Wonky web site

I'm trying to create a citation to this web page https://kulturminnesok.no/minne/?queryString=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.kulturminne.no%2Faskeladden%2Flokalitet%2F62056

(off topic but this is a GREAT web site, it shows where cultural artifacts were exactly discovered in Norway. You can spend waaay toooo much time looking at the various things found like Iron age axes ...)

Anyway the simple citation would be

Kulturminnesøk, “Joramo bygdeallmenning / Fangstlokalitet” (https://kulturminnesok.no/minne/?queryString=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.kulturminne.no%2Faskeladden%2Flokalitet%2F62056 : 7 March 2021).

But there are issues and questions :)

First the web page title is not unique, using that web page title in the main page search returns lots of pages. The unique identifier, in this case the 62056, will not work as a search term. So readers attempting to get into the site by typing instead of using the link will have difficulties. I could add the 62056 as a separate number, but it doesn't help those walking the source back.

Next, should I cite the discoverer of the artifact, in this case Gunvald Bentdal? I could add a layer such as ;artifact registered 28 August 1980, discoverer Gunvald Bentdal [prior to 1938]. But that may not be true, Gunvald may have known about the artifact from others and was merely the one to report it. 

Finally, I don't think including the owner for the website is necessary. There is a bit of a path possible to discover (though the bottom links) but as the site has it's own URL I think that is sufficient.

Submitted byEEon Mon, 03/08/2021 - 10:37

Cryptoref, researchers definitely have a love-hate relationship with websites.  You've reminded us why.

You propose:

Kulturminnesøk, “Joramo bygdeallmenning / Fangstlokalitet” (https://kulturminnesok.no/minne/?queryString=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.kulturminne.no%2Faskeladden%2Flokalitet%2F62056 : 7 March 2021).

One thing is notably missing from your link above.  You have an entry in the “author/creator” field. You have an entry in the field for the specific web page/database that the website presents. But there’s nothing in the field for the identity of the website itself. That would be the third field in the citation, positioned just before the URL. Given your statement that you do not consider the "owner" of the website to be an essential part of the citation, it appears that you consider Kulturminnesøk to be the ID of the website—in which case, it needs repositioning, with italics added.

As for ownership, no, 'ownership' per se is not a part of citation, but the identity of the creator should be provided. That helps users better understand the nature of the site and the degree of authority it represents.

EE’s interpretation of the data at this site is that Kulturminnesøk is the name of the website offered by the Riksantikvaren, Direktoratet for kulturminneforvaltning (Directorate of Antiquities, Directorate for Cultural Heritage Management).  Specifically, at the bottom of the home page, Kulturminnesøk is said to be “a service of the Riksantikvaren.” Thus, the Riksantikvaren would be the creator and Kulturminnesøk would be the website at which the service is provided.

Past that point, EE agrees with your other observations. Even if the title of the web page is not unique, citing it (in addition to the exact URL) would allow users of your citation to confirm that the URL they’ve typed has led them to the web page you intended.

All points considered, EE’s ref-note citation would be

          1.    “Joramo bygdeallmenning / Fangstlokalitet” (Joramo village allotment / Hunting location), Riksantikvaren, Direktoratet for kulturminneforvaltning (Directorate of Antiquities, Directorate for Cultural Heritage Management), Kulturminnesøk (Cultural Heritage Search) (https://kulturminnesok.no/minne/?queryString=https%3A%2F%2Fdata.kulturminne.no%2Faskeladden%2Flokalitet%2F62056 : 7 March 2021).

I’ve also added English translations as per EE 3.12. You may or may not include them, depending upon the language in which you are writing.

Regarding "the discoverer of the artifact," the answer to your question is "It depends."  Is that discoverer also the author of the text you are citing--or the creator of the image you are reproducing (with permission)? If so, then the person would be cited. If the discoverer is simply discussed in the text to which you are pointing, then the discoverer's identity would not be an essential part of your citation. If you are discussing the artifact in your text, then your discussion might (or might not) include the fact that it was discovered by XYZ in whatever year.

Submitted bycryptorefon Mon, 03/08/2021 - 12:38


One additional question, when your title isn't unique, is there a need to indicate that? At this site you get a list of similar web pages, all with the same name, should the citation include some hint that that is what you will see?