bmoake wrote:
>Gosh no, it is not foolish to use info tentatively,  it is prudent to print

the info and use it as a guide to localities, people and documentation.  


In this vein, I would suggest that *everything* we record in our research
files and genealogical software is entered tentatively. No information can
be accepted as Gospel at first encounter. 

That, in a nutshell, is the reasoning behind the documentation bmoak reminds
us to seek. We find a source and it offers information that appears to be
relevant. Whether it is documented or not, we extract it, in some fashion,
into our files. We not only identify the source but also evaluate and
describe its characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses. By doing so, our
notes clearly differentiate between information that is likely to be
unreliable and that which is potentially credible. By doing so, we also make
it possible, many times in the future, to come back to this piece of
evidence and reevaluate it on the basis of new findings.
 
When we approach research from this mindset, we will record in our files
information of all sorts of quality. For example:

-  We will have totally undocumented assertions that we clearly identify for
what they are: totally undocumented assertions that still may be useful as
clues. As we continue with research, we may upgrade these to realistic
assertions by supporting them with seemingly sound evidence we have found
elsewhere. Or, we may delete them from our files, as clearly erroneous. Or,
more commonly after we prove them wrong, we will keep them in our files,
together with our proof arguments as to why those assertions are not
credible. By doing so, we are prepared to deal quickly with "family
gatherers" who continue to sweep in and disseminate garbage.

-  We will have assertions from sources that do provide documentation but
may or may not be reliable -- in which case we identify both the source and
the documentation it provides, along with our description and assessment of
that source.  As our research progresses, we may downgrade or upgrade our
opinion of the credibility of each individual assertion within that source.

- We will have assertions from sources that supposedly speak from firsthand
experience -- which, again, may or may not be reliable. Again, we identify
the source and the nature of the firsthand experience that is alleged. Then,
as research progresses, we continue to make judgments as to the
acceptability of each assertion that person made, bearing in mind that in
any document by people with "firsthand knowledge," there will likely be some
points on which their information is only secondary or hearsay.

Ergo, my first statement above: Everything we record is tentative. While
less-serious researchers expect "plain facts" and "final answers," good
researchers know that neither exists. 

Elizabeth

-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Track 4, Advanced Research Methodology & Evidence Analysis
Samford University Institute of Genealogy & Historical Research

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