A number of people use "Archives" to source claims, but this doesn't seem right.

Question

Is there something I'm missing? I don't get sent anywhere that relates to any of the individuals in question if "Archives" or Archives.com is bulleted. Here is an example of what I mean (I just inserted this example on 26 Feb 2020): https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Ames-2260

And these profiles are not turning up on the unsourced or on the sorcerer's page, so when I notice such a thing, what should I do? Should I--as I encounter them--be marking these pages as unsourced? In some cases, I've gone ahead and added sources, but a couple of these pages had not been touched in more than a year, so I'm not certain if I should correct/add verified sources when I can, mark the page as unsourced, or contact the profile manager?

I've been on this site for about three weeks, so I've only really noticed this now as I'm going further into the past and so encountering, more and more, the work of others. I should add, that most times the sourcing is great, but there are lots of profiles that use that one word as The final and ultimate source, and it is this which strikes me...

So, should I be concerned about this "Archives" as a proper citation, for I feel I should, but maybe there is some trick that gets you to the accurate information.

Comments

Could you give us a link to a profile where you see this, please?

---

Of course, though in this case the resource is "Barbour Collection," and the profile manager doesn't seem to be active at present. This profile is [[Ames-2028|Cyrus Ames]]. (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Ames-2028) I'm working on the Ames line a bit right now. There's also one where I added a source for Hannah (unknown) Ames. There I added a link that should take a person to a free image on Ancestry. I need to clean up that link. But that's a different thing.

---

Many thanks for that.  Looking at the sources: personally, I wouldn't think they were very good.  After all, if there's a link (and I'll bet there is), it should be there.

Still, we need to give the benefit of the doubt and just sigh.  It doesn't deserve the Unsourced template because, after all, there are sources there but, as Marion says - find proper sources.

---

It's not so much the sources which are feeble - it's the lack of a decent citation that's the issue.

---

I guess that's the issue. If one says "Archives" or "Barbour Collection"--but doesn't direct the viewer to a particular section of a vast collection, then I don't really feel that I can trust the "source". For instance, when one mentions a newspaper account within a bio, one cites the name, date, and page of the newspaper so someone else can easily access it (not just the name of the newspaper).

Thank you. Shall try to find better citations so the source is more reliable and easily found. :)

---

I think there's a pretty big difference between just putting "archive" and putting a specific indexed collection like "Barbour Collection,". It would be much better to refer to a specific record in the collection, but still it took me a few clicks to track down the original record. Whereas if they had just put "archive" I wouldn't have know which archive or where to start looking.

---

I believe the best source is one that takes you directly to the information. The word Archives does not do that. If a hyperlink isn't possible then direction to the information should be included,  example : Location Archive of Where ever <ref> mc 310  ms 40/2 </ref>  this gives direction to the collection and file.  Another thing about sources, if at all possible,  I think , should be the original source, headstone, Birth , death, marriage or funeral/obituary record. They are stored in Archives but can be linked to/seen by anyone. Sites that require paid membership are not available to everyone, linking to those sites instead of the original site, limits viewing power to those who choose this site, a free site.  State and Provincial sites remain, their information remains, while Internet sites come and go, genealogy sites, come and go as sites are discontinued,  sold or moved.  These are just my thought on sourcing.

Answer 1

You're right, just putting "So-and-so archive" is a bit of an easy way out of sourcing properly. It's true, the information can almost certainly be found at the archive, but you'd need to do the same searches as the person who first created the profile.

My suggestion would be to leave the "Archives" citation stand, perhaps with a note to say "missing record identification" or similar. This will help someone else who comes later and who can look up the information at the mentioned archive.

Comments

Thank you, Peter. You voiced my concern in a far more concise manner, and I do like your suggestion for those moments when I/we do not have the time to try to find accurate citations. I appreciate it!

Answer 2

If you can find proper sources, that is preferable, and appreciated.

Comments

Shall do that when I can. Thanks!

Answer 3

Hi Tamara.  If you're looking at sources in the U.S., there is https://www.archives.gov, which is the web site of the U.S. National Archives, a legitimate, official repository of records;  and there is https://www.archives.com, which is a for-profit, paid subscription site that also has a lot of old records.  Either of those can be a legitimate source, although a complete source citation ought to give you more than just the home page of the site.  On archives.gov, you should be able to get to the same record referenced in a profile and actually see it.  On archives.com you wouldn't be able to do that unless you have a subscription.

Comments

Thank you, Dennis. That is my concern: these are profiles that do not link to a site, but say "Balfour Collection" or "Archives" (without a link) as a source.

But I shall spend more time on archives.gov. (I use the for certain things, but never really thought about using them for genealogy! Go figure. Thanks again!

Answer 4

Another "Archive" site containing useful sources for genealogy is http://www.archive.org  "Internet Archive" .  A full citation to a particular book at the site is definitely necessary.

Comments

And preferably to the page number.

Answer 5

If a source is named, for example, just today I encountered "Genealogical History of the Montgomerys and Their Descendants," I have had very good luck simply Googling it and easily finding the archive.org link.

Answer 6

The Barbour Collection is actually a good source because it contains many original documents. The problem is that the profile source doesn't contain  specified detailed info about where the link is in the vast collection.

One suggestion I can make is that if you have an ancestry.com account, you can go to the SEARCH CATALOG option and enter BARBOUR COLLECTION and on the next link, enter the person's name you are interested in. Hopefully it will return some links for you to peruse for a connection.

Comments

The Barbour Collection contains no original documents, only transcriptions and an index that points to the original documents. It is a good source, but like all transcriptions it contains errors.

Answer 7

Tamara,

I would first check: is the profile manager active? In the example you provided, she is.

I would post to the profile a question: Can we get more specific than "Archive.com" (or whatever it was)? 

If the profile manager hasn't been on wikitree in more than a year, or does not respond, I'd slap an {{Unsourced}} template on the profile if I did not have time to find a source myself.

I *might* also look at the active profile manager's contributions to see if this kind of "sourcing" is a pattern. If it is, it suggests that they might benefit from working with a Mentor.