Sourcing the Source

Dear Editor,
 
I have been trying to make an enhancement request to my software vendor. This is my sample Record Group.
 
U.S. World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946
 http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=8939
 
Looking at what Ancestry provides it is says:
 
National Archives and Records Administration. U.S. World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005.Original data: Electronic Army Serial Number Merged File, 1938-1946 [Archival Database]; ARC:1263923. World War II Army Enlistment Records; Records of the National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 64; National Archives at College Park. College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.
 
In the template I used, I was asked for an "Organization" but I entered the Collection Title
 
U.S. World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946
 
To get the Reference Note close, I have to put the following into the Citation Detail field.
 
accessed [dd month yyyy]; entry for [ name ], enlisted [dd month yyyy, [State];  citing "Electronic Army Serial Number Merged File, 1938-1946 [Archival Database]; ARC: 1263923, World War II Army Enlistment Records; Records of the National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 64; National Archives at College Park. College Park, Maryland"
 
That is very close to what QuickSheet: Citing Ancestry.com® Databases & Images. In this case, it's a Database.
 
The Full Reference Note is:
 
U.S. World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946, Ancestry.com, database (http://www.ancestry.com), accessed 19 October 2014, entry John B[eckley] Finkey, 03 May 1943, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;  citing "Electronic Army Serial Number Merged File, 1938-1946 [Archival Database]; ARC: 1263923, World War II Army Enlistment Records; Records of the National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 64; National Archives at College Park. College Park, Maryland".
 
The issue with this template is that "U.S. World War .... " isn't in Quotes.
 
I think a new Template for "Sourcing the Source". There should be a Field, at the SOURCE level to put everything following "citing ... ". That would be entered one time, but presented in the Reference Note for each Citation. 
 
The Citation Detail would then include the "entry for [name], enlisted dd month year, [state]
 
Ancestry.com, database (http://www.ancestry.com)
 
should be 
 
Ancestry.com, database (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed dd month yyyy)
 
I had suggested and continue to suggest a Citation Level box for the user to enter the date, in their normal method, but the output be in the dd month yyyy (20 October 2014) format.
 
My Example is:
 
U.S. World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946, Ancestry.com, database (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 19 October 2014), entry John B[eckley] Finkey, 03 May 1943, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; citing "Electronic Army Serial Number Merged File, 1938-1946 [Archival Database]; ARC: 1263923, World War II Army Enlistment Records; Records of the National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 64; National Archives at College Park. College Park, Maryland".
 
This is a live example and I use [editor correction] for the Name. John B was on the Record, but his name, as documented is John Beckley.
 
It was suggest that I choose a different Template, which I did.
 
"U.S. World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946", online database, The National Archives (http://www.ancestry.com), accessed [dd month yyyy]; entry for [ name ], enlisted [dd month yyyy, [State];  citing "Electronic Army Serial Number Merged File, 1938-1946 [Archival Database]; ARC: 1263923, World War II Army Enlistment Records; Records of the National Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 64; National Archives at College Park. College Park, Maryland".
 
This got the "U.S. World War ... " back. BUT, the template provides "The National Archives" with Ancestry.com's URL. That isn't what the QuickSheet says, and really confuses me.
 
Here is a reply I got about my issue of "Source of the Source", which is my term for this feature.
 
"I'm not sure I understand why you are concerned about the "Source of the Source", as you call it.  In academic research, one does not cite the trail that led to the data as you found it.  In fact, the citation that the template produces actually contains the information that it derived from the National Archives; and after all, the data are not Ancestry.com's data — rather, they are data duplicated directly from a digital 'master file', if you will, from the National Archives."
 
I tried, but do not think that this enhancement will make it. I am only tryng do get the software to help ME and to help other users of the program to have a well crafted Citation (Reference Note).
 
I am sure I missed something along the way. I do not do, nor have I done acacemic research. I try to follow the guidelines provided by Evidence Explained.
 
Thank you,
 
Russ

Submitted byrworthingtonon Wed, 10/22/2014 - 17:54

Sorry for the double post, when I looked at the first one, it was one long run together post. I couldn't delete one of them.

Sorry,

Russ

Russ, the reason the first one 'ran together into one long post is the HTML setting used. Look below the screen in which you typed a message. Left side. You will see a little option for "Text format."  The default that's showing is "Filtered HTML." That works fine for short and uncomplicated messages. For longer messages that need more formatting, change that to "Full HTML."  (I made the switch for you with the first message, so it then formatted okay.)

Submitted byEEon Thu, 10/23/2014 - 11:46

Russ's Message 1:

Whooo.  My first question, at the point where you say your template asked for "Organization" (para. 5), was to wonder what template type you used. When citing an online database for this eponymously named website, the pattern should be:

 "Database Title," database, Ancestry (www.Ancestry.com : [date of access]), [Specific record of interest]; citing ... [whatever citation details Ancestry provides].

When, at your provider's suggestion, you changed templates, a more-serious one arose (para. 23). As you note, you're now citing the National Archives website (when you didn't actually use that) with Ancestry's URL.  To be able to understand how this happened, EE would have to follow you step-by-step through template selection and data entry, but that does go beyond what EE can do.

The more serious issue is your provider's response that questions the need for source-of-the-source info—specifically the assertion: "In academic research, one does not cite the trail that led to the data as you found it."  Different academic fields have different standards. Some call for minimal data; some call for stringently precise data. Among those pursuing history, a macro-historian can produce reasonably reliable "overarching conclusions about society" from derivative sources, while a microhistorian who focuses on individuals must be far more precise in source identification and analysis in order to correctly differentiate between same-name people and correctly determine kinships.

For certain, genealogical scholarship--as it's practiced everywhere from Boston University to the major research journals, to the Board for Certification of Genealogy, to the textbooks such as Mastering Genealogical Proof--would not dismiss the need for accurate source-of-the-source info. Even when a provider says they have simply "duplicated [data] directly from a digital 'master file'," there are differences that can be significant to research and analysis.

 

 

Submitted byrworthingtonon Thu, 10/23/2014 - 12:11

Dear Editor,

 

That comment was not specifically from the developer, but from an end user who provided the expertize to the developer on the Templates.

 

My choice, which may be wrong, was to do a Key Word Search for Online. The only one that was close was for a Online Database (Lineage Society Records). That was my first choice.

 

What was suggested that I manually select National Government Records, Databases, National Archives. That template has the following Fields: Database Title, Record type / fomat, URL, and year

 

I would agree with your opening paragraph IF it had images. This one does not. It is a screen created by Ancestry. Looks like any of their transcribed databased. For me, what I am looking at is from Ancestry. They got their information from NARA (NARA II). If I was looking at what NARA had, in their format, I would go with the "The National Archives" text and the Ancestry.com URL. I am trying to remind myself that I am looking at a one  - off record from Ancestry. So, that is why I am trying to cite the Source of the Source. Cite Ancestry, but then Cite the NARA database title.

 

I have the workaround, in that I have a place to copy and paste the "citing..." information for each entry. What I was hoping was a Field that I could complete, where the Field asked me for the Source of the Source or NARA.

 

You see, I guess I have learned something while studying Evidence Explained and Mastering Genealogical Proof.

 

Again, that comment was not from the vendor. In the flurry of emails, another power user brought up the duplicated data issue.

I am using Family Tree Maker 2014. If you want, I can create a video and share it with you, the steps for selecting these two templates. 

Thank you,

 

Russ

Submitted byrworthingtonon Thu, 10/23/2014 - 12:16

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the #3 reply. I saw that after I posted the message. My error.

Thank you,

Russ

Submitted bymhaiton Sun, 10/26/2014 - 17:49

If I could add a comment on this issue as well:

Research standards require that derivative record sources be replaced by the underlying original records. I would suggest that this applies to underlying databases as well.

Rather than citing Ancestry.com's version of the NARA database, why not examine and cite NARA's database directly? This database has been online for years in the Access to Archival Databases (AAD) section of the NARA website: http://aad.archives.gov/aad/.

This specific database is online at http://aad.archives.gov/aad/series-description.jsp?s=3360&cat=WR26&bc=,sl

The NARA website also describes in more detail the original records that support the database.

Submitted byrworthingtonon Sun, 10/26/2014 - 22:11

mhait,

That is great information. Thank you.

The problem I am trying to address, is to be able to put detailed requirements into my software vendor to allow me to Source the Source.

I read your comment earlier but have two comments. 1) I am not a professional, but want to do the best I can. and 2) I did not know, about that resource. I want the bread crumb that says where I got my information from, and that source is using another source to which I think I should be citing, until I find out about to can access the real deal.

I thought it was important to source the source, in the mean time. From the best I can tell, at this point, Online Databases at Ancestry do source the source. I want my software to help me out with that. I have a work around, I am trying to craft a user requirement for the developers to consider.

Thank you,

Russ

Submitted byEEon Mon, 10/27/2014 - 14:58

In reply to by rworthington

Russ, you make a couple of very good points, here. When we find a source, we very often do not know that a better version exists--or we may not have access to that better version at that time--and so, "best practice" calls for citing well whatever it is we have used. Certainly source-of-the-source data is called for.

Good luck with your effort.

Submitted byDearMYRTLEon Mon, 10/27/2014 - 13:36

Knowing Russ' research process is similar to mine, I feel to jump in here.

Sometimes months pass between finding an indexed entry and obtaining the original file in textual format, say at NARA. I cite the source of the indexed entry for two reasons:

  • We can add the items To Do Lookup List, assured that all files numbers, etc. are part of our digital record keeping.
  • We may present the step-by-step process in a case study presentation during an upcoming class or seminar.

Citing an indexed source in my genealogy management program isn't the same thing as:

  • composing a written summary of my research for publication
  • crafting a so-called "proof argument"

 

Submitted byrworthingtonon Mon, 10/27/2014 - 15:09

Deat Editor,

Dear MYRTLE,

Thank you for your responses. I will continue my effort to see of the database management developers will look into the matter of Citing the Source of the Source.

From the best that I can tell, the specifically applies to, Ancestry.coms databases from somewhere else. Not necessarily for those Images that we can see. Not limiting to databases, but IF my Reference Note says "online database" I should be presented with a dialog box what I can enter the Original Source information that they already provide me. (I like Copy/Paste) for that.

Again, thank you.

Russ