Robert Baron writes:

 "In my opinion, citations to the WWW
should include the usual Author, Title, URL, date, etc., but should also
somehow acknowledge the authority of the information used."

I agree with giving Authors (also referred to in cataloguing as statements
of responsibility), titles and dates wherever possible.  I have also
advocated giving the date the site was last seen to be active and still
containing the cited information.

"This is not to say that only "certifiably authoritative" resources are
acceptable, but the scholar should be obliged to document and perhaps to
defend his choices of materials"

I agree that use of materials should be able to be defended.  The authority
of any source, in print or electronic form, should be questioned.

"In addition, because WWW resources are
not published in archival "editions," it may be necessary to include
facsimiles of WWW resources in an appendix"

I hesitate to agree with this one, but I can see that there might not be an
alternative solution in some cases, such as now-defunct sites or rapidly
changing ones that aren't archived.  I certainly wouldn't advocate it as
general practice for all web citations.

Susan Meadows wrote:  " If information cited can only be found by doing
complicated searches,
then it shouldn't be used in the first place."

I was referring to using a search engine to find a website, given the
author, site title, article title  etc.  That is what I would do if I wanted
to find a site whose address had changed.

" If your only form of research occurs via the internet, then you should
look at your research skills."

I was referring to research involving the web itself.  For example, research
on "Museums on the net", which might involve citing several websites.  Not
all of the material would be able to be photocopied and put in an appendix.

Barbara Palmer
[log in to unmask]