TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-08 > 1028258702


From: "Richard Damon" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Source standards -- was Mills Source for Memorial?
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:25:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <000f01c23994$275acb80$c735dd18@master>


The goal is to present the most accurate picture of what is known. If
someone else wants to verify what's in a private source then they will need
to contact me (or where-ever the repository is) to view the source or to get
a copy of it. If you think about it many public sources (birth certificates,
marriage certificates ...) are just documents in a place which have someone
stationed who can let you see it or make a copy for a nominal fee.

If my source was a family member verbally giving me the information, then
you can possible interview the person yourself, or figure out how much you
can trust that person to know the information, and how good I was at
recording and entering it. If I was good, I may even have a transcript of
the interview (but sometimes the interview is a quick talk and I get a few
snippets of data which are just entered into the database with the source
citation). This is not really harder to verify then the records I got from
the county courthouse that later burned down.

My citing a source does not imply that a fact is verified to be proven, only
that I am stating that the fact is stated in a given place and that I concur
with the source. If you want my opinion on the reliability, see my sureties.
My database even has facts which I know are wrong (with - sureties) so if I
come across it again I will be reminded why I rejected it. These do not
normally print in reports, and when they do their is a note attached that it
is false.

I feel that by citing the exact source of the data, I allow the reader to
make up their mind on how much to trust my data. If they are taking care to
verify the data, I am pointing them to where to find the source, sometime
that verification will require coming to me to get a copy of the document,
sometimes it will be that I know this is true because I saw it, sometimes I
will say "This is what I was told, but I still need to get proof, do you
know anything about it?"

Some people won't verify the data, or look at it critically to evaluate it.
I don't care what happens to his data at it probably is already filled with
junk.

Richard Damon
--
(Genealogy)
(Home)
(Work)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Soderback [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 3:47 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [TMG] Source standards -- was Mills Source for Memorial?
>
>
> snip
>
> > Yes, you have to evaluate the quality of the source and the data it
> > provides. Private family memories of events long past are suspect,
> > especially when the provider had no direct knowledge of the event but is
> > just a relay, but diaries, journal, letters, bibles and other items
> created
> > at the time can be gold mines of accurate data. Public records are not
> > immune to the need to evaluate the quality of the information. Even
> primary
> > records contain much secondary information.
> >
> > In conclusion, while the best source would be a publicly available one,
> > don't throw out private sources out of hand.
> >
> > Richard Damon
> > --
>
>
> I believe the object is to prove or disprove the unverified information.
> The danger is in misleading people in the future that the information is
> fact,
> when it has not been verified. If the information is only available in
> private
> material, how will it ever be verified for accuracy, if the
> information can
> be cross referenced in a publicly available record then those in
> the future
> can be assured of the accuracy. I believe this is the reason Lackey and
> Mills
> wrote their books. They both laid out systems to record sources, although
> somewhat complex, the object was to make a record of where the information
> came from. Their layout assumes that your source is verifiable
> and then you
> record
> where it can be verified. I really don't think either one of them implied
> that
> the source should be Aunt Martha's diary, with the repository as her top
> dresser drawer.
>
> Many times there is no way of ever verifying the information and
> it should
> be
> recorded as such. One never knows that maybe sometime in the future you
> will be able to verify the information(this has happened to me
> many times).
> My point is that information should not be implied as verified, when it is
> not.
>
> Cliff Soderback
>


This thread: