[APG Public List] Citing Sources - Your Opinion
linda at fpr.com
linda at fpr.com
Tue Jun 29 14:08:45 MDT 2010
I deliberately avoided the use of "citation" in my post, because my
concerns are entirely directed at the quality of information provided to
users for the purposes of source analysis. I do not care at all whether
citation "format(s)" are offered.
My interests lie before the point of formatting a citation (or two or
three...). Basically answering the question "what am I looking at?"
It only makes sense to me that if each party were responsible for the
description associated with the piece(s) that they created or were
"closest" to, that such an approach should theoretically result in
information that is more reliable for the purposes of source
understanding/analysis/evaluation than the current situation where the
service provider is the author of the "whole package."
For example, on the service provider's end I would appreciate more
information on the "who, where, when, how" of the search tools and any
database entries created by the service provider for their users. For
images of NARA holdings I expect clear identification for what NARA
publication an image came from. Rather than expect a service provider
to provide any background information for records obtained from a
partner, it makes sense to me that they provide a clear link (provided
by the home repository) to such information that the home repository
deems appropriate. Separating the "authoring" responsibilities
regarding these source descriptions should mean it's easier to keep
everything up-to-date, too, rather than making changes in multiple
Regarding changing what's there now, my less-than-radical-approach would
be to advocate change from this day forward. Applying to new
partnership agreements (and renewals of old). I think most important
would be to change *expectations*--what researchers, archivists,
conservators, librarians, etc think is the best and efficient way to
maintain the integrity of information about their collections while
increasing public access to their holdings through the use of
partnerships with other organizations.
So, I guess since I'm not concerned about citations, per se, I'm really
not responding to Cindy's questions. But, it's an issue I care about
and I couldn't resist the opportunity to share. For me, it is related to
the quality of source documentation and I do think that
repositories/archives could make more demands on subscription providers.
To me, Ancestry's lumping of @16 NARA publications into one database
("Border Crossings: From Canada to U.S., 1895-1956") without
associating the specific publication for each record is unacceptable.
and this is not the only place where Ancestry does this, nor is Ancestry
the only service provider taking these shortcuts.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [APG Public List] Citing Sources - Your Opinion
> From: <eshown at comcast.net>
> Date: Tue, June 29, 2010 3:03 pm
> To: <linda at fpr.com>, "'Cindy Leigh'" <cindy at rahman.com>
> Cc: <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
> Linda wrote:
> >It makes more sense to me to lobby major repositories, such as NARA, to include in their partnering agreements the requirement that the partner provide visible links back to source descriptions provided by the "original" repository. Those links would be provided to the subscription service by the "original" repository for each record group or collection, or however the home repository deems most accurate.
> Linda, four thoughts come to mind when I read your quite-logical suggestion.
> NARA does have a style sheet, but it isn't followed by NARA's own varied entities. NARA’s journal Prologue, for example, uses its own style. Those who fill our orders, as another example, rarely follow NARA's style sheet when they identify the records they send us.
> Ancestry did have a longtime (retired) NARA staffer on its own staff when it acquired and identified many of the films it has imaged. On occasion, he would post to APG-L to help us understand things.
> Considering that providers such as Ancestry have a vast array of these databases (nearly 30,000 in Ancestry's case), with billions of records, the prospect of their going back and tidying up all past citations seem woefully slim.
> Even if the 'owner archives' provides an identification of its own materials, that does not relieve the researcher of the responsibility for personally evaluating, amplifying, or emending the citation to fit their own needs.
> Bear in mind that archives (such as NARA), publishers (such as Chicago) and researchers all have different needs and purposes. Archivists are interested in identifying a document to whatever extent enables them to find the document if/when they are called upon to do so. Publishers are often interested in creating the shortest possible citations, in order to reduce printing costs. Researchers, on the other hand, need to identify a document to whatever extent necessary for them to not just relocate the document but to understand the document and its context.
> We also need to consider the universal expectation a writer will be consistent in this or her presentation of data. Any of us who use archival websites know that the staff at one archives will cite something one way, while the staff at another archives will cite the same material in a radically different way. Some feel that Elements A, B, D, and F are essential. Others feel that Elements A, C, E, and G are essential—and then reverse the arrangement to G,E,C,A Some identify a record using "bibliographic (source list) format." Others identify the same type of record using "reference note" format.
> Aside from the 'trust' issue that you rightfully bring up, if we researchers simply cut-and-paste whatever an archives provides, then we end up with a hodgepodge that (a) will be perceived by others as sloppy or careless; and (b) will be clear to neither others nor ourselves in the future after our recollection of the record set goes cold.
> Considering all these factors, IMO, it is still up to us, as researchers, to evaluate each record and whatever identification accompanies it, then create a citation that meets our needs and is consistent with whatever style we are using in our other references.
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
> The Evidence Series
More information about the APGPublicList