Kirsten, Firstly, may I dispose of books (not literally, of course), should I ever write a book which requires genealogy sourcing then I will decide on the format of the sources. Sometimes the format may be decided by the publisher, but this is probably unusual.
Certainly scientific periodicals, which are the ones I have experience of, do tend to specify the format for sources, but this is dependent of the periodical and varies from one to another. I would not call this a "set standard", which I regard as being one which is unversal. It is my belief that it is this attempt to devise universally applicable standards which leads to confusion, excessive sourcing and as Jenny would say "the over egging of the cake". Good heavens, would the average reader know what all the commas, abbreviations, italics etc. which I see in many Sources actually mean, I doubt it - and what do they add to the Source? I do not agree that the difference lies between what is casual and what is professional, in my view the difference is between recording only that which is necessary, and giving a load of detail which most readers will never look at. If the Source enables one to find the record, then that is all that is required. Sorry, but respecfully I disagree. Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________ Create your Website with Legacy, see Tutorials at: http://www.fergys.co.uk Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ ____________________________________________________ Kirsten Bowman wrote: > But Ron, don't your book and periodical publishers have style manuals > to be followed? And don't British legal, medical, and scientific > journals each have their own formal citation styles? So I would > argue (very respectfully, of course) that you *do* have specified > citation styles but they're just not always easily adapted to > genealogy. All that's happening here is that a formal citation style > is developing for genealogy as well. Isn't the difference in whether > an author wants to document on a casual level or on a professional > level rather than in where you live? > > Kirsten > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Ferguson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 12:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Simple Sourcing > > > Lionel and Norman, > > Basically, I agree with both of you but with some caveats. > > Sources are not only for oneself but for others who may have access > to your > data via a report, webpage etc.. In such circumstances "In a filing > cabinet > in my garage" would not be very helpful, but a basic reference to a > certificate, GRO, Southport, Lancashire, England.... with a date and > reference number would. I agree that all the other bells and whistles > are > not necessary unless one is intending to obtain certification of some > sorts. > The main point is that a stanger to one's data should be able to > trace the > data reasonably easily. BTW. I am not too happy with your assumption > the > Ancestry for example will remain unchanged for ever and for aye. > > Fortunately, we (England) do not have specified standards, and I > guess most > are like me where the criteria, is that the sourcing be clear, > accurate and > reproducable by anyone. I tend to use a mixture of Basic and SW > sourcing, > but rarely (probably never) fill in all the fields. > > Ron Ferguson > _____________________________________________________ > > Create your Website with Legacy, see Tutorials at: > http://www.fergys.co.uk > Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw > http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ > For The Fergusons of N.W. England > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ > Follow me on twitter > http://twitter.com/ronfergy > ____________________________________________________ > > > Lionel Carter wrote: >> I'm inclined to agree. The degree of detail should be based on one's >> objectives, not a preordained set of procedures. >> >> The 'efficiency' of finding information in a database is a trade off >> between time spent inputting info and time spent retrieving. Why >> spend hours putting in detail so that you can trace it in seconds >> when you are likely to only want to trace less than 0.1% of it? E.G. >> rather than spend 500 hours detailing everything 'just in case' it >> is more 'efficient' to spend an hour tracing, if needed the one item >> sought. >> >> For family history as long as you know which database contains the >> info then leave it to the search and organisation of that database to >> find it again. To do otherwise is reinventing the wheel. Ancestry for >> example will always return the same specifics for a particular >> search, all you need to know is to look in Ancestry. >> >> >> Norman Weston wrote: >>> Is everyone here a professional genealogist or want to write a book >>> or something? I suspect the vast majority of Legacy users are rather >>> like me. They want to cite their sources adequately but not >>> necessarilly with the complexity that seems to keep being touted >>> here! What are the main reasons for sources? To know where the >>> information came from so that it can be looked at again or quoted >>> to someone else and to know the level of surety of the source. >>> That's all I need. Birth certificate held in filing cabinet, 99% >>> surety. Birthdate from Ancestry with reference to someone's tree >>> -marginal evidence. Why does it have to be so flippin >>> complicated!!!! > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
