Forums
After many years of inconsistent and haphazard methods for citing my sources, I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. I have my trusty copy of Evidence Explained Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace and a manual for my genealogy program The Master Genealogist. The source I'm working with is a passenger ship manifest from ellisisland.org The problem I have is that when I scroll down the list of source types, the only otion that works is "Ship Passenger List (filmed)." Trying to use this template and get something that looks like 11.17 in EE is frustrating to say the least. The template has many fields for source elements that apply to filmed records and no source elements for online records.
I posted a query at the forum for TMG about how users handle this. Basically there are no templates for online records, only filmed and printed ones. One of the responses suggested that I not use EE and use the older Evidence! instead and treat the online records like microfilmed ones. I could put that record was viewed at ellisisland.org in the comment section and alter the template to make sure that the comment appears in the full footnote. The rationale given for this is that a website is just a fancy microfilm viewer, so using templates for filmed records is fine. I'm not sure I agree with this rationale.
Given that this is an issue I will encounter with about 90% of my sources, am I better off making custom templates for each type of online source?
LenihanLimerick:
LenihanLimerick:
I'm with you. Using microfilm is not the same as using digital images by an online provider. Citing them the same is tantamount to citing an original legal document when you've only used a clerk's copy or a recopied register. Not only does every "re-creation" of a record create some problem some where, and digitization projects can skip an image or a block of images—thereby warping our search results—but today's well-done digital images are also enhancing the images that they take from film.
Analyzing the credibility of our evidence, especially when evidence disagrees with each other, means we need to know exactly what we have used.
Records of this type need layered citations. There's the original record, there's a film publication, and then there's a digital edition. Ideally, software templates for records of this type would offer options so that users can choose which layers apply.
To answer your specific question: As users of a particular software, if our chosen software doesn't offer us the options we need, then those "custom templates" are our best approach. They are often just as quick, once we get in the habit of using them.
Of course, we can also lobby for the software to improve its templates. Many software programs just replicate the template models from EE. But, then, EE also cautions users that (a) even in 885 pages it cannot provide a model for every record in each and every form of media; and (b) by understanding the essential elements and layers, they can mix 'n match as needed.