Poor sourcing [closed]

Question

I have noticed that we still have some very weak profiles that either have broken links or links to (for example), an Ancestry sign-up webpage. These are not Ancestry "sharing" links, but an actual sign up. Whereas some members may be able to click on the link and view the information, many cannot. If the only sources shown in a profile is are sign-ups for Ancestry, I would prefer that it be labeled as an "unsourced" profile. I have heard the arguement that leaving these sources in leaves possible "breadcrumbs" to follow for further study, however that limits researching those profiles to those who have the disposable income for such an account.

Comments

Those links are viewable by those who have paid memberships.   Just because ancestry defaults to their sign-up page for non-subscriber members does not make the source invalid, nor the profile unsourced.

It is always helpful if the information at the "end" of those links is actually transcribed as fully as possible so those of us who do not have paid subscriptions can see what it is, and may also be able to find it somewhere else, or at a different time.

---

A full citation allows researchers to find sources regardless of links or no links. Ancestry doesn't own the US Census, for example, they just have a digital version of it on their site.

---

That leaves those of us without an account no real way to validate a "suspect" profile. As I see it, that invalidates the credibility of a source. Viewing of an actual "source", such as a image of an actual will, for example, gives everyone a chance to scrutinize, evaluate and further research a profile. Yes census records are free, but those are available using FamilySearch. Is this now going to be common practice for WT, sources behind paywalls?

---

So, my source/citation here is invalid because it has no free-to-view version that I know of.  I disagree. I believe this is a perfectly valid source/citation.

Not available on FamilySearch - all the relevant information has been included.  No link is given, so no link is included.

1939 Register; The National Archives; Kew, London, England; Reference: RG 101/558B. Name: Ellen Spring; Gender: Female; Marital Status: Married; Birth Date: 8 Nov 1903; Residence Date: 1939; Address: 25 Golding Terrace; Residence Place: Stepney, London, England; Occupation: Unpaid Domestic Duties; Line Number: 1; Schedule Number: 30; Sub Schedule Number: 1; Enumeration District: AVUE; Borough: Stepney; Registration district: 18/4

-

Hopefully, anyone interested, and with access to the 1939 UK Register, will be able to find that same record, with its associated image.

---

Putting a link alone is  poor citation.Perhaps we should do even more to emphasise the importance of full citations. Links may not work in the future. Some sites, free or paid may not last forever.  Some sites may lose their licence to display images from a particular record set. Some records may only be freely visible for a short time. (this has been particularly  true during covid. )

As Dina says citations should enable a future  researcher to find the source. However that doesn't mean everyone should be able to view it instantly from their home computer with or without payment.  There are many records  only available  behind  paywalls (not just Ancestry, there are many other subscription sites. ) Many more records are  behind physical walls in archives . If wikitree limited or  disallowed their use because only some members were able to access them, important records would be off limits and some profiles couldn't be created.

(edit Melanie has demonstrated this perfectly whilst I was writing my screed!)

---

I often include links to paid sites, along with a complete citation (where they are available). When I do so, it is only after I have done due diligence to try to locate the record on a free site.

Let's say for example I have found a death record on Ancestry and have failed to find the information on a free site. What would you have me do, Mark: (a) Just ignore the information, and leave the death date and place off the profile; (2) Include the information with no source at alll; (3) Include a link to the paid site with as complete a citation as possible? Or is there another alternative that I haven't discovered?

And to be consistent under your proposal, Mark, WikiTree would have to ban all sources that are not available through online free sites. Could I then not cite a deed that hasn't been digitized that I found by visiting a repository (or requested by mail)? How about a published volume that is still under copyright? How about a family Bible?

At least with records from Ancestry, you have an option. You can go to a library that has an Ancestry account and look up the record there.

---

At least with records from Ancestry, you have an option. You can go to a library that has an Ancestry account and look up the record there.

commented by Stu Bloom

-

Or you can see if your library has the ancestry library version available  for use at home.

---

---

One crucial point here, In the UK, most of the records are within the public domain, freely available to all to examine. They are the property of us all, not a company or business, not to be made available only to those that pay for it, Sadly, other countries impose various restrictions, for whatever reason. Personally, I feel that nobody owns history, it belongs to everybody.

---

Tim.

Legally you may have access to many records at their repositories(but records of a personal nature may not be accessed for anything between 30 and 100 years.)That doesn't mean you can see them online anywhere in the world. In addition there are statutory fees for copies of  some records

  You can freely  visit the National Archives . This holds the census,  the 1939 register mentioned above, medal rolls, older PCC wills  WW1 service records( + lots more) Local archives often hold church registers so these are  usually freely accessible at the archives. However,  if a C of E register is still in the church then the  set search fee  is at present £31 an hour.  A few local archives apply this fee if you want a copy.   (they will send you a certified copy) 

You can freely view the  National index of wills and probate and of post 1837 births, marriages and deaths but these are very limited in the information provided. 

Beyond that,  there is frequently a cost. The National Archives, Kew,    commercialises popular records such as the census. Consequently, there are no  images  of any census on any free to view site. The recent thread on the 1921 census shows just how much it will cost those who can't visit Kew to view. (the money received does help fund archival costs so helps preserve other records). Other local archives operate similar models for their parish and other  popular records. That's why so many are only available on subscription sites.

In addition,  if you want a full birth, marriage or death cert, it will cost you £11.https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certificate

  If you wanted a post 1858 will you could visit First Avenue House, in London. You can see the will without cost  but you can't transcribe it.( last time I visited, there were big notices all round reminding you.  I had to restrict the number ordered because of the relatively high cost of copies.)  This cost has been reduced considerably with recent online availability but they still cost £1.50 each.

---

Regards some - usually older - Wills.  They can be had freely from the National Archives (Discovery), but the images remain under copyright, so I have been taking the salient points only (which is better than you get from the post 1858 summary given on Find a Will Gov UK).

---

They are earlier wills from the PCC. (lots of other earlier wills in other local and  diocesan archives) Make the most of the free downloads. They were introduced because of Covid .https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/news/digital-downloads/ I suspect they may withdraw them eventually.  British History online also did this but  has now stopped free access to their subscription items.

---

As I understand it, you don't have to own a copy in order to quote where you saw it. For example, Parish Registers can be seen by anybody visiting that parish. You can make your own notes. I spent a lot of time helping compile the NBI for my area, visiting each parish in turn.

An interesting point here is that I found Parish Incumbents often added comments in the margins, giving the reader further insights. These are never included in transcripts.

I prefer to view the original, wherever possible, rather than rely upon the internet which can contain many human transcription errors.

---

I though G2G was about collaboration (for most it is) and not personalization. I never pointed anyone's profile either by name or ID, and if I had something to say critically, I would privately message them. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say, I expect opinion (sometimes strong opinions). But for some, this wasn't conversation or collaboration, just sarcasm and lecturing (that's a two-way street, but something I wont waste my time on)

Answer 1

Many of the sources I cite are not digitized anywhere, not even microfilmed.  They are actual documents in repositories or that have been transcribed and cited in books that aren’t digitized.  They are perfectly valid sources (and often better than indexes and abstracts that are digitized.)

Answer 2

A source, by definition, is the place you found your information from. So if there's a valid link (provided that with a valid subscription you can open it), then it's by definition "sourced". So by that token, it cannot be "unsourced".

It can be "undersourced" or "not properly sourced", but not "unsourced". While I get the frustration at not being able to access it (I do not have an Ancestry subscription, but have been able to access Ancestry through the public library), you shouldn't claim it's unsourced if there's a source attached.

Answer 3

Specifically for Ancestry, often it's possible to include a link that can be added to the citation and allows those without an Ancestry account to view the original record.  See: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Links_to_Ancestry under Sharing Link for details.

Answer 4

It is not a poor source just because I can't access it for whatever reason, e.g. an online or print subscription I don't have, a book I don't own and which is not online or accessible at my local library, a certificate I didn't pay a fee to obtain from a government entity, I did not travel to the repository where the source was held, I was not there to witness the event, etc. These might all be excellent sources. Sometimes the only source for a piece of information may be inaccessible to me. My inability to access them does not diminish their value. It would be wrong, in my opinion, for someone not to provide the information and/or source just because it wasn't something I could access. Whenever possible, it is good for one to provide only freely accessible sources for information, but sometimes that is just impossible. Genealogical study would suffer mightily if we all only used and provided sources everyone could access.

These items might have poor source citations, however, if they do not provide me enough information in order that I could access it if I so desired. It is also a poor use of a source if the person citing the source did not provide the information obtained from the source in the text and or data of the bio. Also, in my opinion, it is a poor use of the source if the source citation is not inserted next to the information obtained from the source in the form of an inline citation. 

As others have mentioned, Ancestry.com often has a "sharing link" for the source and that should be provided in the source citation when it does. Sometimes, a "sharing link" is not provided. I try to remember to note if there is no "sharing link" in the citation when that is the the case. Again, though, just because there is not a sharing link does not give any indication as to its value as a source.

Comments

Very good answer, Nelda!  

Just one comment:  I sometimes provide the Ancestry free sharing links, but those links are inferior to the full Ancestry links.  I just did one about a half hour ago.  It is the image of an 18th-century will, and impossible to enlarge sufficiently to be readable.  The free images are also out of context--for instance, a census page appears on its own, so there is no opportunity to page through the census looking for relatives or neighbors of interest.

---

Julie, what you write about sharing links is true, but it is the best we can do for those who are not Ancestry.com subscribers. Perhaps it's one of Ancestry.com's ways of trying to entice subscribers but it also might encourage those who want to see the image better and/or in context to take advantage of subscriptions they can often access freely at their local library.

---

Absolutely. Would you not want to use the "Silver Books" for Mayflower passengers just because there is no free online copy?