TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-12 > 1166155363


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source of a source of a source of a source ... HELP!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:02:43 -0500
References: <20061214182030.LNYL24264.ibm62aec.bellsouth.net@Lee.acm.org><000301c71fc2$674aa490$6501a8c0@LindaHome>
In-Reply-To: <000301c71fc2$674aa490$6501a8c0@LindaHome>


Linda Kuhn wrote:
>As you can see, the only substantive difference between the two is that the
>Bibliography omits the Recipient and the CD. With this model, the size of
>the Bibliography could balloon out of control.

Well, I would not disagree completely with you considering that
e-mail as we know it today is a fairly recent phenomenon. I have no
idea of the statistics, but I can remember when a prize was given for
the 150,000th posting on the old CompuServe Roots forum and this was
around 1995!! That would be a minuscule amount today. Now Ms.
Mills published "Evidence!" in 1997 which was very shortly after that
milestone noted above was reached. At that time, Ms Mills stated
that the ideal electronic citation styles had not been fully
decided. Only recently have online citations styles been realized
(with Ms Mills publication in 2005 of "Quicksheet - Citing Online
Historical Resources"). Unfortunately, she did not re-visit e-mail
as part of that.

Thus, you may need to consider the customization of the e-mail Source
Type to make it more generic. However, I cannot say that your fears
are all that bad. I do have a considerable number of e-mails as
Sources. However, with a few exceptions, most are for only single
authors. Most of the e-mails from the same authors are for different
subjects. So for say 100 e-mails, three-quarters would be from
different authors (75 authors = 75 messages). Of the remaining 25,
maybe eight to ten authors would be involved --mostly with different
subjects and maybe three messages would be from one author and two
messages from another on the same subjects.

Thus the number of Sources in the Master Source List would increase a
lot. The bibliography would also, but no more than if you had the
same number of letters.

>So my question is, what benefit is there in the redundancy of citing
>specific emails *in the Bibliography* when it could be avoided
>merely by removing [DATE] from the template? Then again, maybe
>that question is better put to Ms. Mills. <g>

That might be a good question. But as I say above, there really is
not much difference between e-mail and letters. And the number of
letters has not greatly increased the bibliography.

> > So there will always be a "battle" within your mind as to which way to go.
>
>So in other words I'm doomed? <g>
>
>*sigh*

Welcome to the club. <g>



Lee Hoffman/KY
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)


This thread: