Jack the Ripper Suspects with author Paul Williams

[Elamarna]

I have used Casebook and the like for research in the past, but when I have I have always contacted the poster asking permission, and if they do not respond I didn't use it..

I have also had my own research taken and used without being asked, I chalk it up to my own fault for publicly posting something, but still think it's unethical at best

Steadmund Brand

I agree, but would draw a line around for instance mentioning research say " x as done work on this subject" and give a ref or link to that research. If the research is to be discussed in any detail I ask.


Steve

[rjpalmer]

An important and thorny topic, but all these posts are from the perspective of the internet poster. What about the other side of the equation? ie., someone who is keeping their research "under wraps," but wakes one morning and sees similar raw material being posted on-line? (There are a lot of people fishing in the same waters). Are they now required to give credit to someone on the internet for material that they themselves had independently discovered months or even years previously? It's a tricky issue. I see posters doing extremely detailed research, and "connecting the dots." Debra A., for instance. This obviously should be acknowledged if one was to refer to it in a published text. But if someone is just reprinting a document or a census return or a newspaper article, who is to say that they "discovered" this, rather, than 50 other people who are also combing the same data bases? To give an example. Many years ago I found what I consider to be an extremely important article. I never reprinted it, though I did send a copy to a very well-known Ripper author. It has since found its way on-line, although it's been basically ignored and misunderstood. If I ever use it in a published article, it will no doubt look as though I found this "on-line," but such is not the case. How would you personally handle this situation? And is it really in the best interest of historical research to rush to the internet with raw data in hopes of "staking a claim?" I don't know. I don't have any concrete answers, and it raises a lot of tricky questions in our new age where a person can "publish" something within minutes.

[Debra A]

An important and thorny topic, but all these posts are from the perspective of the internet poster. What about the other side of the equation? ie., someone who is keeping their research "under wraps," but wakes one morning and sees similar raw material being posted on-line? (There are a lot of people fishing in the same waters). Are they now required to give credit to someone on the internet for material that they themselves had independently discovered months or even years previously? It's a tricky issue. I see posters doing extremely detailed research, and "connecting the dots." Debra A., for instance. This obviously should be acknowledged if one was to refer to it in a published text. But if someone is just reprinting a document or a census return or a newspaper article, who is to say that they "discovered" this, rather, than 50 other people who are also combing the same data bases? To give an example. Many years ago I found what I consider to be an extremely important article. I never reprinted it, though I did send a copy to a very well-known Ripper author. It has since found its way on-line, although it's been basically ignored and misunderstood. If I ever use it in a published article, it will no doubt look as though I found this "on-line," but such is not the case. How would you personally handle this situation? And is it really in the best interest of historical research to rush to the internet with raw data in hopes of "staking a claim?" I don't know. I don't have any concrete answers, and it raises a lot of tricky questions in our new age where a person can "publish" something within minutes.

I think that it would be ridiculous to credit individual newspaper and census entries posted to the boards. There is no way of knowing who found something first when anyone can access the material. Newspaper articles are regularly 'rediscovered.'
I was wondering more about researchers who post original research in its entirety on the boards, where they have discovered something previously unknown through that research and shared it on the message boards for discussion, rather than writing an article or dissertation. Sometimes the ongoing research will be posted over several different threads. If that researcher's new findings were used by an author in a book, I wondered if a general acknowledgement at the beginning of a book would be acceptable or should the specific information be credited directly to that researcher?

[Ozzy]

Just listening to this now.
--Jonathan, 26 minutes and a few seconds in you use a word I have not heard before, in Ripper studies or any other field - "suspectologists".
Google gives me a few instances of "suspectology" so I guess there must be suspectologists!

[jmenges]

Hi Ozzy,

The term 'suspectologist' might only be used within the field of Ripperology.
I'm not sure who first used it to describe a researcher focused primarily on a suspect, or group of suspects, but I'm certain I didn't invent the word.



All the best,

JM

[MrBarnett]

Hi Ozzy,

The term 'suspectologist' might only be used within the field of Ripperology.
I'm not sure who first used it to describe a researcher focused primarily on a suspect, or group of suspects, but I'm certain I didn't invent the word.



All the best,

JM

JM,

There's probably someone out there cursing you for not giving them the credit for the term.

Gary

[jmenges]

Yes I'm sure there is. Possibly someone who owns a copy of the old archived message boards on CD-ROM can dust it off and find the person we should congratulate.

JM

[PaulWilliams]

The earliest use of the word that I'm aware of is in a post by Christer Holmgren on the forums, 20 February 2015.

[jmenges]

Chris George used the term in a post in 2004, which is what makes me think we'd never know unless someone had a copy of the old disk casebook used to sell. There was a server crash in 2008 that permanently erased 10 years worth of posts on the message boards.

JM

[MrBarnett]

Chris George used the term in a post in 2004, which is what makes me think we'd never know unless someone had a copy of the old disk casebook used to sell. There was a server crash in 2008 that permanently erased 10 years worth of posts on the message boards.

JM

A simple search reveals the term being used on here and on JTRF in 2008. Perhaps Chris can remember whether he thought he was coining a new word in 2004.

There are echoes of the fascinating 'one-off' debate here.