Jim Weinheimer sad:
"Therefore, OCLC wants attribution to materials they did not create, or in other words, they are claiming authorship over materials really authored by others."
To be fair, the proposed attribution statement in the 996 field does not claim that OCLC created the record. It simply says the record is subject to the terms of the proposed policy:
"996 $aOCLCWCRUP $iUse and transfer of this record is governed by the OCLC® Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records. $uhttp://purl.org/oclc/wcrup/1.0"
Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu>
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC's proposed policy on record use - my two cents worth
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 2:52 AM
> Tim Spalding wrote:
>
> > 2. The Wikipedia flip is clever. But, of course, this
> would be a
> > different argument if OCLC were only asking for
> *attribution*. There
> > is a vast universe of such data, which is still
> fundamentally open for
> > requiring some minimal notice. In this case, there
> aren't good grounds
> > for attaching Creative Commons licenses—which is
> based on Copyright
> > law, which doesn't apply here. But few would
> object if OCLC just want
> > a link.
>
> I have nothing against giving "attribution" so
> long as it is true. Here are some definitions of
> "attribution:"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright)
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribution
>
> In both cases, the author is the one getting the
> attribution. I know that I have made thousands of records
> that have ended up in the OCLC database, many of which I
> busted my a** on. I must say that I got help to make my
> records through the other records in the database, all made
> by other catalogers working at other institutions. In all of
> these cases, OCLC did not create any of those records. They
> provided a network whereby the authors of these records
> could share their work, but they did not create the records
> in the database. I willingly cede the "authorship"
> of my records to whatever institution was paying me, and
> other catalogers have as well.
>
> Therefore, OCLC wants attribution to materials they did not
> create, or in other words, they are claiming authorship over
> materials really authored by others.
>
> Now, I teach information literacy to my students and one
> big point we discuss are correct citations and plagiarism. I
> tell them what plagiarism is (claiming that you created or
> wrote something that was really created or written by
> someone else) and that plagiarism is so serious they can get
> expelled if they are caught.
>
> If attribution is so important, then it should go to the
> real creators of these records and not to those who
> didn't do anything in their creation. Therefore, we
> could use the 040 field, not the 996(? correct) field that
> OCLC wants since one provides the true information.
>
> Jim Weinheimer
Received on Mon Apr 20 2009 - 11:50:19 EDT