Which source citation style should be recommended?

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Sources are important no matter what form they come in on WikiTree. We're still working on our Sources help pages, though, and are considering what citation style should be recommended. Recommending one style over another doesn't mean that you can't use an alternate style; we just need a place to point when the question is asked, what is the best practice on WikiTree? 

Right now, Evidence Explained is what is in place, but should we consider something different?  Though it covers about any scenario we come across in our research, it is also confusing to some people. That said, Elizabeth Shown Mills does a great job of answering questions on her site  and elsewhere, and has many tutorials on how to use the style well in place.

Evidence Explained uses a modified version of the Chicago style. Would it be better to recommend the Chicago style of citation? If we do this, we may consider modifying it ourselves, to make sure we're including important information that is sometimes left out when citing something for a paper versus continual family research. This would look like what you can copy and paste from places like FamilySearch.org's pre-made citations. Chicago is also available in citation formatting sites, which might make it easier for some to use.

Is there another style we should look at? MLA? 

Comments

Thank you for starting this, Abby.

I would really like to get this settled, definitively.

To add some context: In addition to wanting simpler examples on the Sources help page and a clear recommendation in the style guide, I want to be able to move forward on a citation formatting widget.

Here's what we have in mind for the widget. There would be a pop-up on the edit-person page that lets you select the type of source (book, periodical, website, etc.) then enter the title, URL, whatever. Then it gives you a copy-and-paste wiki-markup formatted reference/footnote or source/bibliography list item, or both.

I'm thinking that you'll even be able to click something by a data field and it will you something like this to copy-and-paste: "Joe was born in 1905.<ref>Blah, blah, blah.</ref>"

I'd like to spec out this tool and get a programmer started on it, but first we need a citation style.

---

Since CMS has a friendly, free website to offer help, my vote goes to Chicago Manual of Style. One of the complaints I heard about EE as a standard was the cost to obtain the reference. CMS isn't cheap either, but can probably be more easily found in 2nd-hand book shops (current edition is CMS16, which was published 2010).

---

Excellent - I also prefer the Chicago style (but I might add that in a project that is still dealing with mainly with [a backlog of] the collation of facts [period mainly pre-1800 to 1500] [and narrative] with a myriad of citation styles, I'm just too happy if any source is properly connected to the facts of the massively merged profiles, and I can also see who put it there on what day without having to revert to the changes tab - one day in the not too far future I hope, we can in our project start with better citation and narration - some of the narratives I have seen on WikiTree read like fiction because as we all know, one source does not make a source, and one cannot suffice to validate a narrative of say 1 A4 with a mere mention at the bottom of one or two sources).

---

Love the pop-up idea. CMS gets my vote, too.

---

While I have already thrown out my own 'crazy idea' I thought I would also add Simple Citations to the discussion as another user (and I still can't remember who to credit) had suggested it in a different thread more than a year ago.

---

Just a note: At this point I'm inclined against doing our own citation widget. It would be so much work, so much. And http://www.citationmachine.net/ seems like a pretty good one. We could just link to it, then recommend putting <ref></ref> around what that produces.

We're going to aim to put something that generates a <ref></ref> pair on the toolbar. That should be relatively easy.

---

My humble opinion - an excellent decision Chris!

---

Another thing to mention, is once the debate is finished and the decision is made, you might want to remove references to the one not used. It is confusing when WikiTree mentions both as the standard or ideal.

---

Thank you for suggesting simple citations. I think most of us don't do citations correctly because we don't know how! In my opinion, everything has to be simplified with a link on the profile, to a drop down menu style of finding things easily...

Answer 1

I've thought about this considerably, since it was discussed last.

I was thinking about go with EE but make sure that our help page has lots of examples - lots, because otherwise no one but a handful of people would use it.

However, now that I know what Chris has in mind (a pop-up citation generator), there won't be a need for lots of examples.

Even though I currently use MLA, Chicago MS is not that different. I can learn new rules.

Chicago Manual of Style gets my vote.

 

Answer 2

Evidence Explained is the only style that I am aware of that specifically addresses the types of records we prefer to use in genealogy (certificates, vital records, etc). Most styles only deal with 'mainstream' sources (books, periodicals,  etc.)

One problem with EE style is the lack of free resources and tools (citation generators) that other styles have - all citation styles are, in a sense, 'closed-source' but the ones widely used in academia have so many resources that you can generally use them without buying the style guide.

Obviously the level of detail of an EE citation also means it can be complex and time consuming to cite a record. Some people simply won't commit the time - particularly if there is no tools to help them 'speed it up'.

Comments

Yeah, I won't commit the time, or the $60 to buy the three inch thick book that I will never study.

I think the Chicago style would be fine, or the MLA.  They are similar.  Whichever is easier.

Answer 3

I am used to APA, so I have no vested interest. Since Evidence Explained already specifically addresses genealogical references, I would go with that. Any other style is fine, but I would hate to see endless discussions on modifications to a style that end up reinventing the wheel. Making a sound decision now seems like a good idea so that a widget can be implemented. That will be the most helpful outcome for anyone who has difficulty understanding standing style rules.

Comments

I'm also used to APA - I prefer the Chicago style however. There is another issue though - different citing instructions from different sources:

You must use the correct attribution and citation, viz.: Robertson, Delia. The First Fifty Years Project. http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/ (on: http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/index.htm)

eGGSA Citing this website instructions

Which differs again from https://familysearch.org/ - see also: http://www.geni.com/projects/South-African-Genealogical-Reference-Centre/7572

There is also the Citation Machine many students use ...

Answer 4

I certainly want this question decided.  After the MLA citation template was created, I started using it.  As of Feb. 16, the MLA citation template has a note on it that it is not recommended, but there are about 1500 profiles that use the template, and it appears multiple times on some profiles.  It will be very time-consuming (and wasted effort) if it has to be changed. (Does it have to be changed?)

After previous discussions, I purchased and started using EE.  It is very thorough and pretty much covers every type of source.  I agree that it is expensive and can be difficult to follow, but it is the gold standard for genealogical research.  It is also so detailed that most people will not want to got to the effort to follow it for what they see as minimal benefit.

A simpler approach would probably be better, and having a widget would also encourage people, especially genealogy newbies, to cite correctly.  HOWEVER, I would like people to be able to use EE if they desire. So, could Chicago (modified) be the recommended style, with other styles acceptable?

Answer 5

A while back I wrote a long dissertation on exactly how confusing the Source Page and the Source Styles Guide are, especially to new users of wikitree ( I decided not to post it).  In my opinion, it is a very good  idea to consider revising the sources page and guide.  You need to think about what your goals are, and who your clientele is.  It is obvious that WikiTree has a wide range of users, with a wide range of abilities, and a varying interest in how much effort it should take to enter sources.

I do not like this repeated reference to Evidence Explained, primarily because this book is not readily available to the vast majority of wikitree users.  Do you realize that almost all of the examples on the source page and the Style guide page fail to follow either Evidence Explained or the Chicago Manuel of Style?

The Chicago Manuel of Style most closely gives a useable form, but even this has problems.  Footnotes are technically formatted differently from sources.  According to the CMoS what you call footnotes/citations are not sources.  It gets confusing.  You also need to consider that the CMoS was written by academics, with different goals and needs from wikitree.  The styles and recommendations of CMoS often make good sense for an academic journal article or for a book, but do not always make sense for use on a wikitree profile.  The primary goal of the CMoS is to give proper credit to someone else’s prior work and to avoid the appearance of plagiarism.  When I give a reference on WikiTree, my goal is to tell the reader exactly where the information came from so they can find/evaluate the quality of the information for themselves.

Using a modified form of CMoS which meets the needs of the WikiTree community (as opposed to rigidly following any academic style) is the smartest thing I have heard yet.

I would like to see a simplification of some of the language to make more intuitive sense.  The words ‘See also:’ needs to mean ‘See also’ and not Bibliography/Works Cited/Source List.  The word source should mean where did you get your information.  Right now the words footnote, citation, reference and source are all given subtly different definitions which just adds to the confusion.  Examples of ideal citations should be clear and consistent.  The recommended style needs to not be overly burdensome in the amount of extraneous information required, while still meeting a minimum goal of a complete citation.  There needs to some acknowledgement there may be more than one correct way to source a profile depending on experience of the user.

Comments

Joe, I entirely agree with the thrust of your argument - our citation style should meet our communities needs/goals while recognizing the reality of how much time the average user will commit to learning/using a style on top of actually doing the research. Simplicity (easy to remember what to include in a citation) and flexibility (many different types of sources following one basic format) are two thingsI was aiming for in the 'crazy idea' I threw in one answer on this thread.

---

Joe, will you write a draft of what you'd like to see on the Sources help page? If it were all up to you, what exactly would it say? You could post this on a free-space profile and we could go from there. That would be a great help. Thanks!

---

Yes Chris, it is flattering that you would ask, and I will give it some thought.  I know it is much easier to critique something than it is to create the document itself. Certainly, the basics of what I think are needed are already in the Sources page, the Source Style Guide, and Jillaine’s Dream Source page.  The problem will be creating a recommendation that works, not just for me, but for the community as a whole.  I actually like fairly complete citations, but I know many find it excessive.  I exclusively use in-line citations, but I know others find this cluttery and confusing. It may take a little time.

My basic idea would not be to impose a certain style, but to instruct on what is required of a proper source, and then give very clear examples and recommendations on how to achieve this goal.  I do think there should be a WikiTree recommended style, with a recognition that there is more than one way to get it right.  It can be heavily influenced by Evidence Explained or CMoS, but we shouldn’t be telling people to go look it up for themselves (especially in a $50.00 book).  I would like to think that a WikiTree Genealogist would be able to quickly and easily find the answer to any sourcing question on one page (without being sent off-site).

Answer 6

The other crazy idea that was floating around in my head is to develop our own "Wikitree citation style" - one that is designed specifically to work with a widget we create, that addresses the variety of sources we deal with in genealogy while at the same time remaining as 'user friendly' as possible. For example MLA and CMoS are not well equipped to cite specific entries in a census - this is part of why EE exists in the first place. At the opposite end of the spectrum some EE styled citations contain more detail than is strictly needed to just find a record: for example, a census page and line number(s) is very specific, adding to that a household number, and a family number, and the person's name seems somewhat extraneous. It would be simpler to have an 'entry identifier' which is one of those items.

A style developed and maintained collaboratively by the community would be completely 'open-source' (not reliant on buying any guide book).

One vague idea for such a system (and it would definitely need refinement) I would call the 4W³ style. The 4W's are who, what, when, where. There are then three iterations: first describes the source, second describes the record of interest, third describes the repository. (the last iteration can be repeated for multiple repositories). An example:

Lewis Burrit; "The Burritt family in America: descendants of William Burritt of Stratford, Connecticut, 1635-1940"; 1940 -- page 117 -- Internet Archive, link and Hathi Trust, link.

In the above example the where of the source is omitted as unknown; who, what, when of the specific record do not help locate the record of interest, what and when of the repository are also not needed. A different example:

Nederduits Gereformeerde gemeente; Doop- en Trouwboek; 1667-1776; Buurmalsen, Gelderland -- Maria [van Oosterwijk]; dopen; 16 May 1684; folio 6 -- Regional Archief Rivierenlaand; 0746-49; link and Gelders Archief; 0176-394.1; link and FamilySearch; (index cards); link

 

 

Comments

I like this idea!!!  But way too radical :-)

---

I don't think it's too radical. I like that it includes the page number. Something many citations on wikitree lack.

I miss the relevant quote from the source-- unless that was in the body of the narrative. On wikitree, though, it's usually not in either place. Quotes are particularly important on profiles that have disputed origins or relations.

Answer 7

Wikitree is a genealogy site. The gold standard for genealogical citations is Evidence Explained. We should aspire to that with Chicago Manual of Style as a fallback since EE is built on it.

Evidenceexplained.com is a free site created and maintained by the author of EE.

For those who don't like to lug the book, there is an electronic version available. I have a copy on my iPad.

Comments

You need to consider Jillaine that the fact that you own Evidence Explained puts you in a vanishingly small minority WikiTree users.  It just doesn’t seem to right to recommend  a style which no one can easily consult.  If you recommend Evidence Explained there needs to a substantial improvement in the source explanations and examples page, so people have a go to place to figure out proper sourcing. 

Evidenceexplained.com is not a teaching or reference site.  It is designed to sell books by giving you a little taste of the books contents.

---

There is plenty to consult for free on evidenceexplained.com. See the fora:

https://www.evidenceexplained.com/forums/evidence-explained

Then there's the sample quick check models:

https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/sample-quickcheck-models

She also posts many "quick lessons" (here are the results of searching for "quick lessons" on the website:

https://www.evidenceexplained.com/search/node/quick%20lesson

And of course, you can also learn by example: she uses footnotes on most of her web pages; see how she does it; follow her example.

---

AND, if you can't follow all that, fall back, as I said, on CMS.

Answer 8

Agree with others that EE is the gold standard, and Chicago acceptable with emphasis on giving enough information to find it easily.

EE website has a page of examples of different types of sources.

May be a bit off-topic, but we really don't address adequately (yet) how to choose a good quality source.

Let's include something on how to evaluate a source, or critical thinking. University of Long Island Library Workshop Manual does a good job of this -  would be happy to work on adapting it.

Comments

Yes, and those quick-check examples Cynthia and I have pointed to are PDFs from the actual book, Evidence Explained.

For those of you who do have EE or can read it at your local library, Chapter 1 also does an excellent job of explaining the analysis part that Cynthia is stressing. 

---

There are quick reference sheets you can purchase for Evidence Explained at Board of Certified Genealogist's website and others.

Answer 9

My two cents: Keep it as simple as possible!  And stay AWAY from Evidence Explained. I try to avoid complicated gobbledy-gook footnotes that are trying to match some academic standard.

The goal is to give the reader (who may or may not have a college education) enough information to track down the source.

For published works, title, author and year of publication are sufficient.  With that much information, it's easy to do a google search and find out more if needed.

For census records: the year of the census and the locality are enough, in the text of the profile, with no need to create a footnote.  Except for rare situations, there is no need to mess around with enumeration districts or page numbers, because people just search internet databases to find the census images.  Here's an example of a simple census citation from the text of a profile: 

William Young appears in the 1870 census in Waldwick twp., Iowa County, Wisconsin as follows: William, 60, farmer, b. Kentucky, real estate $7200, personal $1500; Susan, 42, b. Virginia; William H., 24; Mary A., 23; Eunice, 21; Abram, 19; Franklin, 17; Sarah J., 15; Celia, 13; Harvey M., 11; Lucinda, 10; Julia, 3 (all children b. Wisconsin).

Nothing more is needed -- no footnote.  If the reader knows anything about genealogy, they'll be able to track down the record with that information alone. 

Pet peeve: people who do "bibliography" formatting for footnotes.  In my opinion:

This formal academic bibliography style is horrible for wikitree footnotes and sources:
Blow, Joe.  The Genealogy of the Blow Family.  Fargo, North Dakota: Privately Published, 2004. Page 23.

This is good:
Joe Blow, The Genealogy of the Blow Family (2004), p. 23.

Much of the time (especially for published works), the repository isn't needed; it's just extra clutter.   If  the source is a will (an example of an unpublished source) -- which of course names the jurisdiction -- a viewer will either know how to track down a will (in which case the repository information is unnecessary) or the viewer has very little knowledge of genealogy (in which case the repository information is probably not going to be useful).

Of course I'm all for including embedded links to URLs, as simple as possible: "online at [www.website.com this website]" is acceptable.  Some people add "accessed 23 Nov. 2015" (or whatever date).  I favor omitting that -- keep it simple!

Okay, I'm starting to sound like a broken record, and all this is just my opinion.

Comments

Disagree with you John, and BTW I also defend your right to cite as simply as you choose. Sure would save everyone time and effort if you added the details, just courteous and helpful, like the film number, and I hope there's only one edition of Joe's book.  Another very experienced researcher thinks "Parish Records" is an adequate citation.  I disagree.  That's too simple for me.

Found a wonderful page which seems as if it was written just for you, John - again on the EE site - Thinking ... about Citations and Road Maps talks about why we include all those pesky details.  (and I'm learning some things I've been doing wrong)  

This whole discussion has made me consider the purpose of citations.  Sure, so someone can find it easily - that's one purpose - but there are others equally important: attribution, credibility, and even reliability.

Attribution is done largely though citation, we give credit. We acknowledge the ideas and writing of others.  Simple when it's a published book with an author, but less simple when it's a transcription which has been reproduced on someone's website with an analysis.

Those layers are important.  They speak to credibility and reliability.  Leave them off, and it gives the impression that I actually saw the document, wrote the transcription, and came up with the analysis.  To be credible, I need to be clear - and to be reliable, I need to record exactly what the source actually was.  Do I have a copy of the will in hand, or did I copy a transcription from someone's website and claim their analysis as my own?  Big difference.

The underlying question is - what do we ultimately want WikiTree to be?  I think we agree - a place for everyone, from the brand-new to the published, peer-reviewed genealogist.

For those who are brand new, we can provide teaching and guidance.  EE is the gold standard.  Why would we recommend something that is less than the best?

For the published genealogist, who knows that EE is the gold standard ... it gives us a common language and helps our credibility.

Ultimately we are setting WikiTree's standards - which help us meet our goals, give us direction ... define us.

edit: punctuation

---

Hi Cynthia, for whatever it's worth, I use (and support the use of) microfilm numbers for microfilms of unpublished parish records, especially for Mormon microfilms, and I habitually include a link to the familysearch catalog if I got something from a Mormon microfilm.

Regarding mentioning edition numbers in multi-edition work -- it's part of the title. I never suggested abbreviating the title.

Please understand that I was not trying to be comprehensive in my earlier post.  You're welcome to ask me how I am inclined to cite particular sources and then say if you agree or not.

Regarding your example of copying a transcription of will from a website, if I do that then I include a link to the website.  In my own citations in such a case, I include the original volume and page number (if given), but I wouldn't expect that of beginners at wikitree.

Regarding Evidence Explained, please understand that I don't consider it to be the gold standard, and please be careful about imposing such an assessment on me.  I'm a trained historian (I wrote a 200-page properly-cited master's thesis), and I recognize the value of E.S. Mills' work for academic citations, despite her pretentiousness in presenting her book as a reference manual for historians, without acknowledging her background as a genealogist.  (Although I haven't seen the latest edition; maybe she identifies herself as a genealogist there.)

---

Hi John,

I'm interested in hearing more on your views about referencing websites.

Working on European Aristocrat profiles, I often come across a reference to sites such as ThePeerage.com and Medieval Lands where there is just a web address (URL) and nothing more.  I always feel that by failing to include the names of the authors of those sites we aren't giving appropriate credit (which is part of the Wikitree honour code).  Darryl Lundy and Charles Cawley both have spent many hours perusing sources, and should be given credit for that.  Also I feel that by just including the URL, it hides the fact that one, if not both of those sites, are copyrighted.

I'm also interested in why you think it isn't necessary to include the date you accessed or viewed a website.  I've always thought that you put in an accessed date because both the content of a website can change, and also the URL can change and the accessed date was used to indicate exactly what you saw on the website at that time.  I did questions this with someone else on Wikitree and got the distinct impression they thought I was being old-fashioned.  Am I behind the times in terms of referencing websites?

---

I so totally disagree with you John [Schmeeckle]. What you are doing is creating a narrative (and this is a huge problem when everybody does it their own style in a massively merged profile), and we are not all living in the US and we are not all familiar with some of the sources there. That is why I have such a hard clearing up GEDCOM-debri from profiles in the States.

As a research coordinator I need those references and citations [footnote style] to gauge the validity of not only the sources themselves, but the facts in the profile and also the narrative. For example, if DNA research disproves parentage, then the perceived parent profile (with existing narrative), the existing parent profile{s} need to be disconnected and the decision explained with sourced evidence based citations. And the "current narrative" appropriately edited. I mean, I know what "Heese & Lombard" means (a standard South-African secondary source) but it is insufficient to merely put that in brackets behind a bit of narrative, because [the broader WikiTree community not knowing that particular source aside] a) one source does not constitute a source b) there are many mistakes in those secondary sources that have been rectified [also by webbased research] c) The dates of rectification are also important - so one needs to state: year, edition, page - and when it was seen [and preferrably for the project I'm closely connected with - who & when - the latter because it helps with the collation of data from 300 years ago]. Because source 1 states 4 children ; source 2 states 5 children ; only 3 children get GEDCOM'd with a particular profile merged again into another one ....

Citation styles aside - there is only one method for me to go in order to dis-entangle (making sense of) the huge massively merged profiles of 200-300-400 years ago - that is through the collaborative scholarly method which implies a certain discipline ...

---

Perhaps I should clarify that I was writing in reference to the general guidelines to be used in the Sources help page.  I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) that this help page is intended to be accessible to beginning wikitreers who don't have pre-1700 certification (let alone pre-1500 certification).  In my opinion, throwing "Evidence Explained" at an "internet genealogist" who has just come over from ancestry.com simply frustrates people and drives them away from WikiTree.

Philip, you are dealing with surname issues that the overwhelming majority of novice wikitreers will never have to consider -- especially with the pre-1700 profiles.  Aside from that, if you would like to give a specific example of one of my recommendations that you disagree with, I'd be pleased to answer.

John, once again, I wrote in reference to guidelines that are designed to be useful for post-1700 novice wikitreers.  Most pre-1700 profiles are covered by a project, so perhaps project leaders for pre-1700 projects should coordinate on a general set of more advanced citation guidelines, to be customized as each project sees fit.  And of course the pre-1500 profiles are a special case; you may recall that I was an early advocate of a pre-1500 badge, even before the pre-1700 badge was introduced.  (And if I were writing pre-1500 guidelines, I would recommend that ThePeerage.com never be used as a source.)

Regarding whether to add the "date accessed" information, I have never found that information to be useful, and beginning wikitreers have enough on their hands without being required to do what I consider to be busy work.  If a source no longer supports what is claimed in the profile, then it should simply be removed.  If a link is provided, it is easy to check, and it really doesn't matter when somebody accessed a website with information that is no longer there.  But once again, the pre-1500 profiles are birds of a different feather, so perhaps there is a consensus to strive to include all the "academic" bells and whistles.

---

Hi John, with all due respect to your experience as a historian, I can't give you an example other than I often see on profiles - "sources" that I cannot track supporting narrative that I have to take for truth (as far as that is historically possible as you as a historian know). Yes I'm dealing with surname issues but that is only part of the challenge. I'm also dealing with collating all the other facts as well - birth / baptism / marriage / death and all other events as far as mentioned in between. This project came about because of the total chaos caused by imports of data by novice wikitreers (which we all once were). And the pre-1700 test does not protect us [this project] but proper disciplined referencing (as far as is possible for me as well - I'm not an academic but merely an amateur with an academic background) and sourcing does.

But once again, the pre-1500 profiles are birds of a different feather, so perhaps there is a consensus to strive to include all the "academic" bells and whistles. There is no difference between pre-1800, pre-1700 and pre-1500 profle as far as validation goes, the "facts" only get murkier the further back in time one goes. You state:   If a source no longer supports what is claimed in the profile, then it should simply be removed. If a link is provided, it is easy to check, and it really doesn't matter when somebody accessed a website with information that is no longer there. 

This is where I have a problem. Yes of course the data will be edited accordingly, but one has to leave valid arguments in the form of footnotes and references to sources  - that's why it is important to note dates on which certain Internet sources were visited - we are facing [modern society] an era of profound digital dimentia [apologies - it's in Dutch] where research and archives mainly rely on links (compounded by and compounding the personal digital dementia - issue) and we need take notes (so that for future generations the record remains, and not merely hidden behind a changes tab!).

There have been several suggestions several times by several people in G2G-feeds in the past for improvement of the system as far as the user-friendliness goes of WikiTree.

Answer 10

There is no such citation style which needs to be followed. it depends on the requirement of your instructor or your own personal preference. My personal favorite is asa style. It easy to follow. The only drawback to this style is its formation, and that is why i use asa citation generator to design and format my references. Worth a shot.

Answer 11

I'm for Evidence Explained.   Working with the BCG or the NGS would make WikiTree more credible than the other websites like MyHeritage, Ancestry and Geni.  

Another issue I am having is using a married name for "current last name".  I would like to be able to only used the maiden, if known, as the preferred name.  It makes researching female lines much easier.