Steve wrote:
>Reliable Sources....great topic.  Anyone know of any?
>No need to go on about primary or secondary sources, . . .
>So I do get a little un-nerved when someone expresses their perfection in
genealogy research, because it just ain't so.  You can do your best, but
that is just it, YOUR best.


Steve,

You are correct. No source is perfect. Fortunately, there are guidelines
that help immensely in our effort to sort chaff from wheat, so that 'our
best' becomes far more reliable. Unfortunately, those who do not bother to
learn those guidelines are the ones who create all the problems this thread
has bemoaned for several days. 

How to reach them and teach them is the real issue, IMO. We all know 'family
trees' to which we'd like to take Bunyan's axe, chopping them into
smithereens, and setting fire to the sawdust. But like a phoenix, they keep
arising from the ashes. 

The solution, IMO, is not to bash Ancestry, FamilySearch, or similar sites
who---beyond those trees---offer us a wonderful world of real records. My
own experience aligns with that of Nel and Clay. The best way to change the
dynamics is to teach the newcomers by example: making sure that *we* follow
sound genealogical practices and then putting our work out there, online, so
that others can see what quality work looks like. 


You pointed out a litany of real problems that exist with records we would
love to 'rely on.'  I would add that no type of source is generically
"reliable" or "unreliable." Virtually all are a mixed bag of assertions of
various quality. 

Equally important, those terms "primary source" and "secondary source" are
outdated and unworkable for genealogists. Genealogical research today is far
more reliable when we separate the physical form of a source from the
information within the source and evaluate each by its own kind of criteria.

In pursuit of that illusive state called 'our best,' most genealogists I
have known across the decades find that their 'best' becomes far better when
they follow five basic practices:

1. 
Learn the principles of textual analysis and evidence analysis; then apply
them to each piece of information we add to our files.

2.
Use derivative sources for the wonderful clues they can provide, but then
seek out the original records to verify the accuracy of what the derivative
sources assert.

3. 
Dissect every source into individual assertions. Then, evaluate ***each
individual assertion,*** applying all the relevant criteria, such as

---whether the informant had firsthand or secondhand knowledge of the
information asserted (that is, primary or secondary ***information***).
---whether the informant had cause for bias or a reason to fudge the facts.
---whether the informant recorded the information at the time the event
occurred, or many years later after memories dimmed.
---whether the source itself is an original document or a derivative such as
transcripts, abstracts, and compilations/histories.
---&c &c &c!

4.
Do reasonably exhaustive research for each person to better ensure the
soundness of our interpretations and conclusions. As Nel said (using
different words), any document left unconsulted is a ticking time bomb just
waiting to explode all our premature theories.

... and, of course ....

5. Document every single assertion that we make--and if we can't cite a
specific document that contains direct evidence to support our assertion,
then support it with a proof argument that assembles all the indirect
evidence leading to our conclusion.

Elizabeth

----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG

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