In recent posts I have been discussing other bloggers’ comments about source citations, and generally why I disagree with some of them. In this post, I want to go in another direction, and discuss two recent blog posts about source citations that I agree with to some extent.
The first is the post “Genealogy Citations: Good, Better, Best,” in the Luxegen Genealogy and Family History, posted on 6 March 2011. Joan writes,
As I mentioned in my comments on a couple of blogs, my philosophy is good, better, best.
We all strive to do our best but start out as ‘good’ and become ‘better’ along the way to ‘best’.
I feel the genealogical community can put a positive spin on the citation issue by helping newbies grow.
Most newbies (or casual hobbyists) simply don’t know how to do it better because they haven’t been exposed to better or best yet.
A kind, gentle approach to educating them is the key.
I suggest using a toastmasters approach which is sharing what they are doing well, offering constructive suggestions for improvement and leaving them hopeful and wanting to help build the best research possible. We can offer suggestions that provide concrete examples for others to follow.
Contrast this with slamming them for what they don’t know they are doing wrong now, and you can see why issues don’t improve.
Perhaps, if we do this in a kind, humane fashion, the casual genealogists will buy into being part of a community that is striving for the good of all. Being part of a community can be a big draw. …
My suggestions are to create a Good, Better, Best Genealogy Approach
GOOD might be – copy the link to where you got the source into the notes section of your genealogy software program
BETTER- photocopy or scan all pertinent identifying documents (title page of the book flap, ISBN number, publisher, page numbers, etc). Have a log book of that microfilm record; copy the pension record source down, etc etc. (insert myriad of examples here). We would also need examples of organization systems to keep track of the information.
BEST – Evidence Explained to the letter
I agree with Joan’s assessment that part of the problem is a lack of education on the part of the beginning genealogist. I also agree that learning to cite your sources properly involves a steep learning curve. Joan offers a productive level-based philosophy toward improving source citation skills.
This also brings to mind the “Genealogical Maturity Model” developed by the Ancestry Insider last year. You can view his GMM levels in the post, “Rate Your Genealogical Maturity,” posted on 6 March 2010. The levels he defines for Source Citations are as follows:
- Entry: “Captures URLs for online sources and citations for published sources.”
- Emerging: “Increasingly captures necessary information for manuscript sources.”
- Practicing: “Typically produces complete source citations.”
- Proficient: “Gives complete and accurate source citations including provenance and quality assessment.”
- Stellar: “Overcomes limitations of genealogical software to create well organized, industry standard reference notes and source lists.”
Personally, I would actually reverse the positions of “Proficient” and “Stellar.” I don’t use genealogy software for any of my client research projects, and I believe that this is the case for many professional genealogists. The use of genealogical software is completely unrelated to source citation skills. But this is beside the point.
Both of these posts display the development of the skill of source citation. It is important to note that genealogical skills, like all skills, do take practice to develop into proficiency.
On the other hand, I also believe that some might be settling a little short of the end goal.
When you are learning to drive, parallel parking might take a lot of practice before you can do it well. But you don’t really have the option of saying, “It’s too hard,” or “This is good enough.” You have to keep practicing until you get it right.
This is how source citation should be treated. It is a vital part of the genealogy research process. Not only for the end result of the finished citation, but the actual process of creating the citation. The citation-creation process involves a level of awareness about the record you are using that makes the process itself extremely valuable.
The second post I wanted to mention, “Is Mills Style Necessary?,” is part of a series of posts on the subject of source citation also written by the Ancestry Insider. I would recommend that anyone conducting genealogical research read the entire series. I actually agree with almost everything that he has written in this series, so there is no need to comment further here.
In the three parts of “Source Citations: Why Form Matters,” I have discussed why a consistent format for source citations is necessary. I am sure that not everyone agrees with me, especially among some beginning hobbyists that are only researching their own families for their own entertainment. The points that I hope that everyone comes away with is that (1) source citation is necessary, (2) a consistent format for source citation is necessary for purposes of clarity, even if you will be the only person who ever looks at your research, and (3) the skill of developing proper, consistent source citations is achieved through practice.
We are extremely fortunate that Elizabeth Shown Mills took the time and energy to adapt the Chicago Manual of Style citation format to address the citation needs of genealogists. Just a generation ago, there was no commonly accepted, consistent format for genealogical source citations. This caused confusion, which is exactly why Ms. Mills wrote first Evidence! and later Evidence Explained.