<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>I think part of the problem with subscription services is that sometimes we seem to be asking them to do our work for us.  There's usually enough information there that the original records can be fully identified, and the current location then found, but sometimes it takes a little effort to do so.  That's nothing compared to what it used to take (first going somewhere like an archive to see the record, or order in a microfilm through an FHC, and in the latter case, also identify the original and where held etc).  So now we only have to do a little bit of sleuthing to fully identify the record.   .  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To use information taken from a subscription database without fully identifying the record that contains the information (even if that means having to do it on our own) is going to negatively impact on any evaluation of that information as evidence.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And it's because the partial information can't be trusted that you have to do more digging. Exactly for that reason.  Enough can be gleaned from Ancestry (for example) in most cases, to allow the full identification, including current location of the original record itself.  And in the process of doing that bit of work, the payback can be discovery of new sources or a new understanding of what was collected from Ancestry. Win-win.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Larry</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=linda@fpr.com href="mailto:linda@fpr.com">linda@fpr.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=cindy@rahman.com href="mailto:cindy@rahman.com">Cindy Leigh</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=apgpubliclist@apgen.org href="mailto:apgpubliclist@apgen.org">apgpubliclist@apgen.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:06 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APG Public List] Citing Sources - Your Opinion</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>Cindy asked:<BR><BR>> <BR>> 2. Do you think one solution would be to lobby the largest subscription<BR>> services, such as Ancestry.com, to provide more up-front and visible prompts<BR>> to add ANY kind of information as to where the information as obtained - in<BR>> their public family trees?<BR><BR>I don't know about lobbying subscription services about policing the<BR>degree of documentation on family trees, etc.  Restricting what<BR>individuals can publish isn't something I'd be interested in supporting.<BR><BR>However, I am interested in accurate source descriptions.  Right now it<BR>seems that the subscription services are the "author" for any and all<BR>source description available when using their products.  I do not trust<BR>the reliability of the information in those descriptions, and I think<BR>the underlying issue is that the service provider is "authoring"<BR>material it is not an expert in.  It makes more sense to me to lobby<BR>major repositories, such as NARA, to include in their partnering<BR>agreements the requirement that the partner provide visible links back<BR>to source descriptions provided by the "original" repository.  Those<BR>links would be provided to the subscription service by the "original"<BR>repository for each record group or collection, or however the home<BR>repository deems most accurate.<BR><BR>This way the service provider can write about what it knows about (the<BR>database organization, the database entries associated with it, search<BR>tools, whatever--the stuff it did to make the record group available to<BR>its users and any fields that were added.  And the original repository<BR>can be the source of the descriptions about the actual records which<BR>came from their collections<BR><BR>In addition to resulting in hopefully more accurate source descriptions<BR>for users, this approach might also raise the awareness about different<BR>repositories, their collections, etc. and the *structure* of the what it<BR>is a researcher is looking at.  At least for the users who are<BR>interested in reading this information in the first place.  It might<BR>also have the extraordinary benefit of preventing a service provider<BR>from lumping a bunch of record groups together and just listing the<BR>many, many "sources," with no way for the user to accurately determine<BR>the specific collection the record came from without "guessing" or doing<BR>more research.  Ancestry's "Border Crossings: From Canada to U.S.,<BR>1895-1956" is one such example.<BR><BR>If a clear convention could be adopted by the many players in the<BR>various aspects of the information business whereby each player is<BR>responsible for the description for *their* "value-added" portion, it<BR>might avoid the current fuzziness in the source descriptions and knowing<BR>which information came from what source.  Lobbying the major<BR>repositories to make this requirement of any partners which make their<BR>collections available makes sense to me as a reasonable way to work for<BR>change on this issue.  I could also see major professional and research<BR>societies making this an issue they publicized and supported.   For this<BR>non-professional-trying-to-do-the-right-thing-researcher, such an<BR>approach would be a major quality of life improvement.<BR><BR>Linda<BR><BR>____________<BR>Linda Gardner<BR>Massachusetts<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>