I may be opening up a can of worms here, but a conversation in the comments of my post about accountability for research logs has me pondering the question again.
How important is it for the hobbyist genealogist to use properly formatted citations?
(Please understand that my question is about the format of source citations, not about whether we should cite sources. I absolutely believe every fact should be backed up by at least one source.)
I think many folks would agree that Elizabeth Shown Mills’ book Evidence Explained is the gold standard source citations. I own Evidence Explained and I do consult it occasionally. But generally I relax the rules for myself. I make sure that my citations would allow me to find the source again and I typically use the citation templates found in my Reunion software.
Basically, I want to make sure that it’s easy to cite sources so that I always cite them. If I’m hung on doing it right, I may put off citing the source, which does not do me any good. So, for example, I used templates in Reunion to create this census citation, associated with a fact in the record of my 3d great grandparents, Joseph and Mary Price:
“1870 U.S. Census,” Pleasant Gap, Bates, Missouri, 25 Jun 1870, Ancestry.com, 4 April 2014.
The 1870 date is the date the census was taken, and the 2014 date is the date I first viewed it. If I needed to find it again, I think I could.
So I’m curious: what do you do? Do you use formal citations are are you more casual? If you don’t use Evidence Explained, do you have another source you swear by?
If you think I’m making a mistake by not being more formal, feel free to tell me!
I have always written down who the source was, and the date/place of the conversation. I noticed that when I spoke with Relative A in one setting (home, alone) I got some information, but then when we were at a reunion or with Relative B, the conversation changed or additional information was provided. At least if I have the date/place/person, I can put things in context and see how things evolved over time. Even if I disprove (with documentation) what was said, I may find something else useful from the conversation that points me in a new direction. Example: my grandmother whispered to my mother, upon my mother’s 40th birthday, that it was finally time to hear that a distant relative owned a saloon! (gasp!) Never could find the saloon. BUT, over time, I found out there was an entire brewery!
Very good point about the importance of sourcing conversations so that you know when they took place, with whom and where! Love the saloon/brewery story.
Thank you for bringing this subject up, I kniw there will be views from one extreme to the other, but as yiu stated, if one gets hung up trying to do it ” right ” and it isn’t done at all, then what is the point. I have been stuck trying to do it right.
My question is, why does if have to have so many parts jn it repeated? If I use a template in my Legacy program which I am just starting to use, it seems to me to have the source repeated within itself and I get confused. All I want is the type of doccument and its numbers if any , who it concerns, where I found it in which database, the date I accessed it, the web address. There are few templates fir Australuan data.
Looking firward to all the comments.
Thanks for your comment, Nan. I find that the template in Reunion doesn’t always ask for facts that I have at hand, but I try to use it so that my sources are consistent. At the beginning, I used “Free form” sources, but didn’t like that in a source list they didn’t conform to one another. I don’t know that my comment helps you in your frustration, but my advice is to try to let it be as easy as possible and try not to get frustrated.
I agree that sources need to be documented, but I disagree strongly with the idea that one needs to get all hung up in trying to get a citation “right.” ESM has made getting it right easy. Some of the database programs, like Legacy, use her guidance in developing their citation templates. Even without a computer, once you’ve written one citation for a US federal census record, it’s pretty simple to use that original as a guide, replacing the year and location information as you go. Most of us use only a handful of source types–census records, vital records, wills, maybe some pension files, and lots of online records. Both Ancestry.com and Familysearch.org provide citations for all of their records. All you have to do is copy and paste. I think there are other adjectives to describe writing out citations, especially if you’re trying to do a whole lot of them now because you didn’t do them then, but “hard” is not one of them. Tedious and boring maybe, but not hard.
Thanks for your comment. What feels easy for you may feel hard to someone else. I think the important thing is that individual researchers have a system of citing sources that is easy for them so that they do it.
I agree with you that many seem to, needlessly, get hung up in trying to ensure they get it right.
I use RootsMagic and use their templates which is EE based but I don’t always follow that ‘holy grail’. I created generic sources for the various census and use the descriptive fields to enter he info specific to the census I’m currently using. If I followed “proper” procedure, my source list which increase dramatically if I had a separate source for each census that all my individuals appeared on. And that’s not even counting the BMDs!
As long as the record could be tracked down by someone at some point in the future, that’s good enough for me.
Thanks for commenting, Linda. I think we all need to do it in way that is comfortable for us. For example, I do have a separate source for each census (unless more than one family appears on the same page). That works for me because I don’t mind having a lot of sources. But I like that you’ve found a method that works for you!
Janine,
Interesting topic. I wasn’t going to respond, but I decided to.
What I learned early on, was to Cite My Sources. I am so glad I did. After reading the first two chapters of the book you referred to, I have gone back, and over time, am putting my existing citations into the more clearer format, as the rest of the Chapters help clarify.
Two hints:
I craft the Citation BEFORE I enter the data. That takes time, but IF I do it first, I won’t forget where I got the information from. In order to craft that Citation, I must spend more time in understanding what it is that i am really looking at. For me, I must do that before I have a citation that might be close to Elizabeth Shown Mills’ standard.
At first, I was happy that I cited my date, mostly so that I would remember where I got THAT piece of information from, but now I try to make it clearer, base on Evidence Explained, so that someone else can find what I have taking the data elements from.
I have heard it said, and agree, that It’s a art, not a science. Have enough information so that someone else can find what I was looking at when I recorded that data.
Russ
Thanks for your comment, Russ. An art, not a science, indeed. I’m realizing that my post said that I was concerned with my finding the source again. I use amend that to say I am concerned with others being able to find it. I need to keep that top of mind.
I don’t get caught up in needing my citations to be EMS perfect. I just ensure that I have put enough information in my citation that someone else can find what I was referencing. I mostly use the citations formats my RootsMagic software program offers.
Sounds like we’re on the same page!
I find typing book citations to be quite tedious, but worldcat.org can do it for you. Enter the title or part of the title into the search box, click to pull up the book’s entry, click on small “cite/source” link near the top, and click on your citation format (I use MLA). Bingo! You have a complete source citation for copying and pasting into your sources.
That said, I agree that I ALWAYS cite fully, so that anyone can find the source again in the future. However, some of the formal source citations seem too repetitious for me, especially those that refer to Ancestry entries. In those cases, I use my own judgement.
Thanks for the tip about WorldCat, Penny!
When I am using World Cat, I not only use their citation but will copy and paste the description right into my Research Log, just to save time and to really stay on top of what I have been checking.
Great idea 🙂 I love WorldCat for so many reasons. The Gale British Newspapers database also provides citations – I copy and paste those as well.
Teresa! Yes, a lot of professional genealogists use the reference in WorldCat. You can also pick up something like that in the FamilySearch Catalog. I think that both the catalog in Ancestry and FamilySearch are often overlooked, but can really yield some good results.
Thanks for those tips! I love FamilySearch’s catalog–that’s pretty much the only way I search there. But I haven’t copied and pasted the citation–yet.
As a Registrar for a Chapter of the Saos of the American Revolution if membership in the SAR or DAR is your long term goal then strict conformance to these organizations rules are important
Thanks for that heads up, Jerry. I’m confident that if I decided to apply for DAR I could create formal citations for any sources I used in the application, because I can always find the source based on my less formal citations. But that’s an important consideration to keep in mind.
For many years, I styled my source citations in the format used in pre-internet bibliographies. (I’ve been researching for 38 years now.) I put the source citations in my notes about a person in my software program. I had never used the source citation templates, but when I migrated to RootsMagic a year or so ago, I decided to make an effort to use them. Randy Seaver was instrumental with his January 2016 blog posts on using RM to craft citations. I am getting better at it, but, frankly, I am not a big EE fan because people do get so hung up on the “right” way to do it. My standard is that enough information is included so that anyone else reading my notes will also be able to find the item. Also, because website addresses often change, if there is a paper source of that digital image, I note the book title, author, page, etc. instead of the website. For example, American Ancestors has the Vital Records of MA to 1850 online. I cite the books themselves so that I can use any other website with the series to find the same record. The exception to this rule is if the information seems to only be available online, e.g. someone’s notes that have been published with their own family history research. In that case, I copy the URL, save it and note the date. Normally, I don’t bother recording the date I accessed a source. I still have to say it is much easier for me to write my own bibliographic source citation than it is to look for the template, fill it in, get the long form, the short form and whatever when I just want the basic information. I may yet return to putting my own citations in my notes. It is a lot faster than figuring out those templates!
Thanks for weighing in, Linda. You make a very good point about including the paper source of a digital image if possible, since links do change.
This is a fascinating subject and one I touched on earlier. I have been at this for 42 years now and as an Accredited Professional Genealogist (ICAPGen), the emphasis has been more on being consistent in the style of citations. Some of my friends who are fellows (ASG) who write for NEGHS, feel that EE is way too fussy. Some use Chicago Style. So, my assumption is that most people here are doing their own genealogy and not as a professional. I would say, use what is easy, gets you back to the source document that you are citing. I would never spend more time on building a citation than I did finding a document. I did work for a time at one of the bigger professional genealogy companies, even their quality control rarely agreed on any given citation. This is a really pickly problem! By the way, there are “quick sheets” available from different vendors in helping you build citations. After all this, I will say, for clients I use Chicago and with my own family research, I use the one prepared by FamilySearch.org, as that is where most of my research is done. When I started doing research, very few people ever created citations, the genealogy field, has grown up!
Thanks for contributing your perspective, Maria, and for starting the conversation in the first place in the previous blog post!
Janine:
This is a subject that arises repeatedly and is one that I too have pondered (and blogged about here back in June 2013). I am a definite believer in providing sources for all asserted facts, but I am also a believer that for all but the most formal and academic of genealogical publishing the most important aspect of providing citations is substance over form (the subject of my post referenced above). Accuracy of citation information is the essence of a good citation even if it does not conform precisely to the most accepted form or format for genealogy citation. For informal writings such as blogs, personal genealogies, correspondence, etc. where the principal need is to allow oneself or others to find the way to the source accurately, punctilious adherence to formal, academic citation form is not IMHO (in my humble opinion) necessary. It is necessary for academic journal submission and the like as mentioned in my blog post, but otherwise concentrate on getting down the substance necessary to follow an accurate path to the source and don not worry about “proper” citation form or format.
John
Thanks for commenting, John. “Accuracy of citation information is the essence of a good citation even if it does not conform precisely to the most accepted form or format for genealogy citation.” That really resonates with me–it’s about accuracy, not format.
“Substance over form.” Good way to say it. Sometimes, though, EE format may help others better understand what makes perfectly good sense to me.
Good point, Leah!
I think I’m a lot like you in this respect. I do not use EE; I tried but I find it cumbersome and unproductive. I feel like I am taking valuable time from researching my ancestors and spending it to learn the ‘correct’ way to cite my sources.
Instead, I modify the templates in Reunion to fit MY needs. One example; the Reunion template for vital records starts out with a ‘title’ field. I add a ‘Person’ field above that and never the name, SURNAME first. This lets me sort my records by person to quickly find what I have relating to that person. (of course, this falls apart when there is more than one name on a record; census, marriage, etc. But most of the time it works pretty well.)
I realize that if I ever choose to publish in a professional publication, join a linneage society, etc. that I will have to redo my citations, but I’m OK with that. Right now, my research is for me and this is what works!
Thanks for your comment and the reminder that it’s okay to customize source templates!