What's the use for PRDH and the likes

Question

What's the use for PRDH, Ancestry, MyHeritage source links if one cannot see the actual data being sourced?

I'm tired of going on a profile and the source is just a link to the above-mentioned sites. How am I supposed to verify "for myself" if the information is in fact correct, if I can't actually see it because the information is behind a paywall?

Answer 1

This is exactly why I recommend getting a citation. So often I see a source saying "Ancestry.com" which is tough to verify especially without a paid account.

*"United States Census, 1900," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MMG3-4CB : accessed 2 May 2019), John Tibbetts, Centerville, Columbia Falls & Columbia towns, Washington, Maine, United States; citing enumeration district (ED) 199, sheet 2A, family 35, NARA microfilm publication T623 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1972.); FHL microfilm 1,240,601.

Is much more info than merely putting https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MMG3-4CB or even worse familysearch.org .

At least with the citation you have more of a chance to find alternate sources.

This is why people need to keep in mind this information is for OTHER PEOPLE, not just for the profile manager.

Comments

YES !!! I think that what frustrates me the most is that this is done by seasoned genealogists on here. I'm sure they are well intentioned but they are actually wasting everyone's time.

---

In your corner on this: I can't fathom any genealogical researcher adding anything other than a fully qualified citation for any recorded source. I have zero problems with an Ancestry.com or Newspapers.com or any other paywall citation so long as some decent standard of citation is maintained. After all, we did genealogy for a whole lotta years before abundant internet links were ever a thing, and if the information is coming from an in-copyright book or periodical, or unique item like a family Bible, you probably can't link to the content anyway.

WikiTree prefers the citation format(s), as do I, in Elizabeth Shown Mills's Evidence Explained. The format is essentially a historian's augmentation of the Chicago Manual of Style. I often tend to go overboard with extra detail for a citation, for example sometimes adding a table of household members to a census citation. I've been chided for that. But what the heck; I figure more is better than too little, and nobody has to read it if they don't want to.

Any URL without an accompanying full citation should, IMHO, always be avoided. Internet domains appear and vanish with regularity (we lost WorldFamily.net to GDPR, for example), and domain owners change links with website overhauls and acquisitions (e.g., RootsWeb and Find-a-Grave). A link is only useful while it's correct, and that might change tomorrow, or it might stay valid for 10 years. But no internet URL is ever a completely stable repository link. A full citation, whatever the format (ESM, CMoS, MLA, CSE) should always be provided.

---

sometimes adding a table of household members to a census citation  I've been chided for that.

Don't know why anyone would would do that  I  think that is excellent! I can't tell you how many documents I've found by going sideways (searching for a child or other relative to get to what I'm looking for).  

I like the 'THIS IS THE INFO' <ref> this is where I found it</ref> method. If the link gets broken there should be enough info to find alternative sources in the future.

---

I agree with the thrust of Edison's comment insofar as the highlighting of 'PRDH and the likes' in this G2G question suggests that the issue applies to open-privacy profiles. 

However, there can be no equivalence in terms of the reliability of sources between PRDH and Ancestry.com, the former source being invariably quite reliable no matter whether the data is free-access or subscription-based, the latter source being by definition unreliable. 

There should be a preference in open-privacy profiles to use free-access BMS sources such as, for example, is the case with FamilySearch, instead of subscription-access sources such as IGD, LAFRANCE. 

Open-privacy profiles should strive to be well written including in terms of being concise. 'Extra detail' for a source should accordingly eventually be pruned down. 

The use of the terms 'citation' and 'full citation' in the 2 comments by Steven & Edison is misleading and points to the need for WikiTree to come with a Sources glossary along the lines of EE's A Basic Vocabulary for Historical Research. I agree with the Wikipedia Citation article excerpt:

• "Generally the combination of both the in-body citation [i,.e., the footnote] and the bibliographic entry constitutes what is commonly thought of as a citation (whereas bibliographic entries by themselves are not)."

Hence, one should be speaking of 'full biblio entry description' instead of 'full citation'. However, many WT users don't bother with, or want, a bibliography. Also, according to CMS, there is the matter of 'Notes' and 'Shortened Notes' and, according to EE, there is the matter of 'First Reference Notes' and shortened 'Subsequent Reference Notes' (the shortened format of which can be ignored if the write-up is not indented for publication?!).

Answer 2

Many times that is the only on-line source for a record.  It’s more helpful if the information is transcribed (or at least summarized) and the repository for the actual document is also listed.

Comments

Yes, I get that, but when all you have is a link, it's totally useless. No transcription, no summary, nada, what good is that. And I've seen this so many times on WikiTree, it's mind-boggling and frustrating.

---

I agree 100%.  If a source is not easily or freely available a summary or transcript is really needed somewhere on the profile.