Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:31:49 -0500 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
But not if it is someone elses report. I have no qualms about
correcting my own work. In fact I feel it is my professional
responsibility. I guess I'm trying to find out if I am alone in feeling
this way or if there is an ethical consensus.
On Dec 3, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Lauren Cook wrote:
> If the error is that serious, and the site that important, you could
> correct
> it in a published article about the site. (Not an article published
> for the
> SOLE purpose of the correction, of course.) Anyone researching that
> type of
> site would be more likely to rely on the published (and later)
> information
> in their research.
>
> Lauren J. Cook, RPA
> Senior Archaeologist
> Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc.
> 30 North Main Street
> Cranbury, NJ 08512
>
|
|
|