Dae Powell, designer and operator of ShoeString Genealogy.
ShoeString Genealogy: "ShoeString Genealogy provides Family Historians with information about how to research their ancestors both on the Internet and in libraries and other repositories. Besides how, it indicates where—locations for information and the relative value of each."
GENTREK: DOCUMENTATION -- the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
by Dae Powell [ShoeStringGenealogy.com]
presented by Jayne McCormick [BitsOfBlueAndGray.com]
.
.
Isn't it wonderful when other researchers document their sources? Yet what a pain it is to document our own, right? Although essential to genealogical research, documentation requirements trip up most beginning researchers. Documentation speeds further research and lack of it assures failure. Beginning family historians complain that documentation, "cramps my style," "shouldn't be so important," and "slows down the fun."
.
Those old enough to look back and say, "I can remember when it took two years to do what you can do in a few hours today," have difficulty accepting these statements. A generation-gap seems to be developing between researchers. Those who have been involved in the family history pursuit for years revel in the convenience of the computer, the speed of the searches, and the newly acquired data sources that help correct errors in earlier research. However, the new generation of researchers take these aids for granted and are feeling the pressures of our frenzied society. They want results, and they want them now!
.
Still, today's technology has the potential to narrow the generation gap. For example, citing a source is hard enough to do once, but to have to enter the same source two or three times is enough to challenge even a seasoned researcher. Why are we entering our sources more than once? Four major reasons are:
.
1. There is no universally accepted documentation format.
2. Documentation varies according to the writing medium
(e.g. pen, typewriter, or computer).
3. Documentation requirements vary depending on whether the
information is to be published in an article, book, or electronic database.
4. What we start out doing, is often NOT what we end up doing.
Information prepared for one purpose, is regularly needed
in another medium or publication format.
.
.
No Universal Standard
.
The lack of standardization is evident even with common data sources. The following examples show how entries for three common family history documents: a birth certificate, a census record, and an item from a periodical would appear using four different documentation methods.
.
In the following examples, Lackey refers to the guidelines published by
Richard S. Lackey who wrote Cite Your Sources - A Manual for Documenting Family Histories and Genealogical Records in 1980. These guidelines became the standard of the Board for Certification of Genealogists and were the most accepted guide for documenting genealogy sources for many years, but the many newer electronic sources were not addressed.
.
NGS refers to the documentation method used in the publications of the National Genealogical Society.
.
Mills refers to the researcher's citation method I use. It is from Elizabeth Shown Mills' book, EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, released in 2007. This method aids the researcher by insuring that all aspects of documentation are covered and organises them for efficient searching. Mrs. Mills is a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists, of whom there can be only 50 living. She is well-respected and her books are encyclopædic.
.
These three documentation formats are not the only guidelines available, but they illustrate the lack of a universal source document standard for genealogists. (We call these formats guidelines instead of standards, because by definition, a standard should be standardized.)
.
Standards for documentation in every field are constantly evolving. In the field of genealogy, new publishing processes, preservation methods, and retrieval methods have changed the way we record information. Not only is the validity of our past research supported by our source citations, but our ability to effectively continue that research depends on it. Therefore, although citing our sources is less tedious than it used to be, current research techniques demand that documentation be even more exacting than in the past.
.
.
Three Different Citation Methods
.
STYLE Sample Citation for the Same Birth Certificate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lackey Birth Certificate for John Doe, 10 Jun 1920, File Nº 6837-20,
Mississippi State Board of Health, P.O. Box 1700, Jackson, Miss.
39205. Certified copy in possession of writer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NGS John Doe, birth certificate no. 6837-20, 10 June 1920, Mississippi
State Board of Health, P.O. Box 1700, Jackson, Mississippi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mills Jackson County, Mississippi, birth certificate, File Nº 6837-20,
(issued 10 June 1920), John Doe, citing the 1920 registration in
“Book 7, page 61D, Birth Records of Jackson County”; County
Clerk's Office, Jackson County, Mississippi. Located 1-Apr-2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.
STYLE Sample Citation for the Same Federal Census Entry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lackey 1880 U.S. Census, Winona Co., Minn.; Enumeration District 289,
Supervisor District 1, sheet 19, dwelling 172, family 182; National
Archives Microfilm M-408, Roll 315.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NGS Mortimer Edwards entry, U.S. census, 1880 population schedule,
Winona County, Minnesota, Winona Post Office, Enumeration District
289, Supervisor District 1, sheet 19, dwelling 72, family 182.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mills 1880 U.S. census, Winona Post Office, Winona County, Minnesota,
population schedule, enumeration district (ED) 289, p. 19 (stamped),
p. 21 (penned), dwelling 72, family 182, Mortimer Edwards;
NARA microfilm publication T9, roll 717. Located 1-Mar-2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.
STYLE Sample Citation for the Same Source Periodical
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lackey Joan B. Grady, "English Genealogy, 1848-1856,"
The Everton Genealogical Helper, 43 (July-August 1989), 5-8.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NGS Joan B. Grady, "English Genealogy, 1848-1856,"
The Everton Genealogical Helper, 43 (July-August 1989), 5-8.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mills Joan B. Grady, "English Genealogy, 1848-1856,"
The Everton Genealogical Helper, 43 (July-August 1989), 5-8.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.
Why Do We Document As We Do?
.
In the past, the high cost of producing, duplicating, and distributing published research restricted the use of long source citations, document transcriptions, and copies of original documents. Furthermore, interrupting the flow of a story with lengthy citations was considered tedious and unnecessary. With electronic publishing these considerations are much less important.
.
It is clear that each citation must contain enough information to lead someone back to the original source materials, but sometimes we just don't know how to describe a source. Today, technological advances give genealogists access to many unorthodox sources including graphic representations of documents.
.
In other fields, bibliographic entries, which are far more abbreviated than reference notes, are sufficient for reports because these entries are not meant to show exactly where in the reference a specific item could be found. Genealogy reference citations, however, must provide full detail on the location of each source needed to prove a relationship, date, location, or event. A reference citation may also be created to explain an interpretation of the record.
.
.
Documentation Varies According to the "Writing" Medium
.
If the family historian is typing each page with a typewriter, the output will look different from the same information entered into a database. Does the entry mechanism require a "fill-in-the-blank" approach or are long narrative explanations required? Are sources linked to each vital event or do they flow chronologically after each person? After all, although a citation is good, an actual transcription, abstraction, and interpretation of the documents being used to prove a point is even better. Computers allow the space to record, and the ability to search, all these clues.
.
Students taking my adult education genealogy classes don't plan to write a book on their family and yet many of them end up producing a wonderful history book. They find it easy to do, because I encouraged them from the first moment they entered their family at the computer to also enter the sources for their information. Throughout the sessions, I ask them, "How do you know that?" or ''Where did you get that information?" Their answers are then entered as documentation. To make the process easier in the beginning genealogy classes, I provided a form to guide them.
.
.
Documentation Varies According to the Final Published Outcome
.
If we knew we were going to produce a CD-ROM history for our family with video-clips, photographs, and family oral histories linked to scanned documents and nicely portrayed family group records and pedigree charts, our citations would differ from those we'd use to submit an article to The New England Historical Genealogical Register. Yet, who can predict how many ways the research one does today will be published in the future?
.
The beginning genealogist is often surprised to find that a citation is not enough to document a family history. In electronic formats, the space limitations are not nearly as restrictive. We are not only able to cite sources but to transcribe or abstract text, keep track of sources searched, and include individual skill, knowledge, and experience in a personal interpretation of the materials within our documentation. All this should be entered in a format which would keep all three parts of the reference distinct: the citation, the document itself (in whatever format it is recorded), and the researcher's evaluation. Transcripts, abstracts, and interpretations of the record should also be part of documentation as well as the citation. Abstracting, extracting, transcribing, or copying the record cited provides a valuable service for the reader. Fortunately guidelines have also been provided for avoiding pitfalls when entering this second aspect of a complete documentation reference. For example, when extracting, only extraneous, redundant words are removed while all the essential Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How elements remain. If something unusual is encountered, it is recorded as it was found. Names, dates, signatures, and punctuation are NEVER corrected and any needed explanatory remarks are included in brackets.
.
Entries are recorded in chronological order, not necessarily in the order recorded in the original document (starting with the year for easy reference) to reconstruct a historical timeline. If the document is torn, difficult to read, missing parts, or in some way different from others in the same series, that should be noted as well.
.
Ellipses (three dots, with spaces between) should be used to indicate that part of the original text is not being cited. Using ellipses will indicate that you are leaving out non-essential information such as legal verbiage or redundant sentences. Brackets [ ] are used to signify that material not found in the original is being added, such as a point of clarification or an alternative transcription of a hard-to-read word.
.
Not only will these citations and abstracts help others, once they are listed in their entirety, they will guide the researcher to other sources and lead to additional clues. As sources are constantly coming to light with imaging and online databases, heightened public awareness of genealogy, involvement by businesses in disseminating information, and faster and more efficient preservation methods, many of these sources require new citation guidelines. Elizabeth Shown Mills cites several references not covered in Lackey including electronic mail, tombstone transcriptions, photographs, CD searches, GEDCOM transfers, and secondary book references.
.
But improved formats for recording citations is still only part of the solution. This third part of reference is also the most neglected step in the entire research process. The evaluation of the document, in light of the objective, or goal, for using that particular document is to prove a point. Good genealogical documentation requires that the interpretation of data be placed in either a separate report or at least separated from the citation to prevent confusion with the original document. The original document, as well as the evaluation, is used by others who will rely on the work. Social customs and word definitions have changed and a proper explanation can be helpful. By consulting authoritative sources such as Black's Law Dictionary [http://www.blackslawdictionary.com/] or historical references of the time to understand how the meaning of phrases has shifted over time, or referencing unabridged dictionaries for multiple definitions relationships can be verified.
.
A colon should follow the end of the citation. At this point, leave a blank line to separate the citation from the actual transcribed, abstracted or extracted information alluded to in that citation. If the researcher added an interpretation of the document or insights about the document itself, these statements were placed within brackets [].
.
If a long interpretation, historical background, or a list of searched sources surrounding a particular document or research problem was necessary, these items were set off in their own paragraph with their own headings. Various rules were put into place to keep the information succinct yet inclusive of all pertinent information, for example:
.
RULES FOR COMPUTER ENTRY
.
1. Place documentation in chronological order based on the date of the information contained within each transcript, abstract or extract, not the date of publication. For example, if a marriage certificate indicated a person was born in 1847, start the citation with the year of birth, not the year of the marriage certificate, if the purpose for entry was to prove documentation for the birth year.
.
2. Give each event a one word event title (if possible) to quickly pinpoint what events are included and what events have yet to be found (e.g., those not having a title). Again, this word should describe the event, not the source from which it originated.
.
Next, list the geographical location in this order: the country, state (if in the U.S.A., two-letter postal abbreviation since these can be changed automatically by the computer later to full state names), county or shire, and town/parish/township, post office or river courses, or other geographical designations. In other words, go from the largest jurisdiction down to the smallest. Again, the purpose of this is for ease in interpreting chronological life events of an individual. The examples below (which include only part of the citation portion of a complete three-part documentation) demonstrate the ease with which a researcher may see both the years and the movement from state to state or from country to country.
.
Example 1 lists the available collected notes on one individual who moved from Ohio, to Kentucky, and finally Indiana. Example 2 portrays the movement of another individual from England to Utah from the collected notes of that person.
.
.
EXAMPLE 1:
1847 BIRTH: OH, Hamilton Co., Cincinnati, California Twp.
1850 CENSUS: KY, Jefferson Co., Louisville, District 2.
1860 CENSUS: IN, Vanderburg Co., Evansville, Evansville P.O.
.
EXAMPLE 2:
1835 BIRTH: England, Wiltshire, Salisbury
1862 MARRIAGE: England, Wiltshire, Salisbury
1863 BIRTH OF SON: UT, Great Salt Lake Co., Parley's Canyon
1914 DEATH: UT, Salt Lake Co., Mill Creek
.
.
Below, Example 2 is used to demonstrate how a quick glance can suggest to a researcher other, unused, easy-to-acquire, missing resources which should be searched to contribute evidence regarding children, dates of immigration and naturalization, previous marriages, etc. Sources in bold type are those to be looked up and are only for illustration of ease in using this system. [I am not suggesting these to be entered in their appropriate place until they have actually been looked up.]
.
.
EXAMPLE 2:
1835 BIRTH: England, Wiltshire, Salisbury
1841 CENSUS: England
1851 CENSUS: England
1861 CENSUS: England
1862 MARRIAGE: England, Wiltshire, Salisbury
1863 BIRTH OF SON: UT, Great Salt Lake Co., Parley's Canyon
1870 CENSUS: UT
1880 CENSUS: UT
1900 CENSUS: UT
1910 CENSUS: UT
1914 DEATH: UT, Salt Lake Co., Mill Creek
.
3. List the major parts of the citation in one of the guideline formats (such as Lackey, NGS, Mills' method, etc. In the table "Items Covered in Documentation," the various segments of the citation are described. Each one attempts to answer who (the author, compiler, etc.), what (description of the source which may be a title for a book, a description of a collection, or an index to other records), when (a specific date, a span of time for this record collection, but not the event year), where (the places covered by this book, collection, or item which may be inclusive of the one location stated in our examples just previously given, as well as the actual repository for the item being used), and how (book, film, fiche, electronic media, etc.). The why questions will be dealt with later.
.
To learn this system, the form "Documentation Guidelines for Computer Entry" was used. A sample form can be found at my web site, http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com, under Charts. The information can be hand-entered onto this form and then practiced by several times whilst learning to enter data into their documentation. After you become accustomed to the method, the forms can be abandoned.
.
.
Questions Description of items covered
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHO? The author, compiler, publisher, and provider of the information.
WHAT? Description of the source such as: title of the book, description of
the collection, or an index to other records.
WHEN? A specific date or span of time covered by this record collection,
book, film, or fiche. Example Wills: 1834-1910
WHERE? The places covered by this book, collection, item, etc., and
addresses of publisher, person providing information, or a
repository when necessary.
HOW? Format of the collection, book, or item (e.g. book, film, fiche,
electronic media).
WHY? The researcher's evaluation, historical background, societal
customs which may provide the evidence to prove a point, etc.
.
.
4. As you enter your documentation, do it in three steps. First the citation, then the actual document, and finally the evaluation or interpretation of the information.
.
5. The actual document may be entered using a variety of formats determined by the document itself or your own purposes. These include transcripts, abbreviated extracts, abstracts, actual scanned copies of the document, or a reference to a photocopy or original document somewhere else. If a 17th century document is scanned into the computer certainly a transcript of the information should be provided as few people will be able to read such early handwriting.
.
6. Jimmy Parker, Director of the Family History Library, once stressed "evaluation is the most neglected aspect of the research process." Therefore, evaluation of the document in light of the Objective, or goal, for the use of that document is included in the data entry process. Although an evaluation statement is not necessary with every item of data entered (a marriage document obviously gives the marriage date, for example), there are others which will need an explanation.
.
7. Once again rules apply for entering information in a free-form field.
.
Different handicaps are apparent in various genealogy software programs. For example, most programs do not allow for titles to be italicized or underlined. Therefore, many users enter titles all in caps. I find it useful to surround the title with an underscore at each end. Later the caps will need to be converted to standard formats (possible with search and replace program tools but awkward if any dashes or symbols, such as 1723-1834, exist in the title source if the search program will not recognize symbols).
.
.
Does Today's Genealogy Software Help?
.
Researchers expect better solutions to our problems, and often look to technology to handle the mundane aspects of our work. While very cognizant of past methodology, we wonder if new avenues have been explored for improving upon the system. A long-range solution is to have computers take the drudgery and confusion out of documentation by dividing each reference into three parts:
.
a the citation
a the document abstract, extract, transcript and/or image
a the researchers evaluation of the document
.
The Citation
.
Citations are now fielded and linked to databases so that sources don't have to be entered more than once. (Hurrah for that!) Since there are standard elements used in all source citations, computer programmers have developed source modules to make data entry easier. Once entered, these essential elements can be automatically rearranged or even reformatted to match any of the publication guidelines using a user's preference setup.
.
The Document
.
Documents that are scanned, transcribed, abstracted, or extracted with the capability of keyword searching (scanned items which can be OCRed could be searched) such as is currently available in the Personal Ancestral File™ feature known as Focus and Design and in the Family Tree Maker™ versions since version 8. These robust features are why many researchers like these two programs not only to keep track of TO DO lists, but also to find elusive clues embedded in their notes. It you are entirely serious about documentation, there is none better than The Master Genealogist™ from Wholly-Genes Software.
.
The Researcher's Evaluation
.
The evaluation format should also be free-form and should provide keyword searching capabilities as indicated in the previous paragraph.
.
These suggestions not only make it easier to document research and provide a solution to some of the tedious aspects of our work, but they provide a protection against misguided and incorrect research.
.
Lest we think incorrect research is a small problem, consider an article written by Dan Leeson, CG, who confided "When I began to look for my roots, I was absolutely convinced that my family's file was out there somewhere, that it contained all of my history in all branches, and all I had to do was find out where it was located; that is, genealogy was the finding and digesting of a complete, already-created file that was all about my family." This amusing, yet true, tale of how he searched from library to library for this lost volume, sent out hundreds of letters, and talked to countless people until one day someone took the time to explain to him that it wasn't a matter of finding the file, it was a matter of creating it himself.
.
The reality is that millions of people, most of them hobbyists, now, and in the future, have access to the Internet and will be looking for their "file," or buying hundreds of thousands of genealogy computer programs, downloading names, and lining up created families.
.
Several of these on-line hobbyists have recently signed up for some of my genealogy classes. They honestly do not understand why documentation is necessary. "After all, isn't this just for fun? And isn't everything on a CD already verified?" Imagine what these replies do to a mid-life genealogist with decades of experience! I tell myself to be calm, that this person truly does not understand, and that this too shall pass. But I still want to do whatever is necessary to inform the developers of genealogy computer programs, not only to include warnings and safeguards against undocumented data, but to help us prevent errors in the beginning. It is no accident that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) was one of the first sayings created by the computer generation.
.
When asking some of these hobbyists where they found the source for the link to their 2nd great-grandfather, they respond, "I found him on the Internet," which generated visions of 200 year old ancestors roaming the electronic airwaves. Computerized sharing of data often occurs without the built-in safeguards associated with paper publishing, such as pre-publication screening, proofreading, editors, reworked drafts, galley previews, and post-publication reviews by impartial readers. Much of electronic publishing is actually only working papers. Therefore we need to exercise even greater care with documentation.
.
Again, since most of us don't know when we start our genealogy research what we are going to ultimately do with our data, wouldn't it be marvelous if program developers could use a general citation form and then give several options for printing the citation information?
.
.
Conclusion
.
It is very evident that new software is replacing professionals who have training and experience. We have word processing programs which help us become our own editors and financial programs which balance our own checkbooks. In the future, computers with intelligent systems may help us do genealogy research, but we must be wise in our use of this technology. There are still important standards to be maintained and techniques to learn if automated research tools are to produce accurate family histories. Documentation is one of those standards that must be learned, and our computer tools should help maintain that standard.
.
The purpose of this presentation was to bring together the combined thought processes behind the development of several types of documentation methods. By doing so, the genealogy community could share its concerns with the software industry in hopes that a standardized method might evolve. The advantages of standardization are obvious if we as genealogists wish to avail ourselves of greater technological advancements without being overwhelmed by the tedious aspects of our work. The easier the process is and the more accurate the results, the more people who will engage in this activity.
.
Isn't it comforting to know that even though the universal standard hasn't as yet been developed, enough guidance is available to sufficiently document your sources to produce worthy family histories? In the meantime, we will wait (rather impatiently) for technology to catch up.
.
from another site:-
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: "The following should be read with a question mark and a smile. Full documentation is a very tedious and time consuming process and impossible in many cases. Nothing is made up but much of my information comes form legends, ancient manuscripts and historically questionable sources."
GENTREK: DOCUMENTATION -- the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
by Dae Powell [ShoeStringGenealogy.com]
presented by Jayne McCormick [BitsOfBlueAndGray.com]
.
.
Isn't it wonderful when other researchers document their sources? Yet what a pain it is to document our own, right? Although essential to genealogical research, documentation requirements trip up most beginning researchers. Documentation speeds further research and lack of it assures failure. Beginning family historians complain that documentation, "cramps my style," "shouldn't be so important," and "slows down the fun."
.
Those old enough to look back and say, "I can remember when it took two years to do what you can do in a few hours today," have difficulty accepting these statements. A generation-gap seems to be developing between researchers. Those who have been involved in the family history pursuit for years revel in the convenience of the computer, the speed of the searches, and the newly acquired data sources that help correct errors in earlier research. However, the new generation of researchers take these aids for granted and are feeling the pressures of our frenzied society. They want results, and they want them now!
.
Still, today's technology has the potential to narrow the generation gap. For example, citing a source is hard enough to do once, but to have to enter the same source two or three times is enough to challenge even a seasoned researcher. Why are we entering our sources more than once? Four major reasons are:
.
1. There is no universally accepted documentation format.
2. Documentation varies according to the writing medium
(e.g. pen, typewriter, or computer).
3. Documentation requirements vary depending on whether the
information is to be published in an article, book, or electronic database.
4. What we start out doing, is often NOT what we end up doing.
Information prepared for one purpose, is regularly needed
in another medium or publication format.
.
.
No Universal Standard
.
The lack of standardization is evident even with common data sources. The following examples show how entries for three common family history documents: a birth certificate, a census record, and an item from a periodical would appear using four different documentation methods.
.
In the following examples, Lackey refers to the guidelines published by
Richard S. Lackey who wrote Cite Your Sources - A Manual for Documenting Family Histories and Genealogical Records in 1980. These guidelines became the standard of the Board for Certification of Genealogists and were the most accepted guide for documenting genealogy sources for many years, but the many newer electronic sources were not addressed.
.
NGS refers to the documentation method used in the publications of the National Genealogical Society.
.
Mills refers to the researcher's citation method I use. It is from Elizabeth Shown Mills' book, EVIDENCE EXPLAINED, Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, released in 2007. This method aids the researcher by insuring that all aspects of documentation are covered and organises them for efficient searching. Mrs. Mills is a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists, of whom there can be only 50 living. She is well-respected and her books are encyclopædic.
.
These three documentation formats are not the only guidelines available, but they illustrate the lack of a universal source document standard for genealogists. (We call these formats guidelines instead of standards, because by definition, a standard should be standardized.)
.
Standards for documentation in every field are constantly evolving. In the field of genealogy, new publishing processes, preservation methods, and retrieval methods have changed the way we record information. Not only is the validity of our past research supported by our source citations, but our ability to effectively continue that research depends on it. Therefore, although citing our sources is less tedious than it used to be, current research techniques demand that documentation be even more exacting than in the past.
.
.
Three Different Citation Methods
.
STYLE Sample Citation for the Same Birth Certificate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lackey Birth Certificate for John Doe, 10 Jun 1920, File Nº 6837-20,
Mississippi State Board of Health, P.O. Box 1700, Jackson, Miss.
39205. Certified copy in possession of writer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NGS John Doe, birth certificate no. 6837-20, 10 June 1920, Mississippi
State Board of Health, P.O. Box 1700, Jackson, Mississippi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mills Jackson County, Mississippi, birth certificate, File Nº 6837-20,
(issued 10 June 1920), John Doe, citing the 1920 registration in
“Book 7, page 61D, Birth Records of Jackson County”; County
Clerk's Office, Jackson County, Mississippi. Located 1-Apr-2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.
STYLE Sample Citation for the Same Federal Census Entry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lackey 1880 U.S. Census, Winona Co., Minn.; Enumeration District 289,
Supervisor District 1, sheet 19, dwelling 172, family 182; National
Archives Microfilm M-408, Roll 315.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NGS Mortimer Edwards entry, U.S. census, 1880 population schedule,
Winona County, Minnesota, Winona Post Office, Enumeration District
289, Supervisor District 1, sheet 19, dwelling 72, family 182.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mills 1880 U.S. census, Winona Post Office, Winona County, Minnesota,
population schedule, enumeration district (ED) 289, p. 19 (stamped),
p. 21 (penned), dwelling 72, family 182, Mortimer Edwards;
NARA microfilm publication T9, roll 717. Located 1-Mar-2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.
STYLE Sample Citation for the Same Source Periodical
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lackey Joan B. Grady, "English Genealogy, 1848-1856,"
The Everton Genealogical Helper, 43 (July-August 1989), 5-8.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NGS Joan B. Grady, "English Genealogy, 1848-1856,"
The Everton Genealogical Helper, 43 (July-August 1989), 5-8.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mills Joan B. Grady, "English Genealogy, 1848-1856,"
The Everton Genealogical Helper, 43 (July-August 1989), 5-8.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
.
Why Do We Document As We Do?
.
In the past, the high cost of producing, duplicating, and distributing published research restricted the use of long source citations, document transcriptions, and copies of original documents. Furthermore, interrupting the flow of a story with lengthy citations was considered tedious and unnecessary. With electronic publishing these considerations are much less important.
.
It is clear that each citation must contain enough information to lead someone back to the original source materials, but sometimes we just don't know how to describe a source. Today, technological advances give genealogists access to many unorthodox sources including graphic representations of documents.
.
In other fields, bibliographic entries, which are far more abbreviated than reference notes, are sufficient for reports because these entries are not meant to show exactly where in the reference a specific item could be found. Genealogy reference citations, however, must provide full detail on the location of each source needed to prove a relationship, date, location, or event. A reference citation may also be created to explain an interpretation of the record.
.
.
Documentation Varies According to the "Writing" Medium
.
If the family historian is typing each page with a typewriter, the output will look different from the same information entered into a database. Does the entry mechanism require a "fill-in-the-blank" approach or are long narrative explanations required? Are sources linked to each vital event or do they flow chronologically after each person? After all, although a citation is good, an actual transcription, abstraction, and interpretation of the documents being used to prove a point is even better. Computers allow the space to record, and the ability to search, all these clues.
.
Students taking my adult education genealogy classes don't plan to write a book on their family and yet many of them end up producing a wonderful history book. They find it easy to do, because I encouraged them from the first moment they entered their family at the computer to also enter the sources for their information. Throughout the sessions, I ask them, "How do you know that?" or ''Where did you get that information?" Their answers are then entered as documentation. To make the process easier in the beginning genealogy classes, I provided a form to guide them.
.
.
Documentation Varies According to the Final Published Outcome
.
If we knew we were going to produce a CD-ROM history for our family with video-clips, photographs, and family oral histories linked to scanned documents and nicely portrayed family group records and pedigree charts, our citations would differ from those we'd use to submit an article to The New England Historical Genealogical Register. Yet, who can predict how many ways the research one does today will be published in the future?
.
The beginning genealogist is often surprised to find that a citation is not enough to document a family history. In electronic formats, the space limitations are not nearly as restrictive. We are not only able to cite sources but to transcribe or abstract text, keep track of sources searched, and include individual skill, knowledge, and experience in a personal interpretation of the materials within our documentation. All this should be entered in a format which would keep all three parts of the reference distinct: the citation, the document itself (in whatever format it is recorded), and the researcher's evaluation. Transcripts, abstracts, and interpretations of the record should also be part of documentation as well as the citation. Abstracting, extracting, transcribing, or copying the record cited provides a valuable service for the reader. Fortunately guidelines have also been provided for avoiding pitfalls when entering this second aspect of a complete documentation reference. For example, when extracting, only extraneous, redundant words are removed while all the essential Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How elements remain. If something unusual is encountered, it is recorded as it was found. Names, dates, signatures, and punctuation are NEVER corrected and any needed explanatory remarks are included in brackets.
.
Entries are recorded in chronological order, not necessarily in the order recorded in the original document (starting with the year for easy reference) to reconstruct a historical timeline. If the document is torn, difficult to read, missing parts, or in some way different from others in the same series, that should be noted as well.
.
Ellipses (three dots, with spaces between) should be used to indicate that part of the original text is not being cited. Using ellipses will indicate that you are leaving out non-essential information such as legal verbiage or redundant sentences. Brackets [ ] are used to signify that material not found in the original is being added, such as a point of clarification or an alternative transcription of a hard-to-read word.
.
Not only will these citations and abstracts help others, once they are listed in their entirety, they will guide the researcher to other sources and lead to additional clues. As sources are constantly coming to light with imaging and online databases, heightened public awareness of genealogy, involvement by businesses in disseminating information, and faster and more efficient preservation methods, many of these sources require new citation guidelines. Elizabeth Shown Mills cites several references not covered in Lackey including electronic mail, tombstone transcriptions, photographs, CD searches, GEDCOM transfers, and secondary book references.
.
But improved formats for recording citations is still only part of the solution. This third part of reference is also the most neglected step in the entire research process. The evaluation of the document, in light of the objective, or goal, for using that particular document is to prove a point. Good genealogical documentation requires that the interpretation of data be placed in either a separate report or at least separated from the citation to prevent confusion with the original document. The original document, as well as the evaluation, is used by others who will rely on the work. Social customs and word definitions have changed and a proper explanation can be helpful. By consulting authoritative sources such as Black's Law Dictionary [http://www.blackslawdictionary.com/] or historical references of the time to understand how the meaning of phrases has shifted over time, or referencing unabridged dictionaries for multiple definitions relationships can be verified.
.
A colon should follow the end of the citation. At this point, leave a blank line to separate the citation from the actual transcribed, abstracted or extracted information alluded to in that citation. If the researcher added an interpretation of the document or insights about the document itself, these statements were placed within brackets [].
.
If a long interpretation, historical background, or a list of searched sources surrounding a particular document or research problem was necessary, these items were set off in their own paragraph with their own headings. Various rules were put into place to keep the information succinct yet inclusive of all pertinent information, for example:
.
RULES FOR COMPUTER ENTRY
.
1. Place documentation in chronological order based on the date of the information contained within each transcript, abstract or extract, not the date of publication. For example, if a marriage certificate indicated a person was born in 1847, start the citation with the year of birth, not the year of the marriage certificate, if the purpose for entry was to prove documentation for the birth year.
.
2. Give each event a one word event title (if possible) to quickly pinpoint what events are included and what events have yet to be found (e.g., those not having a title). Again, this word should describe the event, not the source from which it originated.
.
Next, list the geographical location in this order: the country, state (if in the U.S.A., two-letter postal abbreviation since these can be changed automatically by the computer later to full state names), county or shire, and town/parish/township, post office or river courses, or other geographical designations. In other words, go from the largest jurisdiction down to the smallest. Again, the purpose of this is for ease in interpreting chronological life events of an individual. The examples below (which include only part of the citation portion of a complete three-part documentation) demonstrate the ease with which a researcher may see both the years and the movement from state to state or from country to country.
.
Example 1 lists the available collected notes on one individual who moved from Ohio, to Kentucky, and finally Indiana. Example 2 portrays the movement of another individual from England to Utah from the collected notes of that person.
.
.
EXAMPLE 1:
1847 BIRTH: OH, Hamilton Co., Cincinnati, California Twp.
1850 CENSUS: KY, Jefferson Co., Louisville, District 2.
1860 CENSUS: IN, Vanderburg Co., Evansville, Evansville P.O.
.
EXAMPLE 2:
1835 BIRTH: England, Wiltshire, Salisbury
1862 MARRIAGE: England, Wiltshire, Salisbury
1863 BIRTH OF SON: UT, Great Salt Lake Co., Parley's Canyon
1914 DEATH: UT, Salt Lake Co., Mill Creek
.
.
Below, Example 2 is used to demonstrate how a quick glance can suggest to a researcher other, unused, easy-to-acquire, missing resources which should be searched to contribute evidence regarding children, dates of immigration and naturalization, previous marriages, etc. Sources in bold type are those to be looked up and are only for illustration of ease in using this system. [I am not suggesting these to be entered in their appropriate place until they have actually been looked up.]
.
.
EXAMPLE 2:
1835 BIRTH: England, Wiltshire, Salisbury
1841 CENSUS: England
1851 CENSUS: England
1861 CENSUS: England
1862 MARRIAGE: England, Wiltshire, Salisbury
1863 BIRTH OF SON: UT, Great Salt Lake Co., Parley's Canyon
1870 CENSUS: UT
1880 CENSUS: UT
1900 CENSUS: UT
1910 CENSUS: UT
1914 DEATH: UT, Salt Lake Co., Mill Creek
.
3. List the major parts of the citation in one of the guideline formats (such as Lackey, NGS, Mills' method, etc. In the table "Items Covered in Documentation," the various segments of the citation are described. Each one attempts to answer who (the author, compiler, etc.), what (description of the source which may be a title for a book, a description of a collection, or an index to other records), when (a specific date, a span of time for this record collection, but not the event year), where (the places covered by this book, collection, or item which may be inclusive of the one location stated in our examples just previously given, as well as the actual repository for the item being used), and how (book, film, fiche, electronic media, etc.). The why questions will be dealt with later.
.
To learn this system, the form "Documentation Guidelines for Computer Entry" was used. A sample form can be found at my web site, http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com, under Charts. The information can be hand-entered onto this form and then practiced by several times whilst learning to enter data into their documentation. After you become accustomed to the method, the forms can be abandoned.
.
.
Questions Description of items covered
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHO? The author, compiler, publisher, and provider of the information.
WHAT? Description of the source such as: title of the book, description of
the collection, or an index to other records.
WHEN? A specific date or span of time covered by this record collection,
book, film, or fiche. Example Wills: 1834-1910
WHERE? The places covered by this book, collection, item, etc., and
addresses of publisher, person providing information, or a
repository when necessary.
HOW? Format of the collection, book, or item (e.g. book, film, fiche,
electronic media).
WHY? The researcher's evaluation, historical background, societal
customs which may provide the evidence to prove a point, etc.
.
.
4. As you enter your documentation, do it in three steps. First the citation, then the actual document, and finally the evaluation or interpretation of the information.
.
5. The actual document may be entered using a variety of formats determined by the document itself or your own purposes. These include transcripts, abbreviated extracts, abstracts, actual scanned copies of the document, or a reference to a photocopy or original document somewhere else. If a 17th century document is scanned into the computer certainly a transcript of the information should be provided as few people will be able to read such early handwriting.
.
6. Jimmy Parker, Director of the Family History Library, once stressed "evaluation is the most neglected aspect of the research process." Therefore, evaluation of the document in light of the Objective, or goal, for the use of that document is included in the data entry process. Although an evaluation statement is not necessary with every item of data entered (a marriage document obviously gives the marriage date, for example), there are others which will need an explanation.
.
7. Once again rules apply for entering information in a free-form field.
.
Different handicaps are apparent in various genealogy software programs. For example, most programs do not allow for titles to be italicized or underlined. Therefore, many users enter titles all in caps. I find it useful to surround the title with an underscore at each end. Later the caps will need to be converted to standard formats (possible with search and replace program tools but awkward if any dashes or symbols, such as 1723-1834, exist in the title source if the search program will not recognize symbols).
.
.
Does Today's Genealogy Software Help?
.
Researchers expect better solutions to our problems, and often look to technology to handle the mundane aspects of our work. While very cognizant of past methodology, we wonder if new avenues have been explored for improving upon the system. A long-range solution is to have computers take the drudgery and confusion out of documentation by dividing each reference into three parts:
.
a the citation
a the document abstract, extract, transcript and/or image
a the researchers evaluation of the document
.
The Citation
.
Citations are now fielded and linked to databases so that sources don't have to be entered more than once. (Hurrah for that!) Since there are standard elements used in all source citations, computer programmers have developed source modules to make data entry easier. Once entered, these essential elements can be automatically rearranged or even reformatted to match any of the publication guidelines using a user's preference setup.
.
The Document
.
Documents that are scanned, transcribed, abstracted, or extracted with the capability of keyword searching (scanned items which can be OCRed could be searched) such as is currently available in the Personal Ancestral File™ feature known as Focus and Design and in the Family Tree Maker™ versions since version 8. These robust features are why many researchers like these two programs not only to keep track of TO DO lists, but also to find elusive clues embedded in their notes. It you are entirely serious about documentation, there is none better than The Master Genealogist™ from Wholly-Genes Software.
.
The Researcher's Evaluation
.
The evaluation format should also be free-form and should provide keyword searching capabilities as indicated in the previous paragraph.
.
These suggestions not only make it easier to document research and provide a solution to some of the tedious aspects of our work, but they provide a protection against misguided and incorrect research.
.
Lest we think incorrect research is a small problem, consider an article written by Dan Leeson, CG, who confided "When I began to look for my roots, I was absolutely convinced that my family's file was out there somewhere, that it contained all of my history in all branches, and all I had to do was find out where it was located; that is, genealogy was the finding and digesting of a complete, already-created file that was all about my family." This amusing, yet true, tale of how he searched from library to library for this lost volume, sent out hundreds of letters, and talked to countless people until one day someone took the time to explain to him that it wasn't a matter of finding the file, it was a matter of creating it himself.
.
The reality is that millions of people, most of them hobbyists, now, and in the future, have access to the Internet and will be looking for their "file," or buying hundreds of thousands of genealogy computer programs, downloading names, and lining up created families.
.
Several of these on-line hobbyists have recently signed up for some of my genealogy classes. They honestly do not understand why documentation is necessary. "After all, isn't this just for fun? And isn't everything on a CD already verified?" Imagine what these replies do to a mid-life genealogist with decades of experience! I tell myself to be calm, that this person truly does not understand, and that this too shall pass. But I still want to do whatever is necessary to inform the developers of genealogy computer programs, not only to include warnings and safeguards against undocumented data, but to help us prevent errors in the beginning. It is no accident that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) was one of the first sayings created by the computer generation.
.
When asking some of these hobbyists where they found the source for the link to their 2nd great-grandfather, they respond, "I found him on the Internet," which generated visions of 200 year old ancestors roaming the electronic airwaves. Computerized sharing of data often occurs without the built-in safeguards associated with paper publishing, such as pre-publication screening, proofreading, editors, reworked drafts, galley previews, and post-publication reviews by impartial readers. Much of electronic publishing is actually only working papers. Therefore we need to exercise even greater care with documentation.
.
Again, since most of us don't know when we start our genealogy research what we are going to ultimately do with our data, wouldn't it be marvelous if program developers could use a general citation form and then give several options for printing the citation information?
.
.
Conclusion
.
It is very evident that new software is replacing professionals who have training and experience. We have word processing programs which help us become our own editors and financial programs which balance our own checkbooks. In the future, computers with intelligent systems may help us do genealogy research, but we must be wise in our use of this technology. There are still important standards to be maintained and techniques to learn if automated research tools are to produce accurate family histories. Documentation is one of those standards that must be learned, and our computer tools should help maintain that standard.
.
The purpose of this presentation was to bring together the combined thought processes behind the development of several types of documentation methods. By doing so, the genealogy community could share its concerns with the software industry in hopes that a standardized method might evolve. The advantages of standardization are obvious if we as genealogists wish to avail ourselves of greater technological advancements without being overwhelmed by the tedious aspects of our work. The easier the process is and the more accurate the results, the more people who will engage in this activity.
.
Isn't it comforting to know that even though the universal standard hasn't as yet been developed, enough guidance is available to sufficiently document your sources to produce worthy family histories? In the meantime, we will wait (rather impatiently) for technology to catch up.
.
from another site:-
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: "The following should be read with a question mark and a smile. Full documentation is a very tedious and time consuming process and impossible in many cases. Nothing is made up but much of my information comes form legends, ancient manuscripts and historically questionable sources."
posted by Hugh W at 8:16 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home