Forums
Dear Editor,
Do I use the Database Publication Year or the Accessed Year ?
Having given copies of your QuickSheet; Citing Ancestry® Databases & Images (2017) to a couple of developer types, I am now working on a project to make sure that I can craft the Citations that are in this Awesome work. Thank you for that. But, I may have some comments or questions from my quest in doing so.
I started with the Basic Template of a record type that I have never seen before, nor would my research take me (at least so far) to the first, example, template. The 'easy' part of that record was the Citation, but hard part was who to enter the information into my database. (my issue).
My question is in First Reference Note. More specifically, the "Date: entry.
My output from the Source Bibliography that my program generated looks like this.
Hall, Gwendolyn Midlo, comp. Louisiana, Slave Records, 1719-1820 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2009.
My 2009 date entry is the Publication Date for that record collection, by Ancestry. I am not concerned in this question about "comp:" part of my entry. I am still working with my software on that one.
The QuickSheet entry as 2017. If I have read the rest of the QuickSheet correctly, that date is the Accessed year.
My Citation (First Reference Note) has the accessed date in it.
I looked through EvidenceExplained (3rd Edition) and looking at 2.48, page 68. The difference, I think, is 2.48 is the publication year, while my example is an online database. There are actually 2 publication dates, if I am understanding this correctly, 2003 when Gwendolyn Midlo Hall pubished her database, vs 2009 when Ancestry published that database. But my bibliography is focused on Ancestry. Again, my citation gets the "source of the source" publication (2003).
So, my question is:
Do I use the Database Publication Year or the Accessed Year ?
Thank you,
Russ
Russ, you'd be perfectly
Russ, you'd be perfectly correct using either date. If it is a static database, as opposed to one that is not regularly updated, then the year of publication works well. On the other hand, as you know, many databases are silently updated. For those, giving the date of access facilitates locating, at Wayback, an older database or one that has been taken down.
And yes, I know you'd much prefer to have one concrete answer you can pass along to your developer friends. But you know that, by nature, I see all the ifs, ands, and buts!
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for that answer..
The referenced example was a great example to help me think through the question to ask. In many databases, I know how to find, on ancestry, when they were updated.
The other issue, caused by the software, is the Date Field. That field is part of the Source Template, so, over time, I might have many records from that database and that database continues to change.
The compromise for me, and the software I use, will be to use the Publication date of that database provided by Ancestry. So, I can take that date from their source description.
The wayback machine point is valid, but I use the 'accessed date" for that part of a problem.
One other point that I try to keep in the back of my mind, is being consistent. Your QuickSheet helped me with that to figure out what date I thought you were using.
This specific Source Template probably needs only one minor change, but I need to work on a couple more examples for that. The template does not ask for, nor gives me the option for "comp." that you may have seen in what I saw in the bibliography. For this specific example, I am OK with that.
Thank you for the feedback.
Russ
P.S.: two of the documents referred to on the QuickSheet are no longer on Ancestry. It appears that they have removed the Ancestry Family History Wiki, but still looking for that. I haven't gone to the Wayback machine to look for them. I know the two articles were there, but for this project, couldn't find them. Still looking.
Dear Editor,I am trying to
Dear Editor,I am trying to use the evidence analysis process map in evaluating my sources. I have a question about a school yearbook. SOURCES: Because it is a book gathering a lot of information from different sources it would be an "Authored work." INFORMATION: The information is, for example, a bio next to his name and picture. Therefore the informant would be the student giving the information. Therefore it would be "Primary" source. EVIDENCE: Since the student supplied the information it would be direct. Another question: Now if the student name was just listed as a member of a club: SOURCES: Name is from a list of members that was supplied by the club and not directly from the student. Therefore it would be a "Derivative." source INFORMATION: Would be "SECONDARY" because it came from the club, not the indiviual. EVIDENCE: That he was a member of a specific club would be direct because it answers the question of what clubs he belonged to. Am I on the right track of this thinking process?
Elizabeth, interesting
Elizabeth, interesting questions! I've answer this over in the Evidence Analysis Forum.