Editing profiles that use Inline References for sources.

Question

Adding sources as Inline References is an easy way to add a source to a biography, as described in the Style Guidelines. While adding sources using this method is easy, editing the profile afterwards becomes more difficult. The problem is that the sources and Biography are all combined into one monolithic section. Wikipedia calls this problem Bloat.

 

There is a very long Wikipedia article about citing sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

If you search that page for the word 'bloat', it describes the problem: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing."

 

Some WikiTree profile managers try to separate these Inline References, from the Biography text, by inserting an extra Carriage-Return after each <ref>. That is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it is a good solution.

 

I have also found WikiTree profiles where the Sources section has been removed, and the sources added back in as Inline References. This increases the bloat without adding anything new to the profile.

 

I am not suggesting getting rid of Inline References as a way to add new information. I am suggesting Inline References should be reduced in size, when possible, by placing the bulk of the source information into the Sources section of the profile.

 

Replacing:

<ref>Author, Title, Place:Publisher (year), page #, etc.</ref>

with

<ref>Author: page #</ref>

 

with the other source information going into the Sources section, including links, quotes, and any additional information that may be important to the profile.

                                                                 

(For those that may be interested, the Wikipedia solution for this problem: using "list-defined references" and a "reference list template", described at the above link, does not work here on WikiTree.)

 

Comments

As the guy who wrote the bio for Harriman-162, I too am following this with great interest. Despite being the guy who wrote it, I totally hear what Rick is saying. Just to be clear, I think what we are talking about is not a problem with the final profile bio that the reader sees, but a problem with what someone editing the bio sees in the edit window, right? As for this latter point, I totally agree.The problem of edit window readability is particularly bad when someone, like me, uses citations with links in them to the sources. I think it's really end-reader friendly to provide actual links to sources, where possible. On the other hand, some of those linked URL's can go on forever and make it hard to find the actual text in the edit window. So, to me, it's a real trade off. If someone has a good solution, I'd love to use it.

I just took a look at an edit window for wikipedia article, and it does not look like they have solved the problem.

---

I am counting the amount of text/characters. Delete everything in the profile except for the biography, and this gives a count of 5210 characters. Delete the Inline References and this reduces the count to 2226. Doing the math gives 57.3% bloat.

 

I don't want to imply that going over a certain number is too much. I am only saying that 57% is a lot and some people are purposely increasing the number when there is no benefit. In fact, it makes things worse. Post merge clean up is more difficult (how do you merge sources?). How do you add additional information to the existing sources? (search the bio add more bloat) How do you edit identical sources, both in the same profile? If someone wants to add to, or edit, the bio, not the sources, they then have to navigate around the long references. 

 

Cleaning up and editing is difficult enough (some people won't do it). Listing complete source information below the Biography seems to be simple method to reduce the effort to edit profiles. It makes editing the bio easier and it makes editing the sources easier. It also makes post merge cleanup easier.

---

But if you just list sources after the bio, you are losing the links between the statements and the sources. Doesn't it become much more difficult for the reader to find the particular source that supports a particular statement?

I guess one solution might be to not use in-line citations, but in the sources section, list the facts that are sourced together with the source, such as:

== Sources ==

* Parentage, birthdate and birthplace:  (list of sources)

* Move to Haverhill: (list of sources)

* Examination of Martha Emerson: (list of sources)

* Marriage: (list of sources)

* Children's births: (list of sources)

---

Chase, Thank you for adding in your thoughts. Yes, it is the view in the Edit window that is the problem. I was reluctant to point out Harriman-162, and did not in my original post. As Jillaine points out, there are other profiles with a more significant problem. Harriman-162 was just a profile that I edited today.

The <ref> will maintain a hot-link to the Footnote. The Footnote still needs to contain enough info to identify the source. (There are other solutions too, but I don't want get off on another issue.)

---

Ah, I missed the "in edit mode" aspect of this.

Sheesh...

Well, I guess I'm all about what the finished product looks like.

And I like the finished product of Harriman-162.

---

It sounds to me like what your suggesting is to use 

Source: [<span id='XXX'>XXX</span>] that's generated by Gedcom imports.

You can see it here  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Talmadge-91

See Fact (1) footnote 1., Fact (4) footnote 4. and Fact (6) footnote 5.-->

Update 8:10 am 5/6. I did a profile completely using the span tag this morning

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jessel-21

 

---

To me, the Harriman-162 profile looks (even in the edit window) far more like an exemplar of how to do references than it does a bad example.

However, there is one very ugly url that detracts seriously -- and unnecessarily -- from the readability of the edit window for that profile. I refer to http://interactive.ancestry.com/2495/41254_265531-00492/80295719?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.com%2f%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fgss%3dangs-g%26new%3d1%26rank%3d1%26gsfn%3dmary%26gsfn_x%3dNN%26gsln%3dcalee%26mswpn__ftp%3dHaverhill%252c%2bEssex%252c%2bMassachusetts%252c%2bUSA%26mswpn%3d4377%26mswpn_PInfo%3d8-%257c0%257c1652393%257c0%257c2%257c3242%257c24%257c0%257c987%257c4377%257c0%257c%26MSAV%3d1%26msgdy%3d1718%26msgpn__ftp%3dHaverhill%252c%2bEssex%252c%2bMassachusetts%252c%2bUSA%26msgpn%3d4377%26msgpn_PInfo%3d8-%257c0%257c1652393%257c0%257c2%257c3242%257c24%257c0%257c987%257c4377%257c0%257c%26msgpn_x%3d1%26msgpn__ftp_x%3d1%26mssng0%3dMatthew%26mssns0%3dHerriman%26cpxt%3d1%26cp%3d12%26catbucket%3dr%26uidh%3dew2%26pcat%3dROOT_CATEGORY%26h%3d80295719%26recoff%3d22%2b23%26db%3dMATownVital%26indiv%3d1%26ml_rpos%3d1&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnRecord Ancestry.com

Most of that URL string is irrelevant for WikiTree. It can be trimmed back to http://interactive.ancestry.com/2495/41254_265531-00492/80295719 (the only purpose of the "?backurl" and everything that follows after it is to show what ancestry page you were on before you landed on the page).

---

Ellen - Excellent tip! That should get rid of the worst offenders.

---

Unfortunately though, when you look at your G2G Favorites page, there's no clue which thread might have had a new posting added.  Unlike the My Feed page, they aren't sorted by latest update.

---

What I sometimes do is fairly simple. I enter the text until I reach the inline reference point, then make a carriage return

enter the <ref>reference</ref>

then another carriage return, completing the text of my paragraph until the next reference insertion point.

In the editing window, the reference will be separated from the text, so I can easily tell what I am doing. But in the Preview or profile, it will all be inline [reference] text that will display.

Answer 1

Here is an idea.  After the 1st <ref>Author, Title, Place:Publisher (year), page #, etc.</ref> any further citaton of the same media would just be (Last Name Page#)?

Comments

This is what I've been doing when "ref name=" won't work -- ie when I have a different page number from the same source. I add the publishing year if there's a possibility for confusion. Anderson (1995), p 1029.