Source talk:Morgan Area Genealogy

Probably not a source [13 December 2012]

This page appears to refer to the Rootsweb county page? Unless the page contains original, high quality research, it should not be created as a source page. If you'd like to cite the cemetery transcriptions, the preferred approach is to use a Citation Only citation, and to create a Place page for the cemetery that links to or reproduces the transcription. There are a variety of reasons for this approach -- centralizing information for the same cemetery, maintaining the distinction between sources and repositories, keeping the rule on websites uniform, etc. If you have additional questions, please let me know.--Amelia 10:55, 11 December 2012 (EST)

You are right, this refers to the rootsweb pages for this genealogical association. There are several sources for their newsletters, but none for the web pages. one should be as good as the other for a source.

I understand your concern for good sources, however, I personally disagree with your assessment in this case. Find A Grave is accepted as a source but I consider the data there to be suspect unless it is supported by a photo or quotes another source. This web site provides a more complete listing of the cemetery than Find A Grave, and because it is hosted by a genealogical association, it should be as reliable as any GenWeb source. For these reasons, I am going to leave this source active. As always, others can modify it as they see fit.

I have already included it as a resource on the Cemetery page that I created, so that point is covered.

Thanks for your comments. I am slowly learning the intricacies of this Wiki. Sometimes I think we are making it too difficult for novice users, but it is the best site I have found for collaborative research.

Respectfully Rick--RGMoffat 14:50, 11 December 2012 (EST)

Hi Rick,

Thank you for your thoughts. A few points based on your comments -- First, this website isn't a "source" as we generally use the here. It's a site that collects a variety of information, including cemetery transcriptions by volunteers. That's a repository if it's anything. Second, it's not about "good" vs. "bad" sources. Goodness knows there are plenty of lousy sources printed on paper. It's about balancing the benefits of a source page with the costs. Personal websites and other genealogy collections like this -- including genweb county pages -- do not get Source Pages because the decision was made that the generally low level of quality, impermanence, and lack of original content make them (as a group) undesirable as source citations, hard to maintain, unlikely to be cited frequently, and of sufficient quantity that they could easily overwhelm the source database. Exceptions are made for certain very frequently cited websites (such as Find A Grave) and for websites that offer original, high-quality content. If this website meets that criteria, please explain on the source page. If not, then it needs to be deleted. I found this page while on Source Patrol, the point of which is to make sure users follow the established guidelines. If you disagree with the policy, that should be taken up with the Overview Committee. Regards, --Amelia 00:08, 12 December 2012 (EST)

I will clean this up in the next day or two. Is there a good summary of the standards you follow? I must admit that reading through the discussions leading up to a policy can be confusing.

Also, if I encounter "sources" that are questionable, is there a way to flag them to your team for your review? Perhaps you have a category that you add to the source. I am willing to help clean them up with your guidance.

Meanwhile, I will try to review recent additions that I have made.

One thing I take away from this exchange is that "sources" such as GenWeb sites are really repositories, and their content may or may not be appropriate WR sources. Do I have that right?

Thanks Rick--RGMoffat 12:41, 13 December 2012 (EST)

Hi Rick,

Thanks. The best summary should be Help:Source pages and Help:Source page titles. If you find an area that's not covered or confusing, please let me know or leave a message on the Source Patrol page (easier than wading into the comments on either of those pages - you're absolutely right it gets confusing!). That's also the page to flag something for review (at least for now - that's a good question to raise).

You are right on the GenWeb repository question.

--Amelia 15:38, 13 December 2012 (EST)