Forums
Dear Editor,
Yes, I am back, but with a, I hope, generic question. As you may know, I am fighting, no working with my genealogy database management software program.
The discussion I have had with some colleagues, has to do with Sourcing the Source from those Records found on Ancestry.com. This question probably also applies to other online provider of records. Usually Ancestry, in their detail on the record collection will tell us where THEY got the information from. My sounce would be Ancestry, but I thnk I should include "citing ..... " where ever they got the information from. Most of my colleagues would not both to cite Ancestry, but would cite where Ancestry got the records from and they tell us so (If we look)
I have a slightly different take. I want to cite Ancesty, because there is wher I got the record from.
IF what Ancestry.com provides is a Digital Image, do I need to Source the Source?
My take is no. I don't normally go that extra step, becuase I am the one who is looking at the digital version of that document. (not getting into the evaluation of that record for this question)
It's that database transcription of a record that I DO want to Source the Source. I am at least one step removed from that original record. When I go to evalute my documentation for a fact or event, when I see the Source of the Source, I KNOW that I am at least that one step removed from that document.
Now, if the Citation informaton from Ancesty has the Source of the Source readily available for those digital images, I include them, but If I have to look for it, I may not. I have a copy of that digital image linked to my Citation and for those database entries I have a link back to that datbase in a field associated with that citation.
Probably a better question might be, When do I Source the Souce?
Thank you,
Russ
Russ, let's first address
Russ, let's first address this sentence:
Most of my colleagues would not both[er] to cite Ancestry, but would cite where Ancestry got the records from and they tell us so.
Oh, my. In polite language, that's called "borrowing" a source. In many textbooks and online articles about ethical research and writing, it's called stealing sources. It may be done with the best of intentions (usually the given reason is to save time), but it's a dumb idea—not only from the ethical standpoint but also because we end up getting burned when our source has misidentified its own source.
"Borrowing" a citation backfires against us not only with printed sources but also with online providers of digital images. Even the biggest and best of them don't always identify their sources correctly. Over and again, in the preparation of each edition of EE, after I found an example that I thought would deftly illustrate a point, when I checked the source-of-the-source detail given by the providers, I've found the wrong source cited.
Sometimes the image or image-set we are using will identify itself. If, say, we are using Ancestry images made from NARA film, we can sometimes backtrack to the start of the image-set and find the "title page" that NARA created for that film publication. Then, from the data on that page, we can create a reliable citation, just as if we were using a book we were holding in our hands. Even so, both ethics and the need for careful record analysis call for identifying our provider, given that (a) quality and legibility differences do exist between film images offered by one provider or the other; and (b) the search engines of disparate providers often yield different results.
Dear Editior,
Dear Editior,
Thank you for your reply. As always, very educational and helpful.
I only wish our record providng websites would give us enough inforation so that we could craft a reasonable Reference Note.
We were in a disussion about a record from one of the major players is providing us with records. Their search engine is clearly their strength. BUT the reord only had the title of the record collection. No sign of a hint of a Citation. The image we were looking at, was on a page that had a link to another record provider.
Its great that these companies have an agreement on sharing their records, but for crafting a good citation is getting harder and harder.
Of concern to me, what if that agreement goes away, how are we going to find that image again. I tink we have to detail, where we found what we are looking at, and try to work our way to where that image really is. Which of these vendors actually has that image? Both ??
If we care about our research, I am guessing, and I know I am doing it more, is documenting the bread crumbs.
Thank you,
Russ
Russ, you nailed it:
Russ, you nailed it:
If that [sharing] agreement goes away, how are we going to find that image again? I think we have to detail where we found what we are looking at, and try to work our way to where that image really is. Which of these vendors actually has that image? Both ?? If we care about our research [the answer] is documenting the bread crumbs.
Please continue to share that message at your website and webinars. Just yesterday, in another forum, a professional librarian schooled in MLA, who was just beginning to do research in historical records, asked others why she could not use MLA for her historical projects. You've provided an answer to that question. It's definitely not enough to just cite an item and a URL for the website where we found it. Aside from the need for the details that enable us to evaluate the reliability of the source, there is that need for the breadcrumbs that enable us to relocate the source.
You will have noticed that EE has already gone through three editions in its nearly eight years. The current edition (2012) badly needs updating now. The main cause has been the extent to which online material vaporizes. The providers reorganize, consolidate, change identities, shuck holdings, rename databases, and change URLs—and these are the big entities and government agencies internationally, from which one would expect some stability. The small sites operated by individuals just disappear. Without those breadcrumbs, we'd be left with no way to authenticate our assertions.
That's a good question, Russ,
That's a good question, Russ, and I would be interested in the answer too. Now that the major providers often show images that have been "shared" with them under an agreement from another provider, what implications does that have on the citation.
As a novice, I'd assume that the accessed version is in the primary layer, and the associated site would be the effective publisher. Do we also cite the source of the images (assuming it's made known) in a layer preceding one citing the source of the material that was imaged?
Tony
Tony,
Tony,
EE's position is that the accessed version should be the focus of our citation. Beyond that, it's not always possible to establish a rigid rule for which layer to cite first.
I suspect you have studied the current blog post, as well as QuickLesson 19, both of which deal with layered citations. You will have noticed there that in most cases involving digital images, the sequence is this:
However, there are exceptions, as with the fifth example in the QuickLesson. If we take many images from a given database, creating citations that lead with the original document and secondarily cite the database, we greatly inflate our source list. It's much more efficient to cite the database in the source list, and to use the database as the lead element in each reference note, followed by a complete identification of the document.
As an example, in a project I'm working on today, I have citations to over a hundred different (a) land warrants issued by the state of Georgia and (b) land surveys maintained its state land office. Both types of documents are all imaged in one database at FamilySearch. It's just plain sensible to use the database as the lead element and identify each original document as the specific item used from that database.
As for the source-of-the-source, EE suggests that this "second hand" information be the last element.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
I think I am getting a glimpse how "layered" Citations are showing up. You have mentioned it in another forum question, but I didn't completely understand what that might mean. The more I work with this topic, I am guessing that the layer's are the breadcrumbs from where WE found the record to where that record as an image really came from.
Going back to QuickLesson 19 and reread it, that you suggested to Tony.
Thank you,
Russ
Russ, you've given me an idea
Russ, you've given me an idea for another QuickTips blog post. The response I started to put here is going to be used there in a few days. In the meantime, you obviously have enough to read.