Should the policy on source citation formatting be changed ... if so, to what?

Question

This is a spin-off from the question Changes in Inline Citation Styling?  It is intended to be a discussion area to formulate ideas and reach a consensus ONLY about policy regarding formatting, coding, and methodology for source citations - NOT for the content of the citations themselves.

STARTING PREMISE
Perhaps the most important activity on WikiTree is including the sources of factual information stated in profiles.  Many WikiTree profiles do not reflect this.  Although a large number have been sitting here for a long time with no work having been done to improve them, more are added every day.  The objective is to investigate whether policy changes are needed to achieve a result of more well sourced and well formatted profiles and what new policy is most likely to achieve this result.

UNDERLYING PROBLEM
Although the Style Guide currently includes a policy specifying footnoted source citations and a set of instructions for how to code footnotes that link to source citations, it does not appear to be helping.  Also, attempts to encourage members to use footnotes often end up either discouraging new members (to whom it looks like gibberish until they get the hang of it) and frustrating many established but non-technically oriented members (who often make errors that they can't find to fix).  In addition, the edit page with coded footnotes often appears confusing, with biography content, source citations, and codes all mixed up together.  It is difficult to read, even for those who are accustomed to the codes and fully understand their use.

REQUIREMENTS OF ANY NEW SYSTEM
If the decision is made to change the current policy then it is imperative that any new policy address a multitude of concerns:

• ​It needs to prescribe an easy way for people not comfortable with coding to be able to enter source citations in profiles to encourage everyone to enter source citations in support of the information they enter..
• The edit page needs to be easily readable to avoid intimidating anyone from adding new information.
• It needs to offer a style format for footnoted source citations that is as simple as possible to use while producing nicely formatted view pages that are compliant with rigorous academic research standards.

CONSIDERATIONS TO ADDRESS
The obvious consideration is that any policy change should have overwhelming support of members.  Beyond that, any burden placed on development staff to implement whatever system changes are required to support a new policy must be carefully weighed against the benefits to be provided by the new features before any decisions can be finalized.

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

Of course, I have ideas and opinions - don't I always?  I will not include them in this question, however - this is intended to define the topic and I will answer the question to present my thoughts and proselytize on behalf of same!  (but not right now - first I'm going to have dinner)

 

 

 

Comments

It seems like a glorious goal but WikiTree can't be all things to all people.  Of all who join, how many stay? Of those who do, 20% will do 80% of the work. The other 80% will barely grasp what is going on here. We can't strive for rigorous academic standards for the hoi poloi. People who still care about their ancestry and want to contribute may never learn how to add a ref tag. My point is, that while I love your vision, unless tools that "do it for you" are available to the average person, many, if not most, won't be able to contribute content that meets such high standards.

---

Sandi,  Good point about the impossibility of being all things to all people.

You made me think of a celebrated quote of Abraham Lincoln's philosophy that I'd like to paraphrase for this situation.  I may have to change my "preferred first name" to Pollyanna, but I happen to think we can be most things to most people most of the time.  I will post my ideas for policy changes to the portion of our Style Guide related to how we document sources in profiles in a while.  I have just spent an inordinate amount of time responding to the great answers already here and need to do some unimportant stuff - like cleaning the bathroom and doing the laundry - but I'll be back later today to offer an answer - I promise.

---

I'd say give the people that can't seem to learn how it's done some more time to "learn how it's done".  Case closed.  It will take some work to learn the necessary skills but they'll get there.  

That said, the reference tags might be color-coded or something like that in the edit mode to make them easier to use.

---

What's the evidence that the current source citation recommendations/ style guide aren't helping?

I compiled into one place all the source style guide instructions (which at least at that time had been across multiple help and style pages) and I regularly get thanks and comments for how helpful the information is, how it helps people understand sources and citing them. (Chris et al have said they're going to use that text on an official page but I haven't yet checked to see if they merged all the different pages into one.)

My understanding is that the alternative formatting proposed by Gaile and Dale awhile back (which I asked they summarize for that combined page but it was never done) was created predominantly to reduce bulk IN THE EDIT VIEW which some feel is a pain in the neck.

People may have preferences for either the current "official" style, the old gedcom-created "span" style or the new "Dale &Gaile" style but I don't know that we have any *evidence* that any one method is more "helpful" at encouraging source citations than another. If staff has such data, I'd love to see it inform this conversation.

---

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Jillaine%27s_Dream_Source_Help_Page

---

The only comment I will make on this thread is that while the <span> tags are approved they are to be "used to create an anchor for a link - see Adding Links, not for styling purposes. " That quote is from the help pages. When I encounter those tags in a biography they seem much more confusing because they normally have links to two additional locations. As for the newer use of the <ref> tags I can only relate that at least three of us combined our efforts to create that to help another member who was getting too confused by putting the entire source citation into the narrative and this was the only way we could see that reduced the extra text in that area but used existing approved tags, and they relayed that they liked it.

And Jilliane I requested, in a reply to you, that my name no longer be used in describing this method of sourcing.

---

Jillaine, I'm afraid that I am guilty of not rigorously documenting some of the statements I made.  In all cases - the one you pointed to here and also the ones you called me out on in your post below - I am guilty of sloppy writing, rather than of not providing sources for my statements.

Rather than spend my time researching and accumulating statistics to see whether or not my statements are, indeed, factually correct, please mentally insert the phrase "It is my impression that" at the start of each offending statement.

I also am apparently guilty of dropping a ball sometime ago.  I have no memory of having been asked to write anything about the variant of what you call the "official style".  I also did not know of the existence of that fantastic help document you created - I just saw it now and it is a work of wonder!  I promise to very shortly deliver a paragraph on the style variant you are requesting.

Vincent, You are taking a very hard line on this.  There are people who can't learn to do this, if only because their belief that they can't learn will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  As accomplished as you are in many divergent fields of knowledge and skills, I'm willing to bet that there is at least one thing that you would not be capable of learning to do - perhaps painting highly regarded art works, perhaps becoming a brain surgeon, perhaps operating a threat detection and suppression system on a military aircraft, perhaps ...etc.  I am willing to accept that there are some people who are not capable of becoming computer geeks, whether because of innate limitations or lack of self esteem, and I believe that any system designed for use by all who want to use it must be designed for the lowest common denominator capability or it will be a failure.

---

Jillaine, to address one thing you mentioned - Chris is working on the source pages and getting everything combined.

---

Right, Eowyn.

I'm in the middle of a project to make the sources help pages easier to follow. They've become terribly confused, as Jillaine has pointed out and tried to help with.

When I dug into this, I realized that in order to simplify our explanations, we need to explain fewer methods. We have too many alternative ways to add sources.

I discussed this a little bit with team members. This led Abby to post this: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/211898/changes-in-inline-citation-styling

---

I had a feeling.

---

I agree Vincent, that would help so much!

Answer 1

Has anybody ever looked into creating a tab for the edit box that inserts <ref>source information here</ref> the way an Internal Link - [[Link title]] - gets inserted?

Comments

To me, this is the appropriate way to handle this type of issue is to use the tools available, not change the style. If you go to any wiki on the interwebs, you will find that editing a page can be done two ways, manually and via an editor. The editor allows folks that are not familiar with HTML, XML or wiki markup to get started or use the system without learning the markup.

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org, do a search for any topic, click on the edit tab at the top and you will see the editor. WIkipedia currently has citations built in.

I know Wikipedia is using a newer version of the wiki code, but if this is becoming such a huge (perceived) problem, then it seems like it's time to upgrade the software.

---

One thing I don't see any consideration for and for me this is the issue...I don't use inline citations because for me that makes them unreadable. I have low vision and I often use a screen reader and EVERY THING gets read out loud.  I get lost in the busyness of those profiles. So if it is a profile I am working on or think I will come back to, I want to keep it as simple and computer jargon free as possible.

---

I love your simple and logical suggestion. Yes, of course, take a 'page' from Wiki for the citations and sources on WikiTree!

Answer 2

I have been implementing the footnote style on a step by step basis and it can probably be mastered in a couple of hours of trial and error.  I was pleased to see today that I can use the single <ref></ref> and multiple use <ref name="short text">long text</ref>, <ref name="short text"/> without having to cut and paste.  But cut and paste does save time, so it would be nice to have a set of templates handy to use.  Perhaps it'd be possible to use set of icons like we have in the answer entry box I'm looking at now to paste in "<ref></ref>" at the cursor and then modify as needed. in the profile.

Comments

Dave, Good for you!  You represent "Exhibit A" of the way WikiTree wants things to happen - when someone joins, they make the effort to learn to do things the way the Style Guide prescribes and the older​ longer-term members stand willing to encourage and assist the newer members to gain comfort and expertise with the WikiTree ways of doing things.

Unfortunately, you are the exception, rather than the rule.  Most new members (and a lot of more experienced members) are very intimidated by the gibberish that the coded footnotes appear to be.  These experienced members are convinced that they will never be able to master the skill to even understand it when they see it, let alone do it themselves.  The new members may make a snap decision that WikiTree is not for them and disappear rapidly - often after uploading a gedcom filled with profiles that are missing data, totally lacking in sources, and often duplicates.

As a retired systems engineer, when interacting with non-geeks with the goal of communicating how something works, I see my top priority as "I translate technobabble to English".  This is something that our current system does not address and the learning curve of how to do things here is further obfuscated by our style of everyone who is able to code footnotes offering assistance to those who ask questions.  All too often, members have mastered how to do it without the understanding of why we have to put this here or that there and, as a result, often give incomplete - or even incorrect - answers and roundabout instructions.

I think most members are in agreement that the current system is producing a lot of unintended bad results.  This has motivated exploration aimed at identifying what changes could improve the system.  I want to be sure that we address ALL the pitfalls in the current system and also that we carefully analyze ALL the impacts of any changes that are proposed to be sure that we're not jumping from the frying pan into the fire..

 

---

Two claims here that, um, need source citations: ;-)

1. "Most new members (and a lot of more experienced members) are very intimidated by the gibberish that the coded footnotes appear to be.  These experienced members are convinced that they will never be able to master the skill to even understand it when they see it, let alone do it themselves."

2. "I think most members are in agreement that the current system is producing a lot of unintended bad results."

Do we have real data to back up these statements? I think it's probably pretty difficult to measure. People come to g2g when they have a problem. They typically don't come here when they're not having a problem. Therefore, we have no easy way to measure the people who follow the instructions just fine. (If we do, I hope staff will share.) But we do see (here on g2g, probably through the mentoring, and email calls for help) questions and concerns, which tends to create the impression that "most" people are having problems and the system is rife with resulting unintended consequences.

I'm not arguing against improving source citing; I just get my buttons pushed when generalizations are passed off as Truth.

Sorry, Gaile. I know your intentions are in the right place.

---

Jillaine, your point is well taken, but please my response to your comment on the question itself (way above).  I responded to it there.

For whatever it's worth, these statements express MY impressions, rather than any researched facts.  As you point out, these impressions are the result of accumulated experience reading G2G questions and engaging in dialogue with those who posted them and responding to PM's requesting assistance to navigate the technical aspects of WikiTree.  There is another contributor to my impressions, though.  A very large proportion of all the profiles I happen to see are a colossal mess.  Even the ones that obviously have a lot of time and effort invested in writing extensive biographies and an equally impressive collection of sources often have the sources poorly cited and either without any attempt to create footnotes or with a variety of coding errors in the footnotes.

Answer 3

I struggle with the more advanced methods, if I do, I feel many others do also.

Sourcing is required, it's not like images and templates that are optional.

Why would you want to take an area that is required and make it difficult? This area should be flexible to accommodate the experienced coder and beginner. It does not make sense to force people to learn one method over another, just because someone else thinks it's easier,  when either one will do what is intended.

Is it really that important to make every profile look like it was stamped from a cookie cutter or jello mold? If the profile is sourced and you can locate what was quoted, referenced and where it came from: I consider this a good thing.

I  don't believe we should have a wiki-tree sourcing police that gives people grief or referrals because they are using the Basic or more Advanced form. Neither should a person be dinged or badged because they use MLA over APA. If it's referenced and understandable then our goal has been acheived.

I really do not understand the push for a forced standardization, to this level,  in this area???

Comments

Terri, You have said it all, and I am in abject awe of the eloquence with which you have done so.

I think that your point should be our primary focus when setting policy on any formatting that entails use of coding.  I also think, though, that we need to establish standards in order to achieve well sourced profiles, such as those you mentioned about stating how you know something and where someone else is able to see where your knowledge came from.

The medium in which we work and in which everyone can see the finished work we turn out has its own set of idiosyncracies (or quirks or I-really-don't-know-what-to-call-it) that require consideration in order to optimize the experience for the "consumer" of our "product".  Before the advent of the internet, we used to read paper documents.  We have expectations of what they look like - they start with a title, author, publisher, etc, then (if they are long) have a table of contents and maybe a few other lists, and are organized in chapters.  There are standards that have been established for how sources are cited and how the citations are formatted.  When we port documents to be disseminated over the internet, we also need to establish standards for how they are displayed and navigated in order to bring the optimal experience to the "consumer", while taking full advantage of the new interactive features not available in paper documents.

We are so accustomed to paper documents incorporating all kinds of standards that we don't tend to notice that they exist.  The term "user friendly" is the operant concept here when we talk about establishing standards.  Our policies that relate to all the elements of authoring are all aimed at turning out a user friendly product from the point of view of the "consumer".  The unique situation here of encouraging everyone to also be a "producer" dictates that we absolutely MUST also have a user friendly editing system.  We can't sacrifice one for the other - we MUST cater to both!

There are a plethora of variables in the act of disseminating information on the internet - different operating systems (Windows, Mac, and many variations of UNIX), different browsers (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, and many more), and different screen sizes and resolutions that all impact what our documents look like to "consumers" and what it's like for "producers" to work on them.

Recently a whole new family of variables has been added to the mix by the growth in use of tablets and phones (that nobody could have imagined 15 years ago) and all these have to be accommodated, as well.  Finally, it is incumbent on us to look into a crystal ball to predict what information systems will be like down the road in a year ... or 10 years ...or who-knows-when.. If we don't want to have to keep changing how we do things every time technology changes then we have to try to ensure that our system is adaptable, when we really haven't a clue what kinds of adaptation will be needed.

This, more than anything else, drives the need for standardization because if our system is standardized then it will be possible to make a single global change to the display characteristics of all profiles that may be needed to accommodate the newest technology advances that aren't now even fantasy in the minds of the geniuses who come up with them.

---

From a learning standpoint, there isn't a lot of difference between the basic <ref> source </ref> and the advanced which adds the <ref name ="sourceid"/> or <ref name="sourceid">source</ref>. It's really a matter of placement on the profile. You still have to learn the <ref> tags and where to use them either way.

I prefer the alternate formatting because I have poor eyesight and having the citations all listed in the Source sections allows me to easily see them, especially if there are links included in the citations. I find that I make less editing errors when it's in this format. But I do not like how the profile looks with the string of numbers below the Source and the footnote numbers can be out of order so I'm not sure how you can set up inline citations and have a bibliography that's in alpha order.

Answer 4

Gaile, Thank you for bringing up this subject. I would like to see WikiTree be accomdating to people with many different skill levels. With the idea that people can contribute at a basic level (add profiles and sources), then learn more advanced WikiTree editing: footnotes/citations, merging, profile cleanup, format changes, source collaboration, etc.

Maybe, as part of the "Honor Code", there should be something about keeping an open mind and the willingness to learn new things. Learning/education is a part of the WikiTree experience.

X. We learn from each other, keep an open mind about new methods, and understand genealogy changes when new information is found.

With this in mind, and to answer your original question, I think the current "Style Guide" could be expanded to include easier methods (add source only, no footnote), to more advanced (Span Tags), while keeping the current method (inline citations).

Comments

Rick, THANX for your well thought out answer.  I'm with you 1,000% on it all.

Answer 5

For DAR, I've purchased certified copies of birth, death, marriage documents.  Sometimes Family Search has wrong info -- for example, Ada May (Merrill) Gould b. in Orange County, Vermont.  So Family Tree citations aren't always the best, but generally a good start.  

Comments

For Family Search, the census records and other copies and transcripts of records are great, the family trees on the other hand shouldn't be used (except as hints on where to look for records).

---

Vincent, I use almost exclusively Family Search to find sources for profiles.  Despite that (or maybe because I rely on it so much), I disagree with how great the census records are there.  In some cases where I found strange looking things in the transcriptions, they have the document available for viewing and I have discovered transcription errors this way.  Not all records there have the original documents available for examination though, plus the original documents can also have errors.  We have some nearly illiterate census takers and even if they record what they are told accurately, the people giving the information may not do so correctly.  A case in point is a profile I just wrote.  Please see the Notes section where I documented the birth date discrepancies - of five sources, all at Family Search, no two have the same birth date!.

---

Vincent, For years my Maternal great grandfather, from Scotland, was a brick wall because the spelling for her LNAB came from a record on familysearch as well as from her daughter in law. after another member found an earlier record for her in the records from Scotland with the correct LNAB the wall came tumbling down.I also have another profile on here where the birth dates are off by 3 years in the census records. In the US Census those dates are all labeled "Estimated" because they based on the ages or birth dates given to the census taker and were never checked.  Everything that Gaile said is also true but as a researcher you have to be prepared for inaccurate documents and find as many sources from as many locations as possible and then state your reason for the conclusion you came up with so that others can then understand the difference in what the documents say.

I am a volunteer for familysearch.org in record transcriptions, but I can only go by what was written down and even then I am only human so mistakes can still be made.

---

I know how the census has it's limitations and errors.  They are great records where the trees on Family Search can be worse than useless.  For example I could say, "It's great to have loads of money", then have a reply, "but what if you lived in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution - then it probably wouldn't be so handy to have loads of money, I know that as well!  :)

---

But there are also some very well sourced trees on familysearch as well, I have one. There are some very poor sourced, in fact even unsourced profiles on here not to mention there are connections on here that could not possibly exist, that is why sources are important, to separate the fiction from the fact.

---

I too am a Family Search volunteer, but whilst I do make mistakes folks should also realise that the original transcription by the enumerator can be erroneous as well - and that we may not be able to prove.

---

Gaile,just a note... Ancestry's Census transcriptions are plagued with errors.  I usually ignore the transcriptions and examine the page (Sheet) itself.  Reading some of the older handwriting is difficult and time consuming but well worth it.  Case in point; a transcription in a census said that my family members surname was Gocthoris.  There is no recorded surname Gogthoris.  Looking at the sheet directly I was able to determine that the surname was spelled Gutherie, which is a valid surname.

Answer 6

Please check Wikipedia editor Visual Editor that works with the "old" markup but get a sexier user interface for citations. 

See video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gctfKUStwc

The text I played with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salgo60/sandbox

By activating Visual Editor on Wikipedia you can play with your WIkitree markup in your sandbox on Wikipedia but you can also edit the old way....

Answer 7

Sorry for the delay, everyone, but I'm finally up to the promised (threatened?) response to this question.

I know that we would really like to have one "officially" designated method, for many very good reasons, but I don't believe it is realistically possible in light of all the considerations:

• differing computer skill levels of members and motivation to learn new skills
• differing characteristics of biographies - some very short, some very long, some sources that are used multiple times but point to different pages on each use
• the absolute requirement to encourage all members to contribute information to any open profile
• all the existing profiles that use a wide variety of methods

I simply cannot see any possibility of finding a single method that can serve all the needs - of members or of profiles.  Here is the general outline of what I see as best serving our community of authors, divergent profile natures, platform adaptability now and for the future, and ease if software development and maintenance, while not losing sight of the experience of the end user of the information treasure we produce.

I am going to suggest three classes of source citation formatting.  The names we give these classes don't matter, but I will identify them here by the skill level needed to implement them.

BEGINNER
In order to maximize the likelihood of people entering sources, and also to ease the complexity of using WikiTree for new members, this method consists of listing the source citations (hopefully we can specify what data items are to be included in the citation) under the Sources heading.  Each source should have a name that identifies what fact it supports.  A citation would look something like:

* Birth - birth certificate issued by state, country, (other information about where to find it).

Members who use this method need to understand that we expect them to graduate to the ADVANCED method at some point and also should understand that another member may change the profile to the ADVANCED method.  Other members should feel free to make this change to profiles that use the BEGINNER method.  Having this as an official method will make it easy for everyone to enter good source citations without needing to learn any coding.  I would much rather see this in a profile than to see no sources or just the word "census" under the Sources heading with no indication of what census, for what year, and which facts it is supporting.  In addition to (hopefully) resulting in more well-sourced profiles, naming the sources will carry through to the use of source names in the ADVANCED method.  Since there is no coding involved, there is no impact on platform or software implementations to handle it.

ADVANCED
I'm tired of expounding at length about my enthusiasm for the editing benefits and edit page appearance of the variant of our current prescribed footnote style.  The only difference between this and the current style on the view page is the extraneous line of numbers immediately below the Sources heading, for which two different software changes could remove, both of which are extremely simple to implement.
Please see all my other comments in the thread this one grew from, as well as the original thread in which I wrote a comprehensive document about it, plus the example of it in the Holocaust Profile Template.

This is the method that I would like to see as "the" standard onw, if it were possible to have only one single standard.  It is the one which all members would be encouraged to learn and use and all members would be welcome to change the BEGINNER method to this one on any profile they encounter.

NOTE:  I want y'all to know that it is killing me not to give credit to the person whose brilliant mind conjured up this method, but that person has requested that I not associate his name with it.  Because of my advocacy of this method, many people give me credit for it, which I do not deserve. 

COMPLEX
This would be the method including the use of <span> tags to be able to use the same citation for different places in a single document.  We currently have many profiles that use this method and many members, notably those who work on older profiles, who feel a compelling need to continue using it.  As a result, this method should be accommodated by officially endorsing use of this method, although it should be discouraged any time the conditions do not require it.

I would also like to recommend that we have a special category of mentor - perhaps call it "source mentors" - who would be available to provide one-on-one assistance to anyone who wants to learn the ADVANCED method.  Of course, it goes without saying that all three methods desperately need clear descriptions, clear and simple explanations of how to do it, and a profile template that people could paste into a profile they are working on and make the appropriate changes to content and citations that result in the narrative they are writing (as I tried to do by creating the Holocaust Profile Template).

Comments

Do we need to focus on markup tags if we can get a better user interface (see test1 and test 2)?

I think a target group of Wikitree is older people who has a story to tell and share not former Cobol programmers or webdesigners....==> an easy user interface is a key success factor... 

And no one argues that we should have a markup mode on answering topics on G2G instead everyone use the built in editor that supports including picture links etc. and not <a href="" target="">xx</ref><img width="" height="" border="" alt="my churchbook" src=""/>....If its doable an easier user interface is on the top ten list....

Cool thing with Wikipedia solution is:

1. Backward compatible ==> generates the same markup as we can use today
2. You can if you want edit the markup directly
3. You get automatic citation service ==> some citations will be generated in a better way than we get today like Timestamp when an URL was visit....  
4. Get forms to fill in templates

Answer 8

I think before any style is selected we need to understand user demographics.  If our members  are similar to what ancestry published as typical people participating in genealogy users tend to be 40 or older. So not the most adept computer users.  So simple is better

Comments

since Laura brought this old conversation back up, I have a suggestion.  The ''enhanced editor'' could use some tweaking to only highlight actual inline citations that are between <ref> xyz</ref> and of course the <ref name=xyz/>.  Right now, it highlights everything that is code, include templates, *  :  :: == == etc etc

---

Another option would be to enhance the editor further to show the inline refs as they appear in non-edit mode (as a footnote indicator) and then allow a click on that to pop-up an edit box for the citation. This could avoid the missing closing </ref> and make the text more readable.

---

Doug, I am addressing the problem of existing inline citations in a bio, someone else coming along and trying to also edit and getting lost between the text and the citations.  In edit mode, some profiles have mega citations inline, some being tantamount to code-bloat.

---

That's where pulling them out of the edit stream, at least visually, would help. At least you could tell the boundaries. Anyway, I agree that a better way of highlighting is needed.