I’ve been using collaborative document editing a lot with my students this year, and while this has been one of my more successful educational experiments, referencing is a problem.
The issue occurs because I would like my students to correctly reference their sources using APA referencing (the gold standard in the health professions), however it’s also important that they record their contributions. Typically when a document is published, the authors write their names at the top either in order of contributional significance or status. When many authors are collaboratively editing the same document merely recording the authors names at the top of the document as an author is really insufficient.
If student A comes along & contributes 2/3 of the content, student B contributes most of the rest, and students C-G make merely superficial changes, why should all of them be given equal credit for this work? It seems that there’s a need for each contribution to be referenced according to both the original source of the material, and the contributor of that information to the collaborative document editing project.
So far, I’m at a bit of a loss as to how this can be achieved, but it seems that the old style of referencing doesn’t stack up to these new methods of document creation. Perhaps we need an APA 2.0, or something new altogether.
I’d be interested to hear about anyone else’s experiences and/or thoughts on this matter.

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 10, 2008 at 8:25 am
Sarah Stewart
Haven’t got a clue, so when you find out, let me know.
November 10, 2008 at 10:32 am
leighblackall
this has always been the problem with group work! But with the wiki’s record of history, you can now actually assess it if you need to
November 10, 2008 at 8:35 pm
davidmcquillan
Assessing group work through a wiki’s history must be time consuming. Is it?
November 10, 2008 at 8:36 pm
davidmcquillan
I wonder about using a combination of APA & another style.
For example sources could be referenced using APA, and authors could reference themselves with a number. I might try this out.
November 28, 2008 at 12:45 am
Anne Marie Cunningham
I think that maybe it is up to the group to decide about this. But scoring collaboration is an issue without doubt. I think the more we talk about it the better as this clay shirky interview clip shows: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4×53yzMu-Dw
Also, I thought the order of authors usually represented the amount of contribution with first author contributing most?
November 28, 2008 at 1:24 am
davidmcquillan
Hi Anne, thanks for your comment.
Re: the order of authors – this is my understanding about the order of authors also, but I have heard that particularly in the sciences it’s not uncommon for the author of most status (who oversees the work of the other contributors) to be first even if they’ve done very little of the grunt work. I’m not sure how widespread this is.