Thank you, Elizabeth--I love it when you check in here with your expertise!  You use "evaluate" often, and I am always struck by the fact that so many people fail to evaluate evidence--"its characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses." Too often they take second-hand material at face value--no evaluation involved. I've done that too, of course, and not long ago someone sent me the page from a marriage book that flatly rebutted the information I had received from someone who should have checked that source--and didn't. We also have to evaluate the skills of the people who give us information. 

Often people fail to evaluate external information--dates, locations, the historical events of the day, migration patterns, etc. I read these files that have one child born in GA and the next one in MD and immediately red flags go up. No sense of how migration patterns work. Or I read that So&So was born in Indiana in 1791. Uhhh--doubt it. No state by that name in 1791. So I go back and look at the census and sure enough the original says MD and Ancestry misread it, and everyone else took it as gospel. Etc. What the gatherers don't understand is just how many, many diverse factors are in play in analyzing and evaluating evidence.  The easy part is finding various sorts of evidence. The hard part is deciding what it probably means! Thanks for reminding us. 

Karen
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Elizabeth Shown Mills<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
  To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] using online sources


  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<http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html>

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