As in journalism, all stories must have at least 3 sources. Wikipedia, and
Britannica are resources, NOT the complete picture. 
You all are scholars, how many sources do you have before coming to a
conclusion. 
Legal cases always have at least 3 or attributable sources, otherwise you
are going to be blindsided and LOSE.
Losing is bad
RESEARCH, RESEARCH, and more RESEARCH
JP Adams
Texas 

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Burnett
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Wikipedia

Yes Melinda
I treat Wikipedia just as I treat family trees from Ancestry or any other
source that come without documentation.  They are clues to yet unproven
facts. As we all know in doing our family history work you need or I feel
obligated to drill down to the original records or as close as you can get.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Melinda Skinner
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> While Wikipedia should never be considered a reliable source by 
> itself, I have found some information that pointed to explorations 
> that I might not have known about and some valuable footnotes that 
> have led me to good sources when researching. I know its not 
> academically pc to admit even looking at Wikipedia, but I wouldn't toss it
away.




--
Douglas Burnett
Satellite Beach
FL
As a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists (APG), the
National Genealogical Society (NGS), the Florida State Genealogical
Society(FSGS) and the Virginia Genealogical  Society(VGS), I support and
adhere to the APG's Code of Ethics.

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html