Ms. Mills' succinct and practical statement about the practicality of stringent standards for sourcing is most welcome.
I continue to pull for Legacy to become the academic software of choice for genealogists; it has much to recommend it. I drifted to Legacy (as I have often said) more or less by accident, from TMG. There are things I still miss about TMG, but the superior graphic interface of Legacy was enough to keep me here. Improved sourcing capabilities with 7.0 pretty further confirmed my choice. I do understand that not everyone feels as I do. I am more than happy to live and let live. Legacy still offers the old style sourcing. But my "personal testimony" (can you tell that I was raised a Baptist?) is that my research, and my output of that research, has been immeasurably improved and informed by a striving to apply academic standards in the past two years. The work that went before I tend to view as work to be done over. (Note the word "striving." As my husband is fond of saying, "I know what I am": not there yet!) Janis On 12/7/08 6:19 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 > > > *** 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
