Who citing what: clarification needed

By Anonymous on Sun, 09/27/2015 - 12:52

Forums

I understand that if a data source actually gives information about the source of its own data (whoopee!), such as the proveance, reference details, etc., then we should include it in a new layer begining "citing".

I also understand that if some authored work cites the sources from which it derived one-or-more claims then we can cite the work but not that author's citations, not least because they are not the source of the claim.

However, if an authored work attributes a so-called "fact" to one of its cited sources, and makes no associated claim or interpretation, then would we also use "citing" in that context? Can an authored word be considered a derivative source for a "fact" as well as the commentary, analysis, and opinion that we might normally expect?

Tony

 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 09/27/2015 - 15:05

Tony,

1. Yes.

2. "We can cite the work but not that author's citations":  By this, do you mean that (a) we should cite the derivative source we use (let's call it Source A), and we may say that this source cites its own sources as B, C, and D; but (b) we should not just copy the citations to B, C, and  and make it appear that we used those instead of Source A that we actually used?  If so, yes.

3. Why or how would this differ from Situation 1?  In both cases, we have used Source A.  In both cases, Source A attributes something to Source B. In both cases, we would cite Source A and then add that Source A cites Source B. No? Or am I missing something.

 

Submitted byACProctoron Sun, 09/27/2015 - 15:26

2. Yes, that's what I meant. Although we cannot cite anything that we haven't actually used, I felt that in the case of an authored work they would merely support a claim being made by the author rather than be a source of that claim itself.

3. I think it was that an authored work seems to have less credibility as a citable source in genealogy -- well, in my small sphere anyway -- and yet it is probably the most common form in academic history. I couldn't see why there should be a difference but I wanted to check because I hadn't actually seen any citations of that form.

Maybe I'm also struggling with an absolute distinction between "claim" and "fact"; if the author quotes another author, does that fall into point 1 or point 2?

Tony

Tony,

It would seem, on the surface, that Author A's "quote" of Author B would be a quite straight-forward matter that might be considered a "fact"—i.e., it's a fact that Author B said such-and-such.  However, if we make a habit of checking Author A's "quote" of Author B, in a shocking number of cases the quote is inaccurate—often significantly so. 

And yes, history as a field does make significant use of authored works. That's my own academic background. But the longer I practice history, the further I move away from that trust. In my observation as an independent scholar, authored works are more often relied upon by institution-based historians who keenly feel that publish-or-perish pressure.

Submitted byACProctoron Mon, 09/28/2015 - 10:37

Thanks for that. I feel more confident now.

It would be nice to check all data at their original source, including online transcriptions, but alas it's not always practical.

Tony

And for the record, Tony, I was speaking as someone with considerable firsthand experience at being misquoted—and, more than once, then taken to task for what I didn't say. Those misquoters have been about evenly distributed between academia-based scholars and avocational researchers.

Submitted byrworthingtonon Tue, 09/29/2015 - 16:57

Tony,

This is a great topic. Thank you.

I have several family "authored works". Most of the time, there no references to the source of what is in the book. Several do, and they are great hints.

When I read one of these, I use the approach that this book "Claims that .... " and will enter that information into my genealogy database, but AFTER I see if I can find a source myself that agrees or disagrees what the authored work. I normally approach those claims to prove them WRONG.

I'll run several "test runs" at the claims to see if the book is credible. Fortunately, the books that I have are "spot on". After all, that person in the 1800's had to find information from some where, it's up to me to find it.

I used the word Claims above on purpose, thanks to the genealogy software program Evidentia. When I use that program I enter a field that wants m to start with a Citation and then record what the document I am looking at CLAIMS to be true. That notion has helped me get past the term "fact" which my genealogy database program has as a field title. To, Fact doesn't get in the way.

Once I find that the authored work is credible, I cite all of the information that it claims to be true. Dates, Places, and Events are recorded, as I see it.

BUT, like an "index" I am not done. I wouldn't write a proof summary, argument, statement solely based on that authored work. I see to prove it WRONG. What I end up with is documentation that, for the most part, proves that the authored work is great. Not only that, but I have other documentation, with citations, backing up where I started.

In those few cases, and I have had them, IF I find conflicting information, then I need to deal with that conflict. Can't tell you how many times I re-read something and "wondered" where did I get that from. My citations walked me back to the "more than one" source of information.

I chose to leave those breadcrumbs in my database. Following back that trail may open of new information that I may need for another person in my database.

It amazes me how well the authored works that I have and use, have let be to some great sources of information.

Russ

Submitted byACProctoron Wed, 09/30/2015 - 03:18

Thanks Russ.

Most of the authored works I use are published in print as books. It does strike me, though, that genealogy doesn't produce that many authored works. I know that a few brave soles take the self-publishing route, or rely on a blog or Web site (where longevity is questionable), but compared to historical works (whether about people, families, celebrities, places, etc) then there are few.

This seems to be one of those big divides between modern genealogy and history; people are encouraged to produce trees (where, if you're lucky, there might be a citation to an online source) rather than produce an authored work (where you would cover a lot more ground, cite more varied sources, and be cited youself).

Tony