G2G: I hope there isn't going to be a problem.

Question

On the profile pages I manage here and have added to, I use a traditional method of sourcing that has been used millions of times in books and periodicals.

It is simplistic and may be repetitive but it is very clear-cut and easy to understand. I read however that, "Other methods for using the same source multiple times have been variously proposed and used. All methods other than the above are not recommended."

I hope this isn't going to be a problem for what I do with my sources on the pages I manage, because I have dyslexia and I find the "recommended" procedure to be quite confusing for me and I don't appreciate it.

So, I don't plan on changing my sourcing method or style. I am a bit worried now and hope there won't be an issue over this.

Comments

Hi Eric. Thank you for raising this. So that people can comment or advise, would you like to let us know one or two examples of profiles where you have used the sourcing method you describe?

---

Sure, here's one that I can think of offhand. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Holt-1226

---

Thank you for the example, Eric. That's a very nice looking and thorough profile.

Personally I think the way you have repeated the source reference is neat and simple. If this is what you are comfortable with, I see no reason to change it. Style of managed profiles should be determined by their managers, provided no WikiTree rules are being broken. As far as I can see, the guideline you mentioned (which is at this link) applies to technical and complicated methods proposed in the past, not to a straightforward approach such as yours.

One reservation: if instead of a single link, the repeated reference was a long one with many details, I'm not sure that having it appear multiple times in full would look good.

---

Well, I had started to add Ibid. on a couple of profiles, but, that was when I saw that someone had changed it on one of them and when I discovered the document I quoted from.

I will try an simplify the sources more. Thank you for your opinion regarding this issue.

---

Eric,

I don't have any issues with your style. I have never learned anything but simplified references and have trouble with the coding for more complex methods. The only thing I'd suggest would be to add links whenever possible. For instance, you make excellent use of the the 1830 census. Adding a link for fellow researchers to follow your trail & conclusions is always a plus. 

"United States Census, 1830", database with images, FamilySearch (https://ark:/61903/1:1:XHPC-BD8 : Tue Apr 04 20:04:54 UTC 2023), Entry for Henry Holt, 1830.

ETA: I added the https:// to the citation supplied by familysearch)

---

Good idea, Nick. But you need to add https://familysearch.org/ giving

"United States Census, 1830", database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHPC-BD8 : Tue Apr 04 20:04:54 UTC 2023), Entry for Henry Holt, 1830.

---

Abbreviated citation formats like  "ibid" and "op cit" don't work well in the context of a Wiki, because other contributors may (and often do) come along and insert additional sources or arrange the sequence of information. When this happens,  "ibid" and "op cit" may appear to refer back to an entirely different source than was intended.

Answer 1

Simple sourcing is totally fine. You can also use this browser extension to help you.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree_Sourcer

I've found that using the sourcer and editing one profile at a time is far more valuable than importing a GEDCOM file with the intent to edit thousands of people in a short period of time.