Hi everyone,
Firstly, before I start, please understand that in relation to many who are
members of the LUG, I spend much less time on family history and secondly,
my area of expertise definitely lies elsewhere. I have not followed this
thread fully, but have been delighted to read a couple of recent posts by
Elizabeth Shown Mills.
I agree entirely that we should have a standard method of citing sources (at
least in theory!). The opening section of Evidence Explained includes some
very sound advice which can and should be applied to the areas of research
in most disciplines. I know I have mentioned some of the points below
before, but would value Elizabeth's input.
This is specifically to do with the 'Letter' template, but may well be
applicable to other templates. If you fill in the field boxes 'correctly',
at the end of the Footnote/Endnote Citation, the information could read:
"privately held by Brookes" and the Subsequent Citation could read "Brookes
to Brookes, 11 Mar 2008". Apart from the issue that I hate being referred
to by my surname, there are many Brookes surnames in my database, therefore
the clarity one hopes to achieve by being consistent with sources has
straight away been compromised. To override the source citation would mean
it would no longer conform to the 'suggested standard format'. I remember
reading a light-hearted book, that professed to help people pass exams,
where it suggested that in desperation, the writer might even make a
statement up and attribute it to, for example, someone like Churchill. By
using, just the surname, firstly one is not telling the reader that it is
specifically Winston Churchill, and secondly, it would be difficult to prove
- because he said so much, nobody would be able to deny that he ever made
the remark just attributed to him. Surely a similar vagueness is achieved
by just using the surname in our family histories. I know there are
occasions when surnames are used as a form of identification/protocol, but
my argument is that, while we are questioning the standard way we record
sources and how those sources are cited, we ought to question whether this
should be acceptable.
The way Legacy is set up encourages me to split sources up into very small
units. This has implications for the way sources are cited. In Legacy the
master source is attached to the individual but the detailed source is
copied. This means that any alteration to a master source is done once
only, but individuals who are using the same detailed source have to be
first of all located, and then altered separately. I know there is a
clipboard to help, but, for me, this is sometimes a bit fiddly and
occasionally has not worked correctly. As a consequence, I have a census
source for each individual address - that way I can easily locate individual
living at the same address, by view list, and if necessary make the
appropriate alterations. If the software was set up in a different way
(i.e. by attaching the same detail sources rather than copying them), I
would be more inclined to lump sources together in the way Elizabeth Shone
Mills suggests (into year and county, for the U.K). As it is, because of
the software I go against what Elizabeth says on pg 259 of 'Evidence
Explained', that "Most researchers find that the Source List is not the
place to list census entries by household or personal name. That level of
detail in a Source List soon makes the list unmanageable." For me, it makes
it unmanageable for me to lump households together in Legacy. The
implication that a source for a census should be on a year/county 'level'
and that a source for a letter (or as it was, for an email) should be on an
individual letter 'level' to me seems somewhat unequal. Under these terms,
a single source for a census might be shared by a hundred people or more,
but a letter might only be a source for one individual. Having each letters
or email as an individual source would generate just as much of a problem
for some as lots of census sources. We have discussed this many times
before on the LUG, but how we use the software has an implication for how
our sources are cited.
It's easy for me - my database is small and probably always will be, my aim
being to find out more detail about how my ancestors lived rather that
adding hundreds of names that mean little to me - I would not have the time
to research thousands of people in detail (and I know some of you do), but
at least I will be able to leave my children a little knowledge about their
ancestors and how they lived.
If we are to adhere to or to create a standard for citing sources, does it
automatically follow that we should adopt a standard method for inputting
information into the software which we choose? I we did this the software
would automatically generate our citations in the correct and acceptable
way, which will presumably allow others to find the information once more.
Or perhaps we all get too hung up on these things? After all the number and
type of sources we use will change as time goes on, and no doubt the way we
cite them. All these thing will always be 'work in progress' and will
advent Legacy 8 (now that I've converted all my sources to the new
sourcewriter templates) or even "Evidence Explained Again" (Just to give
Elizabeth a good title for her next book. :-))
I am unable to stay subscribed all the time (soon to unsubscribe again,
while I do my Christmas concerts and services), but when I am here, it is a
delight to read peoples posts. Thank you all so much for your input to the
LUG.
Best wishes
David
*****************************************************
David S Brookes
Musical Director, The Brewood Singers
www.brewoodsingers.co.uk
Organist & Choirmaster, Polesworth Abbey
www.polesworthabbey.co.uk
*****************************************************
*** 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
