Jump to content


Photo

How important is it to cite to exact specafications


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Penny Blake

Penny Blake

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 01:23 PM

While being a rootsmagic user for a long time Ive never really understood sources and their importance until more recently. Rootsmagic does sources brilliantly which is yet another reason why its my number 1 choice.

Now, Im not 100% happy with the way the sources are written so Ive started to get into the source templates. All my sources are written the way I like to see them. How important is this.

I like to see the main title in bold and italics (Basic rootsmagic doesnt put it in bold), the short footnote, IMO, should be indented to show that its been used before and requires no more than a title (not bold as its been see before) and the source details while the biblography needs no more that the title.

This is pretty standard to rootsmagic but when you are dealing with non books or online databases, or anything that is not everyday it gets confusing, which is why my sources are in a mess. Now, up until now Ive been happy just to say, for example, "Birth Cerificate from New York" and if anyone wants more details they can e-mail me, as Ive never hidden my e-mail. However, I appreciate that not everyone likes to e-mail, likes to get e-mails and certainly dont want to publich their e-mail all over the shop, which is why I decided I needed a nice easy to understand format.

So, I decided this is the basic format I wanted to use

For an online census I might use the following

Footnote: 1871 Census of England And Wales, [ONLINE], digital image, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, UT, USA, 2011, via ancestry.co.uk, http://search.ancest...h/group/1871uki, Original data: Census Returns of England and Wales, 2 April 1871. Kew, Surrey, England: The National Archives of the UK (TNA), 1871, [Jurisdiction], [parish], [EnumerationDistrict], [Piece], Head Of Household:[HeadOfhouse], [Personofinterest] ([relationship]), Accessed : [AccessDate]

Short Footnote: ... 1871 Census of England And Wales, [Jurisdiction:Abbrev], [CivilDivision], [PageID], [Person].

Bibliography: 1871 Census of England And Wales, [ONLINE], digital image, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, UT, USA, 2011, via ancestry.co.uk, http://search.ancest...h/group/1871uki, Original data: Census Returns of England and Wales, 2 April 1871. Kew, Surrey, England: The National Archives of the UK (TNA), 1871

For an Ancestry public tree I might use this

Footnote: Public Member Trees [ONLINE], oozoid26, "adrianD", http://trees.ancestr.../tree/39905581, ([URL]: [AccessDate]), [ItemOfInterest]

Short Footnote: ... Public Member Trees, "adrianD," oozoid26, ([URL]: [AccessDate]), [ItemOfInterest]

Bibliography: Public Member Trees [ONLINE], oozoid26, "adrianD", http://trees.ancestr.../> <br /> While a book may look like this

Footnote: Public Member Trees [ONLINE], oozoid26, "adrianD", http://trees.ancestr.../tree/39905581, ([URL]: [AccessDate]), [ItemOfInterest]

Short Footnote: ... Public Member Trees, "adrianD," oozoid26, ([URL]: [AccessDate]), [ItemOfInterest]

Bibliography: Public Member Trees [ONLINE], oozoid26, "adrianD", http://trees.ancestr.../> <br /> (this one actually needs a slight adjustment)

Now, the basic question is this

Does it matter if a source does not follow an exact established style as long as it still leads the reader to that source?

I was always told to think of sources as a tool to allow someone else to double check your work

#2 RWells1938

RWells1938

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts

Posted 04 May 2014 - 05:42 PM

Here is my take on sources somewhat like you I have my own way of doing it which is different than others.
I have not found many who do sourcing who agree on how it should be done.

Source: A supplier of information which answers the question “How Do I Know That?” This can be a book, picture, microfilm,
web page or other type of object. Every piece of information should have a source.

Source Description: Enough information to be able to find the object. (RM6 Master Source)

Source Detail: Enough information to be able to find the information within the source. (RM6 Source Detail)

Source Text: A transcription/abstract of the information found. (RM6 Source Research Notes)

Source Comment: A comment about the source by the researcher such as readability, quality, authors comment. (RM6 Research Notes Comments)

Source Repository: ThIs a the physical location(building, library, or web page.) where the source can be viewed. (RM6 Repository)

Source Web Tags: This is the URL address for the source. Remembered that these address can change. (RM6 Detail Text Web Tags)

Sample Census source:

1850 U.S. Federal Census Population Schedule, Kentucky, Bath County, Originator: U.S Bureau of the Census, Publisher: Ancestery.com, Orem, Utah, Division 2, Page Number 33, Lines 28-39, Household Number 229, Household of James Wells, (posted to db on 28 February 2012).

James Wells, age 49, M, W, farmer, POB Kentucky
Rebecca Wells, age 27, F; W, POB Kentucky
Joseph Wells, age 21, M, W, labor, POB Kentucky
William Wells, age 19, M; W, labor, POB Kentucky
James Wells, age 16, M, W, labor, POB Kentucky
Alexander Wells, age 14, M, W, POB Kentucky
Elizabeth Wells, age 10, F, W, POB Kentucky
Mary Wells, age 7, F, W, POB Kentucky
Thomas Wells, age 5, M, W, POB Kentucky
Robert Wells, age 4, M, W, POB Kentucky
Benjamin Wells, age 2, M, W, POB Kentucky
Joseph Jones, age 23, M, labor, POB Kentucky. Joseph Wells age may be 24
Living next door is Samuel McWorthy

Hope it is of some help to someone. I have created some computer scripts to help me.

Roger

#3 Penny Blake

Penny Blake

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 12:13 AM

Source: A supplier of information which answers the question “How Do I Know That?” This can be a book, picture, microfilm,
web page or other type of object. Every piece of information should have a source.

Source Description: Enough information to be able to find the object. (RM6 Master Source)

Source Detail: Enough information to be able to find the information within the source. (RM6 Source Detail)
 

 

Thats basically the way I see it. There are so many people who dont source, or badly source that any details that actually shows you have done the work has to be better?

 

I also posted this question on a mailing list and the first reply has essentially said that I must do it properly and I must buy Elizabeth Shown Mills book that is almost 1,000 pages long. Thats all well and good but my job means that I essentially live out of a suitcase and really dont have a lot of spare space. Its nice to be able to convert the kids bedrooms into a specialised lab complete with fiche readers and such forth, butwe dont all have that luxury.

 

As long as a description leads you to a source thats got to be good?

 

Saying 

 

Born circa 1600, left under a bush wrapped in a towel. Source: Big red book found in Ohio library, cant remember the name but it was about 12 inches tall and ablut 3 inches thick and I found it while looking for the Bloggs family

 

has to be better than

 

Born 1598, Ohio {No source}

 

hasnt it?

 

I dont know, perhaps Im just looking too deeply into it. I mean, on another thread where I was told I must not deviate from the norm, what if I was using the Harvard referencing system, a system that took me through college with no problems. Is this chap going to knock on the door of a worldwide known university and tell them they are doing it all wrong?

 

I think you have pretty much answered my question in that as long as I can lead a reader to the place that I found the information its all good.



#4 RWells1938

RWells1938

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 03:50 AM

I think "Evidence Explained" is good but when I tried to use it I spent too much time trying to figure it out and felt that I would spend all of my time just trying to do sourcing. Also in the academic world there are several manuals/methods for sourcing so even this area very few can agree on how it should be done. What if you use "The Chicago Manual of Style" then would your "Harvard Referencing System" be wrong?

Roger

#5 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1621 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 05:49 AM

Here is my take on sources somewhat like you I have my own way of doing it which is different than others.
I have not found many who do sourcing who agree on how it should be done.

Source: A supplier of information which answers the question “How Do I Know That?” This can be a book, picture, microfilm,
web page or other type of object. Every piece of information should have a source.

Source Description: Enough information to be able to find the object. (RM6 Master Source)

Source Detail: Enough information to be able to find the information within the source. (RM6 Source Detail)

Source Text: A transcription/abstract of the information found. (RM6 Source Research Notes)

Source Comment: A comment about the source by the researcher such as readability, quality, authors comment. (RM6 Research Notes Comments)

Source Repository: ThIs a the physical location(building, library, or web page.) where the source can be viewed. (RM6 Repository)

Source Web Tags: This is the URL address for the source. Remembered that these address can change. (RM6 Detail Text Web Tags)

Sample Census source:
1850 U.S. Federal Census Population Schedule, Kentucky, Bath County, Originator: U.S Bureau of the Census, Publisher: Ancestery.com, Orem, Utah, Division 2, Page Number 33, Lines 28-39, Household Number 229, Household of James Wells, (posted to db on 28 February 2012).
....
Hope it is of some help to someone. I have created some computer scripts to help me.

Roger

A good explanation of  the Source Citation Manager sections.  Thanks Roger...

I also use the Source Citation Manager individual fields this same way.  

  1. I do not use the Web Tags or url paths in a citation, as I know url's can change.
  2. Remembering the Who What When Where &  Why for each Source is important to me  and keeping it Simple is also very important.  
  3. Using access date and www.ancestry.com is the fartherest I go to find it again also with the Repository filled in. Example: (accessed 27 Oct 2007, www.ancestry.com).  
  4. Every time any web site does an update/add servers you will find the url/path changed. 

Added: Penny, this discussion of how citations are to be done, has been abundant since EE book in 2007.  Our Source Manager templates are done from EE book 2007.  There are professionals who do not use EE and create their own. Some work and some don't and thanks to Bruce we have the way of making them more usable to each genealogist.   My suggestion is do what works for you.  I am not a certified professional but have been at this for over 40 years and made my own way of doing things to make it work for me.... :)


Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#6 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6160 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 06:00 AM

Web tags do not get printed in endnotes or footnotes so they can be a convenient place to store the full url that could be so long and made up of some gobbledygook that you would not dare include it in the printable citation yet still retain it for your own speedy access. Starting with just the high level url requires the search to be repeated. Expired urls often redirect to the current.


Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.