Response to QuickLession 26

By Dave on Tue, 06/16/2020 - 10:57

Forums

I just got around to reading QuickLession 26 posted on 2 March 2019.

Thank you for your detailed dissection of Ancestry’s sourcing information, and the resulting construction of a citation based on that. And also for your reminder that due diligence must be applied when viewing any image of an original record.

I personally do not have the time nor the patience to wade through Ancestry’s obstructions to identify the source of an image. I turn instead to FamilySearch, knowing that any image set of official state or county records found on Ancestry will almost always also be available on FamilySearch, sometimes indexed, sometimes not. In the case of the example of the death record for Joseph E. Bryant in Kentucky, the indexed abstract is readily found but for some reason the image is not linked to the abstract but is only accessible through the Family Tree path. Looking at the first few images of the record set one finds a precise title for the record set, when and where it was filmed, by whom, and under whose authorization. There is also a certification of authenticity. The suggested citation format is also clearer.

I have never found this kind of information on Ancestry.com which is why I go out of my way to avoid citing Ancestry whenever possible.

But I still do not fully understand your citation. A publication such as the Ancestry database, or the FamilySearch database, is a derivative work, and I was taught that dedicated genealogists should never cite a derivative work as the source when the actual record, or a verifiable image of the record, in whatever format, is available.

I am looking at a digital image of the actual death certificate. I am taking information directly from that record, noting the informant and evaluating her reliability. I am therefore going to cite the record itself as my primary source, bypassing any possible abstraction errors. My citation looks like this:

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Health Services – Vital Statistics, Certificate of Death No. 59-24650 for Joseph E. Bryant, died 31 Oct 1959, Pulaski County; digital image accessed [date] at https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007552590, image 2205 of 2563.

No jumping through hoops. No parsing of incomplete or imprecise data. What useful information is being conveyed to the reader?  Why should a digital image be cited differently from a microfilm image or a photocopy? Where am I going wrong?

Submitted byEEon Tue, 06/16/2020 - 12:50

Dave, I totally agree that some providers of online records have a structure that is easier to use and background information that is easier to grasp. However, I do not understand the differences you perceive in citations.

When we cite Ancestry, FamilySearch, the National Archives, or whatever, the basic format is the same.  EE 9.33, p. 459 (example at note 3), provides the same format that you use for FamilySearch (except for a couple of items missing from your draft that I'll discuss below).

You state:

“A publication such as the Ancestry database, or the Family Search database is a derivative work. … [But] I am looking at a digital image of the actual death certificate. I am taking information directly from that record, noting the informant and evaluating her reliability. I am therefore going to cite the record itself as my primary source, bypassing any possible abstraction errors.

Two concepts need to be separated here: “database entry” vs. “image copy.”

  • A database entry, in which a data-entry clerk has extracted certain details from the original into predesigned fields of a database, is indeed evaluated as a derivative source.
  • An imaged copy, created by an agency or a party authorized by it, is the equivalent of an original, evidence wise. It's not evaluated as a "derivative.

Whether we’re using a “database with images” from the National Archives, Ancestry, FamilySearch, or the Shelby County Recorder of Deeds, that principle holds. You'll find it stated in

  • the first chapter of EE where we lay out the basic principles for evaluating evidence (specifically, EE 1.26);
  • the definition of “original record” in EE’s glossary;
  • the definition of “original record” in QuickLesson 17; and
  • the much fuller discussion in QuickLesson 10.

Whatever provider we use, the basic format for citing an imaged original is the same. It’s a layered citation, with two or three layers

  • Layer 1 cites the imaged original—with as much of the needed data as we can discern from that set of images (not from elsewhere);
  • Layer 2 cites the online provider in basic format for a website publication: “Title of Database,” type of database or article, Website (URL : date), and image number, if needed;
  • Layer 3 cites whatever source-of-the-source data our provider gives us, if provided and needed.

Your suggested citation follows this pattern except for the missing identities of the database and website. In your “specific item of interest” field of the citation, you state “image 2205 of 2563” but FamilySearch has tens of thousands of different databases, each of which could carry an image 2205. 

EE would also use for the website the same basic format used in citing all publications--in print or online. That long standard format places the publication data in parentheses: i.e. (Place/URL : Date).

All things considered, EE’s suggested citation would be this (with coloration used here to separate the two layers for discussion purposes).

Kentucky  Department of Health Services–Vital Statistics, Certificate of Death No. 59-24650 for Joseph E. Bryant, died 31 Oct 1959, Pulaski County; imaged in “Kentucky Death Certificates, 1911–1962," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007552590 : accessed 16 June 2020), image 2205 of 2563.

You also ask:

"Why should a digital image be cited differently from a microfilm image or a photocopy?"

The image itself is not cited differently. What is cited differently is the media or mode of access that's identified in Layer 2. If we accessed this as a microfilm at the library, we would not be citing a website image, database, or provider.