Paul, I don't have any hang-ups on how many qualifiers/labels one
uses, or even on their definitions.  But when information is passed to
me I very much want to have some qualitative feel, or assessment,
about how good that information is, or where it came from.  (And
similarly, I feel responsible for passing this same kind of
information on when I'm the conduit.)  So to the extent that such
labels assist in that communication I support their use.  Of course,
if everyone meticulously, and honestly, documented their sources (and
passed that information on as a part of their conclusions or final
product) I would be able to judge for myself, but they don't.

For example, if I'm told that Fred Smith's wife's name was Ellen
Jones, it makes all the difference in the world to me whether that
information came from a "primary source" (however you define that
term), or whether that information came from Aunt Susie via her good
friend, Ethel - which is "hearsay."  In either case, I'm likely to
check it out for myself, but having that qualitative information as a
part of the communication is extremely helpful in how to begin to
verify it.

But I will agree slavish adherence to labels is counter-productive;
communicating verbally or in print, or on the Internet, a qualitative
assessment of the relative quality of the information is highly useful
and productive.

Lou Poole, Richardson, TX

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