Do You "Just Trust" Citations Offered by Digital Providers?

You caught two critical points, Jade, and your policy of double-checking, regardless of who the provider is, is exactly on target. As I noted in today's follow-up post (http://bit.ly/1lSlhY6) this same situation exists with many providers. Citations rarely rank high on a provider's business plan. As a result, providers who do offer citations often have them done by employees with limited research experience, or even interns.

We really, really, really appreciate their recognition of the fact that source-identification is needed. Even if some of their citations have problems, they are conveying to new researchers the fact that where-we-get-our-stuff does matter. Still, serious researchers also recognize the value of thinking through each citation for themselves.

Stanm, you clearly have an eye for detail.  No one else caught that "missing" semi-colon between two parts of a layered citation in the model that EE gave:

Enumeration District Maps for the Twelfth through Sixteenth Censuses of the United States, 1900–1940, Microfilm Publication A3378 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives, 2003), roll 24, Acadia–Rapides, Map: “Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, 1900," frame number not visible on digital image at “United States Enumeration District Maps for the Twelfth through the Sixteenth US Censuses, 1900-1940," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-34868-10041-54?cc=2329948&wc=92V7-16X:1077257201 : accessed 23 Jun 2014), image 667.

The issue here harks back to the mantra that citation is an art, not a science. Here, the citation needed to say exactly what I've highlighted above: the frame number is not visible on the digital image. Having said that, if we then put the commonplace semicolon and then put "digital image" again in the second layer as an identifier for what comes thereafter, then we'd be creating unnecessary redundancy:

Enumeration District Maps for the Twelfth through Sixteenth Censuses of the United States, 1900–1940, Microfilm Publication A3378 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives, 2003), roll 24, Acadia–Rapides, Map: “Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, 1900," frame number not visible on digital image; digital image, "United States Enumeration District Maps for the Twelfth through the Sixteenth US Censuses, 1900-1940," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-34868-10041-54?cc=2329948&wc=92V7-16X:1077257201 : accessed 23 Jun 2014), image 667.

If, to avoid redundancy, our first layer were to simply say "frame number not visible," then we would be implying that it was the NARA film itself that did not have a visible frame number.

Would you handle this differently?

Good observations, Debra.

Re the "treatment of the title," the basic issue here is that two different titles are involved: (1) the title that NARA gave to its own microfilm publication and (2) the title that the provider gave to its database.

Re, the web address: EE's reason for placing it at the end is that we have a two-layered citation. First, we need to cite the record itself. That is a microfilm publication that has no web address. Having cited that in full, then it's time to cite the medium through which we viewed this record—the website.

Re the splitting of the "microfilm number and image number," the provider is correct in separating the two because they are peas and apples. The image number refers to the image in their database, not the image in the microfilm. In Layer 1 of the citation, the microfilm publication, we do need to cite a frame number; but we can't because the provider's image appears to be cropped and doesn't show a frame number. (This is one the issues we discussed in today's follow-up to yesterday's question; see http://bit.ly/1lSlhY6). In Layer 2, our citation of the website that provides a digital image of the original publication, citing the image number helps to locate their image at their site.

Re their placement of the identification of "the repository that holds the microfilm," this is another issue covered in today's post; but you've raised an angle not covered there. The provider's citation of their source-of-the-source isn't actually to a repository. If we were citing an original record that existed in only one place, we would cite the repository. In this case, however, the repository that owns this set of records had it microfilmed and then published the film. Therefore, the digital provider is referring to the film. But do see our broader comments in today's post about citing source-of-the-source.

ACProctor,

No. Demonization is not the issue. Nor do we consider critical analysis to be demonization. We greatly appreciate all providers who make an effort to include source citations and have, for years, worked with more than a few of them to advance this boon.

The issues (from our perspective) are these:

1. As new researchers, we all learn by seeing as well as doing. We learn standards and practices by seeing what others provide. In this regard, digital providers are also providing immensely important education. They have, arguably, more power to teach than any conventional educator because their teaching-by-example reaches millions on a daily basis.
2. Most new researchers whose academic training did not include historical research often say they have difficulty understanding what is essential to record and what is not essential. For them, it is much easier to do a copy-paste of whatever a provider offers. Eventually, all researchers begin finding conflicts in their evidence and are perplexed as to what the "facts" of a situation actually are. If the provider's suggested citation has captured all essential elements, then the researcher is equipped to analyze findings and decide what is the most trustworthy. If the provider's suggested citation has not adequately reflected the nature of the record, then the trusting user may be misled and will often stay perplexed, not understanding where the problem lies.
3. Digital providers, whose engineers are not typically trained in historical research, also say that they have trouble understanding what is essential from our perspective. Over the years, in both working sessions and informal discussions between these engineers and "subject-matter experts," the first obvious thing is usually this: we speak different languages and see different needs. Our object is to help each other learn the parameters that each field must work within.
4. When suggested citations are analyzed—whether they come from a digital provider, a library, an archive, or a researcher—we all learn from discussion.