TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-08 > 1028389825


From: Wade Oram <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Re: Questionable Source Cites; Internet
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 16:50:25 +0100
References: <131.11b3eb7a.2a7d3761@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <131.11b3eb7a.2a7d3761@aol.com>


In message <>, writes
>The worst thing is the lack of sources. Maybe an e-mail from every
>person
>viewing such information to the person posting the information
>explaining
>just how worthless their information is might start a trend to change
>things... or at least discourage them from posting further garbage.


I think that there is another point of view in this matter. I
deliberately publish the results of my research on the Internet without
source information because I do not want people to simply copy it.
Instead I would like them to contact me and ask me where I obtained the
information from and perhaps tell me why they are interested.

Thus, to my mind, the information on my web site is provided to
stimulate a two way exchange of data from which both may benefit. If all
of the information that I have - including sources - were to be
presented, then why would anyone need to contact me. It would help their
research, but it would not help mine. I provide my web site as a tool to
help me. I am afraid I am not quite so public minded as to do everybody
else's research for them unbidden.

If people contact me with specific queries, then I will send them (by
email or even snail mail if desired - although there are limits due to
cost) reports which give the information that they require (and often
more that I feel may interest them) including sources.

Of course, if some people choose to use the information that I present
(for purposes other than simply guiding their own research) without
verifying its reliability, then to my mind, it is a problem with their
research - not mine. That person may then re-publish the information in
a way that does not encourage this exchange of information. I can not
prevent this - but it is a problem caused be them - not me.
Incidentally, the kind of person who *uses* information without
verifying sources is probably the kind of person who enters information
into their database/filing system/whatever without recording sources
anyway. Thus publishing the source information will not, in always,
ensure that the source information always travels with the information
to which it pertains.

Overall my attitude is just the opposite to that of AGH3RD. I feel it is
my *duty* to validate any information I recieve from the internet (or
indeed any other source). If its presentation does not provide me with
the means to do this then I will do one of two things:

1: Make of note of whatever 'facts' are presented and then use them to
guide my own research. Even unsourced information can be enough to
tell me that the reason that I have not found the birth of such and
such a person may be because I have been looking in the wrong place
or looking under the wrong name.

2: Ignore it.

What I am carefull about, is that none of those 'facts' get into my own
data until such time as I have a source that confirms them. I will then
cite only my source.

It is also my duty to ensure that the information that I present is
correct (to the best of my knowledge) and when errors are brought to
light, to make sure that they are corrected as soon as is practically
possible.

In fact, I would even suggest that the same attitude should, to some
extent, be taken even when the information is sourced. When information
is obtained from any secondry source, of which the internet is just one,
there is always a doubt about the reliability of the information. The
only exception to this is when information is obtained from the internet
via website such as the 1901 UK census site at the UK PRO (when it is up
and running again) which provide digital images of the original document
which you can view. In such circumstances then you may treat them with
the same reliability as the original document (given that the
information source is a public information body and is not out to
decieve and thus no *significant* alterations will have been performed
on the images). Note: this argument does not pertain to the 1901 census
index on the same site which is compiled from a transcription and may
and indeed does, contain many errors.

I have to say, that over the 5 years that I have had my web site
available, it has provoked may such exchanges and has served to further
my own research on a number of occaisions. It recently resulted in the
destruction of one of my Wife's most significant brick walls! Whilst it
is probable that some of this information exchange would have occurred
even if I had published source information, it is equally certain that a
lot would not.

>
>Also a campaign to the biggies asking them to refuse any unsourced
>information.
>

This I would have no problems supporting. It is, however, a different
case to people such as myself presenting results of their research on
their own web site(s).
--
Wade Oram

This thread: