#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Hydrological Cycle

I started Hydrological Cycle as well

• Options
1.
edited December 2010

Great! This is another very important page. It's nice! Lots of useful data, and a good picture.

I've improving it a bit now...

One thing that worries me:

Desciption

The water moves from one reservoir to another, such as from river to ocean, or from the ocean to the atmosphere, by the physical processes of evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, runoff, and subsurface flow. In so doing, the water goes through different phases: liquid, solid, and gas.

The hydrological cycle also involves the exchange of heat energy, which leads to temperature changes. For instance, in the process of evaporation, water takes up energy from the surroundings and cools the environment. Conversely, in the process of condensation, water releases energy to its surroundings, warming the environment."

The final quotation mark suggests that perhaps this whole section was a quotation. However, there was no matching quotation mark near the beginning of this section. So, it's not instantly clear that this whole section is a quotation. I suspect that you started the quotation of Wikipedia at the beginning of the previous section. But you can't expect the reader to guess that.

If it's not completely clear that we are quoting somebody, it's plagiarism.

Perhaps it's just folks in academia who consider plagiarism the worst sin of all. But we do, for reasons I'd be glad to explain, and I expect a lot of academics will be reading the Azimuth Project — so we have to be careful.

I usually find that I can explain things more clearly than the people who write Wikipedia articles, so I will just take this section and rewrite it. However, if you want to quote people, please be really clear that you're doing that.

Comment Source:Great! This is another very important page. It's nice! Lots of useful data, and a good picture. I've improving it a bit now... One thing that worries me: > **Desciption** > The water moves from one reservoir to another, such as from river to ocean, or from the ocean to the atmosphere, by the physical processes of evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, runoff, and subsurface flow. In so doing, the water goes through different phases: liquid, solid, and gas. > The hydrological cycle also involves the exchange of heat energy, which leads to temperature changes. For instance, in the process of evaporation, water takes up energy from the surroundings and cools the environment. Conversely, in the process of condensation, water releases energy to its surroundings, warming the environment." The final quotation mark suggests that perhaps this whole section was a quotation. However, there was no matching quotation mark near the beginning of this section. So, it's not _instantly clear_ that this whole section is a quotation. I suspect that you started the quotation of Wikipedia at the beginning of the _previous_ section. But you can't expect the reader to guess that. **If it's not completely clear that we are quoting somebody, it's plagiarism.** Perhaps it's just folks in academia who consider plagiarism the worst sin of all. But we do, for reasons I'd be glad to explain, and I expect a lot of academics will be reading the Azimuth Project &mdash; so we have to be careful. I usually find that I can explain things more clearly than the people who write Wikipedia articles, so I will just take this section and rewrite it. However, if you want to quote people, please be really clear that you're doing that.
• Options
2.
ill correct this today. thx for the reminder!
Comment Source:ill correct this today. thx for the reminder!
• Options
3.
edited December 2010

• I changed the page to Water cycle, since I think a simple word is better than a fancy word like "hydrological", and Wikipedia seems to agree: they say "water cycle". I'm always trying to make things simple.

• Note, Staffan, that the first word in a page title is capitalized, while the rest are only capitalized if they need to be capitalized. We follow the same conventions as Wikipedia here.

• From what Staffan wrote, I guessed that glaciers hold 1.74 % (or 24,064 Gt) of the world's water, while snow holds 1.68% (or 23,400 Gt). If this is incorrect, I hope Staffan can fix what I wrote on Water cycle!

• Eventually we will want a page on 'Water scarcity' or 'Water shortage', and the material in the 'Water scarcity' section of Water cycle can be moved there. The water shortage issue is very important!

• I don't know what "category" this page should belong to! I added it to "climate" but I'm not sure that's quite correct. Right now our categories are:

action, area of research, biodiversity, books, carbon, climate, continuum mechanics, energy, geoengineering, members, meta, methodology, organizations, other, people, reading, report, reports, things to do, visualisation

I find "continuum mechanics" to be an overly specialized category, at least at our current stage of development. It could equally well be something broad like "physics". On the other hand, we don't have a category called "earth science" or "geoscience" or "ecology"... so I'm not sure where to be Water cycle.

Comment Source:A couple more comments: * I changed the page to [[Water cycle]], since I think a simple word is better than a fancy word like "hydrological", and Wikipedia seems to agree: they say "water cycle". I'm always trying to make things simple. * Note, Staffan, that the first word in a page title is capitalized, while the rest are only capitalized if they *need* to be capitalized. We follow the same conventions as Wikipedia here. * From what Staffan wrote, I guessed that glaciers hold 1.74 % (or 24,064 Gt) of the world's water, while snow holds 1.68% (or 23,400 Gt). If this is incorrect, I hope Staffan can fix what I wrote on [[Water cycle]]! * Eventually we will want a page on 'Water scarcity' or 'Water shortage', and the material in the 'Water scarcity' section of [[Water cycle]] can be moved there. The water shortage issue is very important! * I don't know what "category" this page should belong to! I added it to "climate" but I'm not sure that's quite correct. Right now our categories are: action, area of research, biodiversity, books, carbon, climate, continuum mechanics, energy, geoengineering, members, meta, methodology, organizations, other, people, reading, report, reports, things to do, visualisation I find "continuum mechanics" to be an overly specialized category, at least at our current stage of development. It could equally well be something broad like "physics". On the other hand, we don't have a category called "earth science" or "geoscience" or "ecology"... so I'm not sure where to be [[Water cycle]].
• Options
4.
I am ok with this I fixed the incorrections, it''s ground water, not snow.
Comment Source:I am ok with this I fixed the incorrections, it''s ground water, not snow.
• Options
5.
edited December 2010

Not really anything to do with Staffan, but an adjunct to John's point.

Another reason to be careful about indicating quotations is that, unfortunately, these days there are companies whose business is attempting to rush people into believing they've commited copyright infringement and convince them to pay money rather than argue the case in court. Lawyers, which I'm emphatically not, seem to say that often they blanket go for any reproduction, regardless of whether it's actually allowable under copyright law exemptions. One exemption is that you're allowed limited quoting of material for scholarly purposes, but that makes indicating the "quoteness" very clearly important. (Obviously wikipedia isn't going to pull this kind of thing, but apparently several news outlets are outsourcingf copyright "enforcement".)

I'm actually more concerned about this risk than others because the stories in the press indicate that these companies aren't interested in dialogue to resolve any "issues", just hassling as long as they think there's a chance of getting money.

Comment Source:Not really anything to do with Staffan, but an adjunct to John's point. Another reason to be careful about indicating quotations is that, unfortunately, these days there are companies whose business is attempting to rush people into believing they've commited copyright infringement and convince them to pay money rather than argue the case in court. Lawyers, _which I'm emphatically not_, seem to say that often they blanket go for any reproduction, regardless of whether it's actually allowable under copyright law exemptions. One exemption is that you're allowed limited quoting of material for scholarly purposes, but that makes indicating the "quoteness" very clearly important. (Obviously wikipedia isn't going to pull this kind of thing, but apparently several news outlets are outsourcingf copyright "enforcement".) I'm actually more concerned about this risk than others because the stories in the press indicate that these companies aren't interested in dialogue to resolve any "issues", just hassling as long as they think there's a chance of getting money.