2,175
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats (view source)
Revision as of 08:26, 15 June 2009
, 15 June 2009Format
(→Extension?: new section) |
(Format) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
I think we should strongly suggest a standard for citations, both bibliographic and footnote, but realize that many of our contributors will simply not contribute if those guidelines are too stringent. We who are pioneering this effort can do much to set the standard by adding the right kind of citation now, so whatever the standard we are going to use, we need to stick by them and try to be as consistent as possible. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | I think we should strongly suggest a standard for citations, both bibliographic and footnote, but realize that many of our contributors will simply not contribute if those guidelines are too stringent. We who are pioneering this effort can do much to set the standard by adding the right kind of citation now, so whatever the standard we are going to use, we need to stick by them and try to be as consistent as possible. [[User:Jbparker|Jbparker]] 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Citation Styles: The Real Issue <br> === | === Citation Styles: The Real Issue <br> === | ||
I think the issue needs to be addressed at an even higher level. The Research Wiki is intended to belong to the Community--everyone, not just the scholarly professional genealogist. How can we expect the hobbyist wanting to add something they learned to a page to have to learn the proper style in Turabian? They probably don't own a copy of Turabian, and it might take them an hour to figure out how to add the proper citation when writing the article addition itself only took them 20 minutes. The result will be that many people will not cite sources at all and that others will not want to contribute for fear of being held up to ridicule for improper citations. I especially can't see thousands of our contributors having to buy a copy of Shown Mills and then spend a few hundred hours learning it. | I think the issue needs to be addressed at an even higher level. The Research Wiki is intended to belong to the Community--everyone, not just the scholarly professional genealogist. How can we expect the hobbyist wanting to add something they learned to a page to have to learn the proper style in Turabian? They probably don't own a copy of Turabian, and it might take them an hour to figure out how to add the proper citation when writing the article addition itself only took them 20 minutes. The result will be that many people will not cite sources at all and that others will not want to contribute for fear of being held up to ridicule for improper citations. I especially can't see thousands of our contributors having to buy a copy of Shown Mills and then spend a few hundred hours learning it. | ||
My opinion in both the case of the Wiki and even in the larger issue of citations in genealogical software is simply this -- what's important is the bibliographic information, not the syntax, nor the order of the elements of the citation. If it identifies where it came from, gives credit to its creator, and facilitates locating the source, I DON'T CARE about the format <insert sound of gasps>. Let's get the information in with a scholoarly scope of source information and avoid requiring scholarly discipline in source citation format. I say Turabian, Shown Mills, APA, MLA, Chicago, or Aunt Mary's style are all ok, as long as the full complement of source elements are properly identified. Let's change the thrust of this discussion to say what are all of the elements of a proper source citation for a book, an article, a web page, an email, an audio recording, a forum posting, a blog post, a tweet, etc. etc. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)<br> | My opinion in both the case of the Wiki and even in the larger issue of citations in genealogical software is simply this -- what's important is the bibliographic information, not the syntax, nor the order of the elements of the citation. If it identifies where it came from, gives credit to its creator, and facilitates locating the source, I DON'T CARE about the format <insert sound of gasps>. Let's get the information in with a scholoarly scope of source information and avoid requiring scholarly discipline in source citation format. I say Turabian, Shown Mills, APA, MLA, Chicago, or Aunt Mary's style are all ok, as long as the full complement of source elements are properly identified. Let's change the thrust of this discussion to say what are all of the elements of a proper source citation for a book, an article, a web page, an email, an audio recording, a forum posting, a blog post, a tweet, etc. etc. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)<br> | ||
=== Inline citations vs. footnotes === | === Inline citations vs. footnotes === | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
I don't like the Wikipedia example, either. However, I'm willing to accept the publication date in any of several places--as long as it's there. My real problem with Wikipedia is the concept that an article (page) has to be consistent in the citation style used on that page. That means that if a short article used a single source citation, all later contributors would be forced to learn whichever format was employed for that single citation. See my discussion comments above on Terabian, Shown Mills, etc. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | I don't like the Wikipedia example, either. However, I'm willing to accept the publication date in any of several places--as long as it's there. My real problem with Wikipedia is the concept that an article (page) has to be consistent in the citation style used on that page. That means that if a short article used a single source citation, all later contributors would be forced to learn whichever format was employed for that single citation. See my discussion comments above on Terabian, Shown Mills, etc. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 21:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
I guess that if I were editing a page where one footnote existed already in some format I didn't like, and I added two footnotes in the format I like, that might give me enough excuse to change the original footnote into the style I prefer too? ;) Cuz then I'd be the major footnote contributor, so what I say goes. (Hehe) There's more than one way to skin a cat. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | I guess that if I were editing a page where one footnote existed already in some format I didn't like, and I added two footnotes in the format I like, that might give me enough excuse to change the original footnote into the style I prefer too? ;) Cuz then I'd be the major footnote contributor, so what I say goes. (Hehe) There's more than one way to skin a cat. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 03:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Disadvantages of Shown Mills format? === | === Disadvantages of Shown Mills format? === | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:There you go, Jimmy -- ''thinking'' again. Nice catch. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 03:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | :There you go, Jimmy -- ''thinking'' again. Nice catch. [[User:Ritcheymt|Ritcheymt]] 03:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Extension? === | |||
I must say that reading through this discussion glazed my eyes over. I really do not remember what all of these source reference formats even look like. It would be nice if examples were shown to remind us about them. In the end, I believe the nicest thing would be to have an extension to the Editor that allows one to enter the source reference in a dialog box and then it formats it in a standard format. Does this type of thing exist? [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 14:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Related pages === | === Related pages === | ||
[[FamilySearch Wiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] | [[FamilySearch Wiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] | ||