Biography and Sources sections

[Lianne Lavoie]

Hey everyone!

 

Now that we've done a whole lot of merging, we have lots of profiles with some pretty long and ugly bio sections! So it's time we talked a bit about what belongs there, and maybe agree on some stylistic guidelines or something.

 

To start off, I'll describe what I do when I've just merged all the profiles for a person, and just want to make the bio section less horribly long, which I think is a good starting point:

 

1) I go through and remove all the "sources" that don't mean anything out of the context of the gedcoms these profiles came from. This step alone eliminates a lot! Examples include:

• User ID lines (that identify a user ID in some other database)
• Data Changed sections (which contain the date that the gedcom was last edited)
• Sections that list all of that person's children or other family members with IDs that apply to a different database

2) Currently, I delete all the sources that say the profile was imported from a gedcom, as well as those automatic references that say it comes from someone's "personal knowledge". Does anyone have issues with that? To clarify, if someone had actually written something in the Biography section and cited themselves as the writer of it, I wouldn't erase that. Generally these 300 year old profiles only have basic facts in them, which can't be copyrighted anyway.

 

3) I remove all but one <references /> tag, and I put the one that's left at the very bottom.

 

4) I move all Category tags to the very top.

 

5) I move things around so that there's one == Biography == section, and one == Sources == section, and all the bits of biographical information are under == Biography ==, and all the sources are under == Sources ==. At this point I don't evaluate the sources, though I will occasionally delete some that are obviously of no help (ie. the ones that just say it came from a Smart Match, but have no link or anything and so don't actually tell you anything).

 

After completing these steps, things are much more organised, and it's easy to fix up a certain section at a time. For example, I might create a === Birth === subsection under == Biography ==, write everything I know about the person's birth, and then go through and delete all the other subsections that have the birth date and place in them (the kind that are imported from Ancestry).

 

Let me know what you think of this!

 

Thanks!

 

~Lianne

[Roger Travis]

This all seems really sensible to me. I don't read GEDCOM very well, so I have a hard time figuring out what should stay and what shouldn't, but this seems like a great way to approach it.

--
Roger Travis

Associate Professor of Classics

Department of Literatures, Cultures, & Languages

University of Connecticut

roger....@uconn.edu, livingepic.org

Director, Video Games and Human Values Initiative, vghvi.org

[Lianne Lavoie]

I'd never read GEDCOM before editing WikiTree bios. :) I just figure, WikiTree only has one type of ID, so any strings of numbers and whatnot that are supposed to refer to people aren't telling me anything, because they're in the wrong context.

--

Lianne Lavoie, BCSc
An Effort in Green

Stories of a Canadian Family

Follow me on Twitter

[Lianne Lavoie]

To people reading this in the Acadian and Mayflower groups, see Kathy's suggestions below, which were only sent to the EuroAristo group.

I was wondering the same thing that Chris asked, Kathy: do you mean having the biography below the sources? I definitely think the bio should stay where it is above the sources, so that people will see it right away. Then if they want to check sources for something they can scroll down to those.

And as for the bibliographic citations, and having a consistent style, what does everyone think about that? I think that it would look awesome to have all sources cited in MLA or something, but there's also the problem that most people don't know those styles. I hated having to use them in university. :P So personally I'd vote for using whatever style as long as it's clear and contains enough information, but I'd like to hear what the rest of you have to say on this one.

~Lianne

On 15 March 2012 11:43, Kathy Alvis Patterson <alvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I suggest an order, such as:
1. List primary sources for birth (with parents), marriage (and
children), and death, first (i.e. Birth: Rehoboth MA VR 2:34; or
Marriage: Caddo Co OK marriage certificate, unpublished; or Death:
obituary, Chicago Tribune, 12 Feb 1907--made up references, but you
get the idea),
2. Then,other official sources such as court records, censuses,
military records, wills and deeds.
Then, Bible records, newspaper articles and manuscripts if at all
contemporary with the person's life. Grave stones trancriptions fit
here.
3. Followed by published accounts: first bibliographic citation, then
exact quotation with quotation marks. This sounds like a given, but I
have seen people who quote with commentary and don't show which words
are from the quote and which are added. Suggest MLA bibliography
formats. Wikitree users might also comment on the content or use (or
lack) of references and sources in the book or article.
4. Then, indexes such as the IGI, most Ancestry.com databases or
individual gedcoms. Please, let's discourage references like
Broderbund Family File, which in my experience are worthless. It might
be best to omit these entirely, but maybe I'm asking too much here.

5. List Facebook-type facts: education, residences, church and other
affiliations, occupation and employment history, if known, and the
URLs for sites like Findagrave.
6. Then, people can write their own stories, memories, etc.,
7. This is also the place to include discussion and arguments for a
relationship.

This may be in any language, but standard grammar and spelling should
be encouraged.
From what I have written, I guess you can see that I am a lineage
specialist, since I am following that kind of pattern for
documentation.

>>>    - User ID lines (that identify a user ID in some other database)
>>>    - Data Changed sections (which contain the date that the gedcom was
>>>    last edited)
>>>    - Sections that list all of that person's children or other family

> *Lianne Lavoie, BCSc*
> An Effort in Green <http://an-effort-in-green.blogspot.com/>
> Stories of a Canadian Family <http://storiesofacanadianfamily.blogspot.com/>
> Follow me on Twitter <http://twitter.com/spockofvulcan>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "WikiTree European Aristocratic Ancestors User Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to WikiEur...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> WikiEuroArist...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/WikiEuroAristo?hl=en.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiTree European Aristocratic Ancestors User Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to WikiEur...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to WikiEuroArist...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/WikiEuroAristo?hl=en.

[Lianne Lavoie]

Looks like I'm being outnumbered by people who care about citations. :P Hey, I'm a computer scientist, essays are not our thing, haha. But I'm glad to hear that Chicago is the style genealogists tend to use! I had to use Chicago in a couple university courses and I recall it being less awful for me than the other ones. :D

Going back to your ordering suggestions, Kathy, I'd suggest having arguments for relationships (#7 on your list) above the sources, with the biography. Especially if there's debate over parents, that's something people would want to see.

~Lianne

On 16 March 2012 06:11, Tami Glatz <tgl...@gmail.com> wrote:

ESM modeled her work after the Chicago Manual of Style, which is the preferred citation style for genealogists.

-tami

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Kathy Alvis Patterson <alvi...@gmail.com> wrote:

No one going to school now of doing genealogy will ever need more than
the Internet to create citations: http://www.easybib.com/
Most high school classes use MLA, the International Baccalaureate
program, my first two college degrees used only MLA, and if I'm not
mistaken Elizabeth Shown Mills uses MLA.
Kathy

[Kathy Alvis Patterson]

I repeat, try http://www.easybib.com/.
Use any book or article in your libray. It couldn't be easier.

[Lianne Lavoie]

Hey all,

 

I'd like to get back to this discussion we started about the Biography and Sources sections.

 

So far, we've had some debate over what kind of source citations should be expected, but I think we've at least agreed that citing sources is good, and if you're going to use a citation format, Chicago is the standard in genealogy. Kathy recommended www.easybib.com for easily generated citations.

 

One thing I should mention is that there is a limit to the length of the bio section, but that limit is really high. So you don't have to worry about it when you're writing a biography, but someone did actually run into it when merging a huge number of profiles together that already had long bios. The lesson from this is that when we're merging lots of duplicates, we should take a moment after merging a dozen or so to clean up the bio a bit, to keep from hitting that limit. This is especially relevant to the WikiEuroAristo folks, I think, since those profiles often have ridiculous amounts of duplicates.

 

Another thing I'm wondering: How much do you use subsections of the == Biography == section? For example, === Birth === and === Marriage === subsections. I've found that I'm quite inconsistent with this, sometimes using them, and sometimes just writing in more of an essay format. I think both formats have their pros and cons. What does everyone else think, and what do you currently do?

 

~Lianne

[Roger Travis]

I hesitate to bring this up, but it may make sense to draw up a list of what's acceptable in the bios of profiles managed by the user-groups, as well as a general outline of what a bio should ideally look like. For example, I don't see that it's appropriate to include the LDS data, or any of the other stuff that comes from Ancestry.com (User IDs and the like), but others may have different opinions on the matter.

I'm not volunteering myself, at least until the summer, but we might want to discuss it.

Roger

[Chris Whitten]

Roger, you shouldn't have hesitated. :-) This is exactly what we need
to discuss here in these groups.

Regarding the LDS stuff, I don't see the harm in it. It shouldn't be
front and center in a bio, but if someone values having the
information there, it doesn't hurt those who don't, right? That, of
course, begs the question of whether anyone values it.

Is there an LDS member who could speak up here? Is there any value in
having this stuff in WikiTree bios? Maybe a link to a FamilySearch
page (or the New FamilySearch, or the new New FamilySearch) would do
the same thing.

Chris

--
Chris Whitten, WikiTreer-in-Chief
http://www.WikiTree.com/wiki/Contact_us#Chris

[Lindsay Coleman]

I wouldn’t probably do the search besause it leaves it up to each person who
clicks to sort through, right?

I like sources but I don’t know how good the LDS sourcing is... usually
family submission, right? but sometimes that is all you have.

[Heather Morgan]

Good to know. I don't think I realized there was a limit on the bio. Thanks Lianne!

~H

[Lianne Lavoie]

Roland, I really like the amount of information you provide for your sources. I typically just put "1911 Census" with a link, but I know that's not enough and should start including more information. Like you said, links do break, and it's nice to at least have the citation include the information you need to find the right page again.

 

For the Acadian censuses, I've even been including the data from the census, though obviously for a more complete census that would be harder. An example is http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Richard-74 (oh that Michel Richard, he's my example for everything :) ).

 

As for Ancestry sources, I have a lot more respect for ones that are links to actual records than the ones that are user trees. :) If it's something that's not available for free elsewhere, I think you should have the link, with an explanation of what it is.

 

I look forward to having your help with the Acadians. :)

 

~Lianne

On 12 April 2012 13:12, Roland Arsenault <rol...@rolker.net> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I'm new to genealogy and have just started with wikitree a few weeks ago. I don't feel like I'm ready to tackle my earlier ancestors yet, so I'm starting with my  more recent ancestors. So far, I haven't reached someone with an existing profile.

Here's an example that shows the approach I'm taking so far regarding sources:

 http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Arsenault-68

I'm still in the information gathering stage, so the bio is still sparse. 

I try to make a source easy to use by providing a URL, but I also assume that a link could become invalid as servers hosting the information evolve, so I also try to include the info that could help a new search find the source.

How should I handle sources that are not freely available? I'm subscribed to ancestry.ca to gain access to the Drouin collection, so how should I provide a source to a record from that collection?

Any other tips on how I can provide better source info? Once I get better at this, I'm hoping I can help with the earlier Acadiens.

Roland

[Heather Morgan]

Regarding sources, I tend to cite every single thing I find, if I've used information from it. If it's an online source, I will include a link so that any person verifying my sources can see what I'm pulling information from. I think it's important to list where you got your information from, no matter how unreliable, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that I haven't spun my ancestry records out of whole cloth. It's not perfect, but I think it works for the time being. 

However, I would not be opposed to deciding, as a group, what we agree "acceptable" sources are. Of course it would be ideal if we had nothing but birth/marriage/death certificates, draft registration cards, tax records, property records, census records, wills and probate records for every one of our ancestors. However, can we also agree that official published works (like biographies), family bibles, newspaper articles, and other potentially unreliable sources should also count? 

Instead of listing each individual LDS source, maybe just list something generic, like "Church of Latter Day Saints records"?

~H