Citing personally created digital images of privately held documents

By SomebodyWithAQ… on Wed, 07/20/2022 - 16:46

Forums

I'm still new to genealogy, but I really want to get my citations correct. I'm currently working with privately held artifacts pertaining to me and my still living family members, so forgive me if my example is a little sparse as far as real details goes.

I have digitized a number of documents and photos and I want to attach some sort of citation to them, either in the metadata or in a small white space added to the bottom via an image editing program. This way, if I ever choose to share these documents with others, they'll have the citation too.

I understand that if I were to cite a document in my possession for my research, I would cite the actual document itself. But in this case, since I've created a digital image that others could potentially use, I assume it would be appropriate to give them the citation to the digital image, since they may not see the original.

Here's a basic example (with identifying info concealed):

PERSON'S NAME document, created by ORGANIZATION (City, State) staff, 20 July 2022; digital image, 2022, My Family Collection, privately held by MyFirstName MyLastName, [ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] City, State. MyFirstName MyLastName received this document blah blah blah. She maintains the original.

Does this make sense? Is there anything I'm leaving out? Anything that's confusing? I want to make sure I'm on the right track before I do a bunch of these.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 07/21/2022 - 09:13

Good morning, SomebodyWithAQ,

Since you say you are new to genealogy and genealogical citations, let's go back and review the most basic principle, as explained in EE's foreword at p. 8:

Evidence Explained is a guidebook for all who explore history and seek to piece together its surviving bits and shards. As a guide, it is built on one
basic thought:

We cannot judge the reliability of any information unless we know
• exactly where the information came from; and
• the strengths and weaknesses of that source.

As students, when we were introduced to research principles, we may have been told that identifying sources is important for two reasons. First, we provide “proof” for what we write. Second, we enable others to find what we have used. Both purposes are valid, but they miss the most critical point of all:

We identify our sources—and their strengths and weaknesses—
so we can reach the most reliable conclusions.

As students, we were consumers of information. As genealogists, we are not just consumers of information. We are decision makers.  We do not just consume the “truths” stated by others. We must evaluate those “truths” to decide which, of various “truths” offered by various sources, is more likely to be closer to the actual truth.  That decision we make is our “proof.” It consists not just of information that we accept but also our reasoning as we evaluate the evidence that information offers.

With that in mind, EE is having some difficulty perceiving how the first layer of your citation will adequately identify many different types of documents so that the nature of each will be understood.  Perhaps it would be clearer if you shared a couple of specific examples.

 

The digital image issue

Let’s backtrack in time and look at research done through prior processes with prior tools. 

(1)

Let’s say that we go to a courthouse. We find a court case of value. If means existed, we might photocopy it. In our research notes and subsequent writing, we extract the points we want to make. We add a citation. Would we cite the source as

  • photocopy of Whatever County, Court Record Book 8: 239–42, in possession of Me The Researcher;  or
  • Whatever County, Court Record Book 8: 239–42

Given that we eyeballed the original record book, why cite the photocopy? In our working notes and files, if we are assigning digital numbers to images copies, we may want to add that digital number to our citation as a cross reference; but when we publish our work, that number would be irrelevant to anyone else. They will not have access to our image copy. They will evaluate the reliability of our information on the details we supply for the original document; and they will use those details to eyeball the original or obtain another digital copy.

(2)

Let’s say that we order a vital record from the state bureau of vital statistics. We don’t receive the original. That's a given. We once would have received a photocopy; now we would likely receive a print copy of a digital image in their computer system. Either way, we have a copy, not the original. Therefore, would we cite this as

  • Print copy of digital image of John Smith’s birth certificate, sent to me by Whatever State Bureau of Vital Statistics, 20 June 2022; or
  • Whatever State Bureau of Vital Statistics, delayed birth certificate 1976-123456,  forJohn Smith, b. 1 January 1921, Whatever County.

Which of the latter two options has the details that we need to support our research?

 

Submitted bySomebodyWithAQ…on Thu, 07/21/2022 - 14:08

Thanks for your response and I apologize for being unclear in my last message. I do see how my example really wasn't a good one and I do understand that different types of documents and artifacts will require  different citation formats.

I understand your point with the vital statistics example as well. Your second option would provide the information necessary for someone else to locate the record and review it for themselves if they'd like.

I'll try another example and hopefully I'll be able to express my question more clearly. Say, for example, a family member allows me to scan a photograph of theirs. I create this digital copy and I'd like to attach a citation to it so that if I later share it with others (assuming I have permission, of course), the recipient would also have the citation.

So I would cite the original photograph, but would I have to add additional information regarding the creation of the digital version since that's what's being shared?

Would it be something like this?

John Smith photograph, taken by Photographer, ca. 1970, Relative's Photo Collection, privately held by Relative Name, [ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] City, State, 2022; digital image, 2022, created by My Name, My Family Collection, [ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] City, State. John Smith gave the photograph to Relative who permitted My Name to scan it.

Or would I just cite the photograph and ignore all of the digital image part? From looking through EE, there are a lot of times where the citations call out that something is a digital image and credits the provider of that digital image. But I wasn't sure what this situation called for.

And actually, one bonus question since we're talking about photos. If when I scan a photo, I have it run through some sort of program that corrects color fading, scratching, etc., do I need to note this somehow in my citation, and if so, how? Just in a sentence at the end?

Thanks again for all your help!

Submitted byEEon Thu, 07/21/2022 - 19:17

SomebodyWithAQ, in this example your citation works. You identify the original, you state who holds the original, and then you state that you have a digital image in your own files. That's all logical. If you run a photo through software that alters it, adding a statement to that effect would be appreciated by those who are interested in the photo.

Submitted bySomebodyWithAQ…on Thu, 07/21/2022 - 20:00

Great, thank you! One last question, what if I'm both the holder of the original and the creator of the digital version? It would seem redundant to cite my contact information twice in this case. Is there a way to pare down the citation without causing confusion?

Submitted byEEon Fri, 07/22/2022 - 08:14

Yes, indeed, it would seem redundant self-puffery to cite yourself twice for the same item. In the last example you presented, I presumed that "Relative Name" was a different person from "My Name." As for how to reword, we really need an actual example to work with, rather than placeholders, so that presumptions won't be necessary.

Ok, sorry for all the placeholders. I'm not used to sharing personal information on internet forums. But the people (apart from me) are all deceased in this example, so it should be fine.

So I have the original photo, but I also made a digital copy. Could I do something like this?

Jimmy Hagen and Debbi Pelkola wedding photo, 20 September 1986; and digital image, 2022, created by Kailey Hagen, Hagen Family Collection, [ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE,] Rhinelander, Wisconsin. Ms. Hagen found this photograph in her home, which was previously owned by Jimmy Hagen and Debbi Pelkola-Hagen.

I feel like that's probably not right, but I'm not sure what else to do.