Gary Gauthier raises a question every researcher faces again and again. We paraphrase here for brevity:
"What do we do when we have already constructed a correctly formatted citation and the site provider disappears—i.e., sells, merges, or goes out of business? Because I followed EE guidelines, my researched information can still be found. Had I used the now-vanished site's suggested formats, this may not have been the case. But how do I handle the situation in my research notes?"
Drum roll here … "Had I used the now-vanished site's suggested formats, this may not have been the case. …"
Ah, yes, Gary! That's one reason EE citations are more detailed than what most archives recommend. And more detailed than what’s recommended by CMOS,1 MLA,2 and other respected guides.
As for “how to handle in our research notes,” it depends upon what the situation is.
If the site has disappeared off the web, we might keep it and add a comment to the parenthetical “publication data” within our note. For example:
… (http://www.abcdefg.com: accessed 7 September 2017; site inactive on 10 November 2018).
This documents a time frame within which we (or others) should be able to find a site-capture at Wayback Machine.3
If the site has been renamed (or sold to another entity that then renamed it) we might choose to leave the citation as it is, and add a note at the end.
… imaged at Footnote (https://www.footnote.com/123456 : accesssed 9 September 2009); this site is now known as Fold3.
In the latter case, the best approach would be to simply locate the record at Fold3 and cite the current URL.
But then...
A bigger issue also exists for those of us who do research projects that extend across many years. When a much-used site changes its name, should we take time away from research to go back through all our notes, research reports, databases, or whatever to update every citation?
In an ideal world, of course. But the reality in today’s online world is that some mega-sites have changed their names umpteen times since we began our Whatever Project. Changing all our notes every time one of these sites goes through a corporate change could kill a lot of time we could have used for research and evidence analysis.
EE suggests a compromise. If, in the course of correlating and analyzing new findings against older findings, we encounter a name-change situation or a defunct site, we might then correct the notes that are involved. When we reach the point of publishing something from our project, we will check all URLs as a matter of course, as the last item on our work list, and then make all needed updates for whatever portion of our project we are publishing.
1. Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).
2. MLA Handbook, 8th ed. (New York: Modern Language Association, 2016).
3. Internet Archive, Wayback Machine (https://archive.org/web/web.php).
IMAGE CREDIT:
CanStockPhoto (https://www.canstockphoto.com/comic-speech-bubble-outline-style-51128795.html : downloaded 7 December 2018), item csp51128795 uploaded by vectorsun on 2017-10-01; used under license.
HOW TO CITE:
Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Disappearing Websites: How Do We Cite Them?", blog post, QuickTips: The Blog @ Evidence Explained (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/disappearing-websites-how-cite-them : accessed [date]).
Disappearing Websites and the Wayback Machine
I have two instances regarding citations related to the Wayback Machine at archive.org.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210916112550/https://sbgen.org/cemeteryRecords.php?lv=R&cid=2#
https://web.archive.org/web/20210916112550/https://sbgen.org/cemeteryRecords.php?lv=R&cid=2#
Please advise how a citation for Waldo Abbott in the Carpinteria Cemetery Records at the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society (sbgen.org) should be formatted for these instances.
Thanks for your guidance.
Robin
Robin, have you seen the…
Robin, have you seen the Wayback example at EE4 §15.18 (pp. 577–78)?
A Wayback citation, as with most everything else we pull from the web, involves at least two layers. In one layer you would cite the original record or source. In the second layer, you would cite the website (Wayback or wherever) that provides the information.
The EE example is a magazine article, preserved at Wayback. You have used cemetery records. Therefore, in your first layer you would cite your cemetery record, rather than a magazine article. (EE4 provides a variety of cemetery-record examples in Chapter 6, covering a wide array of cemetery-related records.) Your second layer would then follow the basic pattern for citing Wayback.
Elizabeth
P.S. I suspect you'd love for me to study the details at each of your links and construct personalized citations for you; but this website cannot offer a citation-creation service. (There are tens of thousands of users of this page and just one of me. :) ) But, for those who have studied EE, have created their own citation following the guidance there, and are still puzzled over some point, I'm happy to discuss with them the citation they've created.
Hello Elizabeth, I owe you…
Hello Elizabeth,
I owe you several apologies.
I was merely providing the cemetery record URLs to illustrate how radically it had changed after the website redesign.
Lastly I want to apologize for wasting your valuable time. I'm so grateful that you continue to make yourself available for all the questions that are posted.
Regards,
Robin
Hello, Robin. You have my…
Hello, Robin. You have my apologies for misunderstanding you. If we consult the current URL and it has the information we need, then we cite the current configuration. There's no need to discuss prior iterations that present exactly the same information. If we are about to publish our project and we have older citations to the older version, we'd want to update them before publication--just as we do with all our online citations at publication time.