>We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs Mills has a lot to answer for!!
Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. <g> However, I doubt that this will be one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and splitters. The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other realities to live with: 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at all. Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been "doing genealogy" for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble understanding those "standards for writing and documentation" we spoke of. Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly before they tsked: "Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody but a few 'professionals' like you." (They even had this cute little way of saying "professionals" that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help others with their research have private lives in which they research their own families.) Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, help us toward our common goal: To find our forebears, separate them from other same name individuals, reconstruct their lives, and assemble them into families whose collective experiences ultimately make ourselves and our world more understandable. Elizabeth --------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills (Whose ancestors have led her on a merry chase through every state east of the Mississippi, half of those to the west, and virtually every country west of Russia) *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** 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
