APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101939318


From: "Kevin Sholder" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Census - What is the source?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:15:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200412012032.iB1KWvJI005873@mail.rootsweb.com>


-----Original Message-----
From: Mills [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [APG] Census - What is the source?

Elizabeth wrote:

Kevin, you puzzle me! Isn't this covered under Point 11 in Chapter 1,
"Fundamentals of Citation" (pp. 31-35)? The headline under discussion on
those five pages is specifically this: "Microforms and electronic materials
need extra treatment."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESPONSE - How soon we forget our reference material. <g> On page 35, last
sentence of the second paragraph, "Alterations and amplifications will be
necessary as electronic publication continues to develop." So that
"amplification" would be to include publication information as stated below
as an "edition," found at Ancestry or where ever? Today what would "your"
source look like? While the existing form found on pages 73 and 74 would
remain for actual viewing of the microfilm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated there (at much greater length), what we are viewing on film and
electronically is a reproduction of something else that previously existed.
Therefore, we have two things to identify in our citation: 1) the original
item--be it a manuscript, book, or whatever; and 2) the filmed or digitized
reproduction.

What seems to be leading you astray is your appliction of the term
"repository" to what is actually a *publication.* When Ancestry digitizes a
census image and puts it online, that does not make Ancestry a repository
for the original. Ancestry has created its own edition of the original, and
its edition can significantly differ from, say, the Heritage Quest edition
when we attempt to decipher a certain bit of detail. Therefore, when we cite
a digitized or microfilm census, we cite 1) the identity of the original
item we are viewing; and 2) the particular edition or reproduction that we
are using.

Re the statement "Elizabeth does not show the 'repository' as a part of the
citation," I might should clarify things a bit more. Actually, two things
are involved here and the above statement would be true in only one case.

1. When we use a *published* book, a published microfilm collection, etc.
(one that's widely available at many different libraries aka repositories) a
standard citation does not include the library (repository) at which we used
the book or the film. It's o.k. to include that it in our own notes, just
for our convenience in relocating the material, but for me to cite a book or
film and attribute it to the Tuscaloosa Public Library is of little value to
someone living in Saskatchewan. What my Saskatchewan readers need is the
*publication data* (the exact title, the edition, the publisher, the place
and date of publication) so they can find it at their own libraries.

2. When we use *unpublished* material that is available at only one
repository (one library or one archive), then we *do* cite the repository.
If it's available *only* here at the Tuscaloosa Public Library, then my
researchers in Saskatchewan need to know that.

If you're still having trouble separating *repository* from *publication*
for online material, think of it this way:

- The "repository" is the Internet, the web, etc. (nebulous though they
are).
- What we are actually viewing when we go to that "repository" is a
*publication.*

Elizabeth

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESPONSE - OK, that clears the muddy water. I think that I am on the right
course.

Thank you again,
Kevin

This thread: