GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-12 > 1039398641


From: "Austin W. Spencer" <>
Subject: Re: Countess Ida, Mother of William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 01:50:41 GMT
References: <5cf47a19.0212061144.48a627c0@posting.google.com> <20021206160258.24682.00000486@mb-ch.aol.com> <uB8I9.536$yy4.12836@eagle.america.net> <accbf2a2.0212081344.21497da3@posting.google.com> <3DF3CA6C.8060705@interfold.com>


Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> Rosie Bevan wrote:
>
>> An example of how to make an SGM citation was posted to Usenet
>> newsgroup soc.genealogy.medieval by Rosie Bevan,
>> (), on 8 December 2002 under the subject heading
>> "Countess Ida, Mother Of William Longespee, Earl Of Salisbury".
>
> It should be added that each email message and USENET post has a unique
> identifier, the Message ID. This is used throughout USENET as a means
> of unambiguously refering to a specific item, and thus this should be
> part of any citation. In the case of your message, this would be:
>
>
>
> taf
>
Such precision is excellent in principle, but it still faces a couple tests for
scholarship.

One is whether the Message ID string can be used to retrieve the article, and
conversely whether the Message ID is available from the moment of posting for
immediate reference. In each case, the answer seems to be affirmative and the
difficulties are all in the execution. There are doubtless news readers that
display them (Todd makes good use of his), and there is the Advanced Groups
Search on Google. Access shouldn't be too much trouble for those who have USENET
access in the first place, but try typing a Message ID without Copy and Paste,
let alone getting it into print (the logical result of scrupulous observance).
More to the point, a Message ID search -- entered by hand, mind you -- must have
a decided advantage over searching subject line, author and date (each integral
to citation) into any USENET search engine, in order to compensate the greater
likelihood of getting the Message ID wrong.

Finally, where in the citation does the Message ID go? Because the Message ID is
obviously the most specific element -- especially if the same author posts more
than once a day on a particular thread -- experience suggests that it should go
at the end, as a page number would for a printed work.

Here, then, is my suggested form (note the angle brackets):

Rosie Bevan <>, "Re: Countess Ida, Mother of William
Longespee, Earl of Salisbury," USENET post, soc.genealogy.medieval, 8 Dec 2002,
message ID <>.

You can cite the Message ID, and if you do it should go at the end. Since it can
be manipulated easily only by computers, however, I wouldn't call it mandatory.
It is most advisable where the cited author has posted more than one message on
a stated thread in a single day, but for that purpose the time-stamp could also
be included in the citation -- after the date, of course. Like URLs, message IDs
resist abbreviation; it is practically impossible to shorten them and still have
them make sense to a hard-wired computer. Time-stamps better suit the needs of
brief reference if you must make repeated reference to more than one message in
a thread.

Austin W. Spencer

This thread: