Evidence took little to no notice of the ways in which computers
store information so mixed "Master Source" and "Source Detail"
information up for many source types. I found it impossible to even
think of implementing much of it although Mills principles re
sourcing are excellent. Evidence Explained is a little pedantic in
some places for me, but at least the Sources follow a more logical
order of "Master Source" and "Source Detail". She does follow
accepted academic conventions as well as providing ways of sourcing
less common material.
Cathy
At 12:08 PM 7/06/2008, you wrote:
Thanks for the response, Kirsten, though it's definitely not the one
I wanted. I was really looking forward to the Source Writer. If
the goal post is going to be moved every ten years or so, I'll just
live in the past.
Kirsten Bowman wrote:
Kris:
I can't detail the reasons for the differences you mention, but only to say
this: I have both _Evidence!_ and _Evidence Explained_. In comparing the
two at the outset, I found so many differences that I finally put away the
earlier version and just go by the later one. I would expect that what
you're seeing just follows the later version rather than being anything that
you're doing wrong.
Kirsten
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:16 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Source Writer
It's my understanding that Source Writer is designed to format source
citations according to "Evidence Explained" -- which I don't have. I
have "Evidence!" from 1997. I didn't think there would be much
difference, but so far there is. Since no one's complained til now, I
figure I must have done something wrong.
Example of a death certificate cite from the 1997 book:
Floyd Finley Shown, death certificate no. 59-0224 (1959), Tennessee
Department of Public Health, Nashville.
Cite with Source Writer:
Tennessee Department of Public Health, death certificate 59-0224 (1959),
Floyd Finley Shown; Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville.
I haven't found a source yet that's cited the way I would expect. Is
the 1997 book just plain obsolete? Am I missing something obvious? I
know I can keep doing things the way I was "BS" (before Seven), but I
was really looking forward to using the Source Writer.
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
