TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-06 > 1276919758
Subject: Re: [TGF] NARA Microfilm Numbers and Citations toMortalitySchedules at Ancestry
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 23:55:58 -0400 (EDT)
I enjoyed Linda Gardner's discussion of the Ancestry "thingies" that
purport to extract or abstract from a book, other database or image. And which
Ancestry insists on calling "the record."
It should be noted that Connie Sheets' link was indeed to a "thingy," but
for the purpose of showing the reader what Ancestry.com says about the
database source of the Mortality Schedule in question.
Linda said >So, perhaps what Ancestry is providing here is a partial
their analysis (the estimated birth year). Of course the viewer has no
way to tell which is which (abstract vs analysis) without looking at the
My opinion is that, no matter how poorly rendered, it is indeed an
Unfortunately in many databases Ancestry has added interpretations or
outright inventions (such as relationships between household members in US
Federal Census entries).
However, Connie's question was not about how to cite such "thingies," but
how correctly to cite the source of the database as given by Ancestry, in
which the given NARA microfilm number appears to be incorrect.
I think Connie's approach to citing the Ancestry version of source is well
Connie's example shows the importance of verifying the accuracy of source
|Re: [TGF] NARA Microfilm Numbers and Citations toMortalitySchedules at Ancestry by|