0

I'm in the process of writing some training content - primarily PPT and a workbook - where I'm pulling in a LOT of "bits" of information from a ton of sources. This content can be split, spliced with other content, and re-used.

Given the nature of the content (e.g., not a paragraph or essay form), is it acceptable to create a type of "general" bibliography? For example, for just a few bullet points, I may draw the information from multiple sources. The bullet points are NOT direct quotes, just ideas gathered from the sources. However, I want to give credit where credit is due. So, is it acceptable just to list all used sources in a bibliography?

Thanks.

a11smiles
  • 101
  • 1
    Are you writing this "training content" in a commercial or academic environment? If so, does the organisation/establishment have a publications style guide? – KillingTime Oct 21 '21 at 16:08
  • No. To be more transparent, I'm starting an organization to teach some Bible training material. So, while it could be considered "academic," the environment is more focused on non-academic (or lay) learners. Regarding style guide, my personal academic training has been the use of Turabian, so I'll follow that style in general. But, nothing required of myself formally. Hopefully, that makes sense. – a11smiles Oct 21 '21 at 16:11
  • Additionally, I do not plan on including the bibliography in the printed (or PDF) materials due to costs and length. Instead, I'll provide a link in the materials to a web page that will list the resources used. – a11smiles Oct 21 '21 at 16:12
  • Although I'm skeptical of the "bibliography at my website" idea, it has one benefit: if any of those sources are on the web, their URL is often ephemeral, and the e-bibliography gives you the opportunity to fix broken links in the future. – Andy Bonner Oct 21 '21 at 18:18

1 Answers1

1

It seems you're looking to create your own rules for your own context. In a formal academic context, if you got the idea somewhere, you certainly stick it in the bibliography, and I could see value in abiding by that (as a consumer, I might judge a work by the "company it keeps," i.e. the sources it leans on, and certainly as a skeptic I might want to follow paper-trails to see that sources weren't being misrepresented).

The other use for citations and bibliographies, besides attribution, is to point the scholar toward sources where they can dive deeper than you're currently doing. I've seen bibliographies include "useful" sources that were never even quoted in the work. If yours gets so lengthy as to be unusable for this purpose, you might want to create a separate "list of resources."

I still have a few concerns with the approach:

You say, "I'm pulling in a LOT of 'bits' of information from a ton of sources. This content can be split, spliced with other content, and re-used." This would make accurate attribution very hard, and sounds like it strays dangerously toward plagiarism or bad scholarship. Make sure you don't run the risk of representing a source as saying something it doesn't. (Note: as noted, we're not talking about direct quotes here; that's easy, just attribute it directly.) But if you're synthesizing concepts from multiple sources, try to make it clear which parts you took from whom. If one sentence contains a bit of source X, a bit of source Y, and a bit of your own original ideas building on both... then rearrange your thoughts to make the sources clearer, lest you represent the sources' ideas as yours or vice versa.

Things that are "common knowledge," maybe not to everyone at large, but to anyone with basic knowledge of the topic, don't always need attribution. Say that a biography says, "Jonathan Edwards profoundly affected the course of American religious life." As long as you're not making the direct quote, IMO you don't have to mention this source just because you first discovered his importance there; everybody who knows who Jonathan Edwards was knows his impact. (But if the source then expounds on it significantly, or offers unique perspective that other sources don't, you might wish to point to it.)

Also, beware of "attribution chaining." Let's say... Charles Spurgeon used the term "Chequebook of the bank of faith," using a transactional, banking metaphor for spiritual disciplines. Let's say that scores of writers since used the same metaphor, perhaps without direct attribution. You don't have to cite all 10 people who show the concept; go straight to the source and just cite Spurgeon. (Similarly, when it comes to direct quotes, never cite a source's quotation of an earlier source; find the original.)

Andy Bonner
  • 5,752
  • Thanks Andy. I understand your points. Here’s an example…multiple sources report that Ephesians was written by a pseudonym of possibly Essene beliefs and borrowed/expounded concepts from Collosians. Instead of listing all the page numbers, I simply wanted to list the sources. I’ve also gathered other information from these sources. I’d like to list the sources without a litany of specific page numbers, if possible. Is this acceptable? – a11smiles Oct 22 '21 at 13:29
  • In short, provide a bibliography of sources without all of the specific page numbers. Keep in mind that my media is a PPT slide where I am teaching via video and a workbook where there are some points and questions for discussions — no direct quotes. I’m not writing an academic paper. Think of it more like a “sermon” with PPT and a workbook for notes. I’d just like to provide a list of references of where I got my research for 1) credibility, and 2) for like you said, allowing others to do their own research. – a11smiles Oct 22 '21 at 13:34
  • @a11smiles Again, if the multiple sources all basically say the same thing, I don't see value in listing them all. If all are deriving from one earliest source, I'd just list that, and if any add substantive value not found in the others, I'd list them for that reason. But I also don't see much value in leaving out page numbers; it doesn't serve either purpose well (cross-checking or extra-credit research). As for "is it acceptable"... like I said, you're basically making your own rules, but as long as you're going to the trouble, I'd make it as useful as possible. – Andy Bonner Oct 22 '21 at 13:38