Elizabeth: I believe that discussion was based on a misinterpretation. I do have _EE_ and it's pretty clear on citation of published books. In fact, I believe I responded to that thread, but the discussion (and misinterpretation) continued.
Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elizabeth Richardson Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:34 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue Kirsten, I used that example because of a discussion in this group within the last 2 weeks. The discussion centered on whether you would use the book from a certain publisher that you (the poster, I don't recall who that was) found in a library or whether you would use a different citation because you found a copy of that same book on Google. There was an assertion that ESM showed differences in the citation. I must admit that I don't have Evidence Explained so I can't look it up. I did purchase Evidence! when it was released many years ago. I don't know just now where that copy might be. I find the basic source system in Legacy to be just exactly what I need. Wynther, you seem to think that "serious" genealogists who go to great lengths to pigeon-hole the formatting of sources are somehow superior to "just" family historians who are just as interested in well-founded research and good communication of that information. I beg to differ, but I doubt anything I might have to say on the subject would dissuade you from your nose-bleed perch. Elizabeth researching the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kirsten Bowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 10:47 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue > Elizabeth (Richardson): > > I don't think there *is* a different standard for citing a published book > in > a brick and mortar library and the same book that's digitized online. For > my own convenience I do note the website or library where I found it, but > I > don't believe that that information is part of a standard citation. There > *would* be a difference, however, if the online version happened to be a > transcription rather than digitized images--then it's a whole different > ballgame. > > Kirsten > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Elizabeth Richardson > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 5:08 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue > > > 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 *** 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
