I agree with Charles. I use the original creator of the document, if possible. In the future, many companies may compile a 'better' copy of the record, but it will always be the version of the US government document. I can still get the rolls at an archives/library if I want. Ancestry, on its part, is doing the reasonable business practice of incorporating its name into what it has created (index and copies), and installing its brand as an advertising tool. If you have to work at removing the reference, it is a task, but not impossible. I have made photocopies of records of US Census, at LDS libraries in 4 states (6 stakes). Some of them were not permanent, and returned after a few weeks. I use Salt Lake LDS and Ancestry as the repositories, because they are more likely to survive longer, assisting future generations. Rich in LA CA
--- On Mon, 6/14/10, Charles Apple <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Charles Apple <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - citation nightmare? > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:16 PM > Scott, I am no expert by any means, > however, my thoughts on this is as follows; > > 1) Original Source: United States, Selective Service > System. World War I > Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, > 1917-1918. > > 2) 1st Derivative: National Archives and Records > Administration microfilm. M1509, > 4,582 rolls. > > 3) 2nd Derivative: Family History Library microfilm. > > 4) 3rd Derivative: Ancestry.com. > > Personally, I think what we need to remember is 1. Where we > got the information from, and 2) can the reader of our > research follow our citations to the source that we found or > used. > > Just my thoughts, I am sure other's may look at it > differently. > > Charles > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Hall [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Eek! Just joining Ancestry.com - > citation nightmare? > > Ah, the challenge deepens. > > Two questions, one exactly on point to the original e-mail, > one > slightly off point. > > 1. So as not to forget my original question -- how, > in Legacy, do you > cite nonpopulation schedules? > 2. When Ancestry's original source is NARA, but the > images are from > FHL, what do you cite -- NARA or FHL? Here's my > second Ancestry.com > challenge: > > The WWI draft cards, per Ancestry: > > Source Citation: Registration Location: Ontario County, New > York; Roll > 1818611; Draft Board: 2. > > Ancestry.com. World War I Draft Registration Cards, > 1917-1918 > [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations > Inc, 2005. > Original data: United States, Selective Service System. > World War I > Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, > 1917-1918. > Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records > Administration. M1509, > 4,582 rolls. Imaged from Family History Library microfilm. > > Uh, wait...if I say citing NARA microfilm M1509, the roll > is NOT > 1818611. That's the FHL roll number. So, fill > in the blank for the > Mills' version of this citation: > > World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918," > database and images, > Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 > June 2010), card > for George William Fricke, serial no. 68, Local Draft Board > 2, Ontario > County, New York; citing _______ . > > I was going to follow the census and put "NARA microfilm > M1509, roll > ___, but I'd have to hunt for the NARA roll number. > The NARA has a > list, but it won't help much, especially if the location > stretches > across many rolls. For my example it could be either > roll NY355 or > NY356. > > What's the general rule for citing "middle men" > anyway? When Ancestry > gets their information from FHL, who gets their information > from NARA, > who do you cite -- FHL or NARA? > > Continued thanks! Fun stuff! > > Scott > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Hugh Busey <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Scott, Rich, et al, > > > > IMHO you may be making more out of this than it > warrants. The goal of > > sources is to get as close to the original event as > possible. > > > > If Ancestry transcribed the census, you may use them > as the source > > with a with a Surety of 2 - Probable Conclusion at > best or perhaps a > > 1, depending on your confidence level in > Ancestry. In my experience, > > Ancestry transcriptions rate a 1 or aren't even > used. I always try to > > get a photocopy. > > > > If Ancestry posted either a scanned or > photographically reproduced > > copy of the original page, and the originator was > NARA, you should use > > NARA as the source. Period. In that case, > Ancestry should appear as > > and only as the repository, not as the source, as they > would have you > > do. Then the paper trail is clean and goes back > to the NARA original. > > > > Like many others here, I have performed census > transcriptions for the > > Mormons and know first hand how difficult it can be to > read and how > > inaccurate the results can be. They mitigate > that by having two > > independent transcribers work on the same > census. In case of > > different results, a third party then judges what the > results should > > be used. I've been doing this for a pretty long > time and do not use > > Ancestry transcriptions. > > > > Final comment: census data was registered by human > beings, so spelling > > may or may not be accurate. Some data, such as > birth dates, > > occupation, parents place of origin, etc. was supplied > by someone > > other than the subject. Use your judgment when > assigning surety > > levels to census content, I may have 1's and 2's > in the same census > > location and year; almost never a 3. I recognize > this quality > > judgment is my own opinion but it's probably about as > good as the > > census taker's. (g) > > > > Hugh W, Busey > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Scott Hall <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have finally decided to start my subcription to > Ancestry.com, but > >> have hit a bit of a barrier out of the gate--my > old friend, citations. > >> > >> Ancestry is very good at telling you exactly what > the citation should > >> be, but matching that to Evidence Explained--or > the Source Writer > >> template--seems a bit tricky at times. I'm > working with the Federal > >> census mortality schedules now. > >> > >> It appears that the mortality schedules on > Ancestry come from a > >> variety of NARA microfilms, depending on which > state the information > >> is coming from. It appears, unlike the > Federal censuses for which > >> each year cites a single microfilm reference (e.g. > the 1860 census > >> refers to M653), the "source of the source" here > changes depending on > >> the state. But I see no Legacy SourceWriter > template. > >> > >> I also note that the Ancestry.com citation doesn't > seem to match > >> Mills, or Legacy. Take the 1860 population > schedule. Legacy, > >> modeling Mills, says the citation should look like > this: > >> > >> 1860 U.S. census, Monroe County, New York > population schedule; digital > >> images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National > >> Archives and Records Administration microfilm > M653. > >> > >> But Ancestry says: > >> > >> Ancestry.com. *1860 United States Federal Census* > [database on-line]. > >> Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., > 2009. Images reproduced > >> by FamilySearch. Original data: 1860 U.S. > census, population > >> schedule. NARA microfilm publication M653, 1,438 > rolls. Washington, > >> D.C.: National Archives and Records > Administration, n.d. > >> > >> Citation junkies who use Ancestry, how do you > reconcile this in your > >> mind? Just two different systems? And, > most importantly, how do you > >> cite nonpopulation schedules given the absence of > a template in > >> Legacy? For example, I'm looking at an image > of the 1860 Mortality > >> Schedule for Lycoming County, PA. Ancestry > lists: > >> > >> Citation #1: > >> Ancestry.com. *U.S. Federal Census Mortality > Schedules, 1850-1885* > >> [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com > Operations, Inc., > >> 2010. A portion of this collection was indexed by > Ancestry World > >> Archives Project contributors. > >> > >> Original data citations: > >> General: > >> United States. *Federal Mortality Census > Schedules, 1850-1880 > >> (formerly in the custody of the Daughters of the > American Revolution), > >> and Related Indexes, 1850-1880.* T655, 30 rolls. > National Archives and > >> Records Administration, Washington D.C. > >> > >> For PA, it then lists: > >> United States. *Non-Population Census Schedules > for Pennsylvania, > >> 1850-1880: Mortality*. M1838, 11 rolls. National > Archives and Records > >> Administration, Washington D.C. > >> > >> The particular record I'm looking at appears to > have come from roll > >> M1838, so I suppose that is the citation I should > use. I'm not sure > >> when the generic U.S. citation would apply? > Perhaps some records are > >> from T655 and others from M1838. > >> > >> I *think* the right citation (Mills style) is: > >> 1860 U.S. census, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania > mortality schedule; > >> digital images, *Ancestry.com* (http://www.ancestry.com); citing > >> National Archives and Records Administration > microfilm M1838. > >> > >> > >> What do you think? And, again, most > importantly how do you cite this > >> in Legacy? Use the census template and > overrride it? Something else? > >> > >> Thanks!! > >> > >> > >> Scott > > > > > 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 > > > > 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
