Questions on access year in source list entries

By Anonymous on Sat, 08/15/2015 - 00:50

Forums

In section 11.33 Military: Draft Registrations, it lists the following source list entry:

“World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918.” Database and images. Ancestry.com. http://www.ancestry.com : 2007.

My question in in regards to the listing in the source list entry of the year of access. If one finds records in this database over the course of a few years, it would seem redundant to have a source list with the following entries:

“World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918.” Database and images. Ancestry.com. http://www.ancestry.com : 2007.

“World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918.” Database and images. Ancestry.com. http://www.ancestry.com : 2008.

“World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918.” Database and images. Ancestry.com. http://www.ancestry.com : 2010.

In such a case, would it be ok to put the access year as 2007–10, or 2007–08, 10? Further, considering that the reference notes have the date, is a date of access even needed in the source list for an online database that is referenced over a period of years, especially considering that someone in the future trying to retrace our research will not likely have the ability to view how the database looked in the year we refer to.

Thanks in advance for your feedback and guidance.

Submitted byEEon Sat, 08/15/2015 - 15:12

Dan:

In a source list entry—which is a generic, broadly encompassing, identification of the source—it is apropriate to use a range of dates.  If we first consult a database in 2015, we record it as 2015. If we use that source again in 2016, then we make one change that will last the whole year: we add –2016. The next year, we'd change 2015–2016 to 2015–2017. This can continue as long as continue to reconsult that datababse.

You also raise two other issues:

"Considering that the reference notes have the date, is a date of access even needed in the source list for an online database that is referenced over a period of years?" 

Let's look at the issue from a more-familiar perspective. Our reference note for a book would include the date of publication. Can we then argue that, when we cite the book in a source list, it's not necessary to include the date of publication in the source list because it's already given in the reference note? 

"Someone in the future trying to retrace our research will not likely ahve the ability to view how the database looked in the year we refer to." 

Here, we disagree strongly. In today's tech world, we cannot say what future tech will make possible. We already have the WayBack Machine that enables us to access earlier versions of a website, as well as sites that have disappeared entirely.

You've also raised an interesting point about human nature: Researchers do spend a lot of time looking for ways to short-cut citations. If an item only takes a second to record, at input stage, why short-cut it and run the risk of not having it at a future point when it is needed?

Submitted byDan Stoneon Sat, 08/15/2015 - 23:52

Thank you for your answers and feedback. I appreciate the points you raised, and the information was very helpful in having a better understanding of why the date is so important to note. Every time I read one of your answers I learn at least one new thing, if not multiple new things, so your time in answering is greatly appreciated.

Submitted bynewonashon Mon, 08/17/2015 - 18:04

I have a similar question.

The Social Security death index database for Ancestry used to be "U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935 - Current."  That is how it appears in my reference notes and source list.

The name of the database has changed and now is "U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935 - 2014."  Presumably, sometime in the future it will change to 2015, then to 2016, etc.

How important is it to show the exact name of the database as it existed at the time that it was accessed?

So I'm not sure what, if anything, to do with the old information, and how to deal with future changes in the database name.

Can something generic be inserted in the name of the title, maybe "U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935 - [at least 2014]", to avoid having to make the annual changes?  I don't like "at least 2014" in the brackets, but I can't think of anything better.  If this is appropriate, is it okay for only the source list, the reference note, or both?

Dennis, our own practice (and that of several scholarly journals I follow) is to leave the title exactly as it was at the time we use the source. Then, at publication—or in your notes, if you're so inclined—add a "comment" layer to the citation to say the database has since been updated and its current title is ... .

One of the things that annoys me is when a database name changes. This may seem like a trivial tidying-up by the vendor but it means that you're trying to hit a moving target; we don't expect book titles to change, even when new editions are published.

Worse still, though, is when databases are merged. Again, an apparently innocuous consolidation by the vendor.

I keep the database name as it was at the time of access, but try -- sometimes in vain -- to include the source-of-the-source. That way, some later research who cannot find the exact database by name may be able to find the same source data in a different form. I'm not aware of any better method (but let me know if I can improve on this), but then I suppose this is a fundamental goal of good citations.

...I won't even mention the related issues of broken links or databases with no name at all.

Tony