OK to put in a link to another website without a synopsis of the contents?

Question

How much spoon-feeding should we do for the reader? As long as the site is open to the public without subscription, I'm lazy enough to just give them the link to the appropriate record on that site. Bad idea?

Answer 1

Hi Jaci.  I say bad idea.  It's not infrequent that those links become broken, either because the site changes its URL structure, or changes its name, or edits its content, or whatever.  In that event you leave the reader without a clue as to what the record might be.  You should at least identify the record you're using as a source and let the reader know what info it's supporting, so another researcher might be able to find the record if your link goes kaput.

Answer 2

EDITED  a quite good idea - it's what I do, on my assumption they are truly interested  

Answer 3

I assume you're talking about your source citations?

The problem is, links change and move over time -- known as "link rot".

So, its best if you can describe in enough detail, where someone else might be able to find the same info -- for example: Census year, page and roll number, enumeration district number, microfilm ID number.

Answer 4

I agree with Dennis (both of them). A link is not a sufficient source citation. You have to make it possible for someone else to find the data if the link is broken or behind a paywall.  Some might consider a link adequate, but we are asked to follow the source guidelines.

Also, is making work for others really in the spirit of collaboration?

Answer 5

I assume:

1. The link will someday break

2. The page may be printed, screen captured, etc.

Therefore a full citation is required, and it is best to include the full URL (not just hidden behind the text). 

WikiTree recommends using Evidence Explained which is based on Chicago Manual of Style. Here is a relevant description of CMoS website citations:

Smith, John. “How to reference a Website using the Chicago Manual of Style.” bibme.org. https://www.bibme.org/citation-guide/chicago/website/ (accessed July 17, 2020).

Answer 6

If you had posted a link to a FamilySearch.org image or record of any Scottish document last year, it's now defunct and we have no idea what that document contained. Now it's useless as a source.

We have items in the Honor Code that I believe cover this:

II. We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes.

VII. We cite sources. Without sources we can't objectively resolve conflicting information.

Here on Help: Sources Style Guide   we say: 

Sources in this list should always be complete citations, while the references that refer to them can be abbreviated.

Nowhere do we say that an URL or link is a complete source. 

Answer 7

WikiTree is distinguished from other sites by the fact that we want biographies, not just "notes."  So a profile ideally contains all the genealogical information we can find (births, marriages, deaths, children) and enough biographical information to make it interesting.  And it contains full source information on where the information came from -- author's name, document title, date, publisher, and if it's on the web, a workable link.  

We want to do MORE than spoon-feed the reader.  We want to delight the reader!

Answer 8

Hi,

I sometimes add links to profiles, they are not sources, but for example a link to a geni profile of the same person.

I remembered there is a way to make a quite "static" link of a page, using "wayback machine". I go to www.archive.org, I add the url in the field "Wayback machine". 
 

I get this result:

This page is available on the web!

Help make the Wayback Machine more complete!

Save this url in the Wayback Machine

after saving the url in the Wayback Machine, I can use the link that I get from there, which in this case is

https://web.archive.org/web/20200719093801/https://vikingroots.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/stefan-lovens-vastmanlandska-rotter/

I'm not sure how to make a good reference of it though.