APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2006-02 > 1140462722
From: Connie Sheets <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Cite Your Sources!?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:12:02 -0700
Amy Larner Giroux CG CGL wrote:
>Now just because you have direct (death date shown), primary
>(recorded near the event), original (etched on the tombstone) does
>not mean it is accurate. You have to analyze all of the pieces and
>come up with your conclusion as to whether or not the data is correct.
That is why my eyes tend to glaze over when I read threads like this
one, or even scholarly articles on the subject of sources,
information, and evidence. While I think I understand the reasons
for the current classifications, the system often seems to lead to
unnecessary exercises in memorization and labeling. Is it really
that important that I be able to properly label the type of source,
the type of information, and the type of evidence for every situation
I deal with? Or is it more important that I have a more global way
of thinking (which I'm sure is based on many years of experience but
sometimes seems like intuition) that consistently pushes me to look
for the most original, accurate, and complete sources of information
and to (hopefully) draw properly reasoned conclusions?
In other words, to what practical application should I be putting my
knowledge if and when I am finally able to memorize the 6 basic words
and properly use them in one or more sentences?
I have a similar reaction to most of the posts I've seen asking how
to cite a specific source. It seems to me if people paid more
attention to identifying the information that someone else would need
to find the source again, rather than whether they've used the proper
format or cited it the way ESM would cite it, they would be able to
consistently practice the art of citation, whether using a common or
What am I missing here?