OK, I'm a scientist who used to teach English composition. So bear with me. With all the recent diaries on the Gulf oil spill there has been much inclusion of information from outside sources, use of data and figures from scientists, and use of the block quote for a variety of purposes. This is a peeve that has bothered me on blogs for awhile, but it seems to be even more problematic when we are dealing with scientific information that needs to be very precise. So instead of continuing to pester diarists with comments, I'm offering a pestering little primer on...
How to use blockquotes and scientific data without annoying people.
First, block quotes are for quotes. That is, something that someone who is not you said, typically more than just a short line. If you use a block quote, it's nice to include in your text who is being quoted, and in some cases where the quote is taken from.
For example, my first grade teacher, Mrs. George, once said this:
Never use a block quote to set aside or emphasize your own words. You can use italics ("/em" for emphasis!) or bold for that. Using a block quote just confuses people as to who is actually responsible for saying it.
Or, you can include the source of the quote within the box.
Hey, let me out of this box! -- Angry Quotee
You can also make the name of your source a link (inside or outside the box) but it can be annoying when a block quote is only introduced by a clever link that doesn't contain information on the source. For example, if you want to see who made this astute observation,
BOING BOING BOING
you'll have to follow that link to another site, or at least run your mouse over it to see if you can tell from the URL what it is. Which sucks if you're using something like an iPhone app, or are one of those keyboardy people who don't keep a hand on the mouse all the time. And often the URL doesn't give much of a clue anyway.
Not to mention, if someone copies and pastes that part of your diary so they can share it with someone, the link probably won't go with it.
The same guidelines go for photographs and figures. If you're including a nice graphic to illustrate your point, there are scientists who run those models, process the images, or or crunch the data to give you such nice figures. Please let us know who they are and where the figures came from. Often there is also additional information at their site that gives crucial insights into how the image should be interpreted. And it's just plain rude to lift scientific figures without attribution. For example, who would want to slight the folks at the EPCOR water company who thoughtfully provided this insightful data to the Edmonton Journal after Canada's gold medal hockey game.
Enough lecturing. I have to go take a pee.