From: Elizabeth Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Date: Monday, December 8, 2008, 1:08 AM
Perhaps the standards should be changed. They are convoluted
and are difficult to understand and follow. For example, a
different standard entries for a book that is in a brick and
mortar library from the standard for the same book in an
online library has no basis in logic and is therefore
ridiculous on its face. Keep in mind, too, that few
genealogists are professionals and will not be publishing.
For those who do publish, the publishers' audience is
not the same as those for publications of others types of
research. The standard should always be to make certain
citations are easily understood by the audience, as that is
the essence of communication.
Elizabeth Richardson
researching the descendants of William and Sarah
(Patterson) Thompson
----- Original Message ----- From:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation
Issue
> >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
