Wikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan New York Library Council/citation

This page discusses some issues in citing special collections and archival resources on Wikipedia.

It is standard practice for libraries and archives to develop finding aids, and collections guides which explain the historical significance, background, and contents of institutional collections. These finding aids usually also contain written descriptions for individual collections and sub-collections, and often also for individual artifacts. Finding aids are worth citing as they often contain descriptions culled from primary source documents, and institutional resources, and because they come with an organizational backing which fulfills the Wikipedia community's requests for reliable sources. Finding are considered copyrightable documents, and are increasingly being published online as research documents within themselves. Finding aids often correspond to digitized collections, but also indicate which items are available on-site.

The problem with finding aids and item descriptions within collection guides is that they are difficult to cite. The same is true of digitized collections, and individual object entries within digitized collections, which can by hyper-linked within Wikipedia citations, directing a reader to the source.

This page discusses the example case of citing (1) finding aids and (2) digitized collections.

Finding aids frequently have the following characteristics:

good

1. Present good information
2. Have the backing of a respected, authoritative organization

bad

1. title of publication is often ambiguous
2. author's identity is ambiguous
3. lacking date or version control
4. no guarantee of permanence in content
5. no guarantee that its URL will not rot

The good characteristics make people want to share the information; the bad characteristics make it difficult to create a citation for the information.

Digitized Collections frequently have the following characteristics:

good

1. Present good information
2. Have the backing of a respected, authoritative organization

bad

1. title of publication is often ambiguous
2. author's identity is ambiguous
3. publisher's identity is ambiguous
4. lacking date or version control
5. no guarantee of permanence in content
6. no guarantee that its URL will not rot

The good characteristics make people want to share the information; the bad characteristics make it difficult to create a citation for the information.

Examples

Here is an example citation template which would need fields completed.

{{Citation 
| author= 
| date = 
| title = 
| publisher = 
| work =
| page = 
| url = 
| accessdate = }}

Citing a Digital Collection example:

Consider

Here is my best guess of how to properly cite:

{{Citation 
| author1 = 
| author2 = 
| author1-link = 
| author2-link = 
| others = 
| date = 
| title = 
| publisher = 
| work = 
| page = 
| url = 
| accessdate = }}

Citing a Finding Aid Description or Entry

Consider:

Here is my best guess of how to properly cite, for example, the HVC's document:

{{Citation 
| author1 = 
| author2 = 
| author1-link = 
| author2-link = 
| others = 
| date = 
| title = 
| publisher = 
| work = 
| page = 
| url = 
| accessdate = }}

Questions about these examples

Here are some questions about citing this document.

1. Who is the author?
2. Who is the publisher?
3. What is the name of the work?
4. What is the title of the media being cited?
5. Is there a page number?
6. Is there a date associated with it?
7. Notice that the url has a date in it. This means that if the document is ever updated then this link may disappear. Is this the best url to use?
8. In the case of CW articles, what should one think about all documents in this series having the same title? Do they all have the same title?

Resolution

The below are models demonstrating the best practices.