any
attachment(s), contains information that may be confidential,
protected by the attorney-client or other legal privileges, and/or
proprietary non-public information. If you are not an intended
recipient of this message or an authorized assistant to an intended
recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and
then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution,
or reproduction of this message and/or any of its attachments (if
any) by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be
unlawful.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
