<as someone who was trained in historical methodology, the IMJ is a
secondary reference. The original 1999 study is the primary source.  If
folks want to be accurate when giving reference to a number they should
provide a way for folks to get to the primary source.>

And should do so by citing the source.  If one is quoting a secondary
source, the cite would indicate it is not the original source.  Not only
can you land in legal hot water (as John A says - many of these large
studies are copyrighted) or under accusation of plagiarism, but you may
find yourself with a very eggy face if the quoted numbers are too old or
no longer relevant.   Sloppy quoting and not citing sources is how myths
are born.  I imagine this is how the "all records must be kept seven
years" myth was started.  Someone, somewhere, sometime, decided a seven
year value for certain financial (or other) records was accurate, and
other folks took the value and applied it to their records without
referencing the source used.  And the value continued to be quoted as
THE retention to apply.  And since someone, somewhere, sometime, said
seven years was how long to keep some records - it must be the same for
all records.  And so on.........


Ginny Jones
(Virginia A. Jones, CRM, FAI)
Records Manager
Information Technology Division
Newport News Dept. of Public Utilities
Newport News, VA
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]