With many thanks to Elizabeth, Bill and others;
I believe there may be mistakes in any sort of record we try to use, and as Elizabeth said before, we need to find as many primary sources as possible. I discovered at almost age 70!
that my father's father was not the man I thought and had known from childhood. What a shock!
And some of us have no opportunity to do a helpful DNA test (have done the National Geog.
test/Dr. Spencer Wells--good for very deep ancestry). The only male source I have is on my mother's side--totally Scandinavian ancestry.
I wish new genealogy researchers would understand that Family Search, Ancestry, World Family Tree, etc. are good for CLUES, but please back it up with research..
J. Watkins
--- On Mon, 3/14/11, Elizabeth Shown Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Elizabeth Shown Mills <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] Virginia Citations
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, March 14, 2011, 8:37 PM
> Using family trees that may not be correct ... is only a starting point.
The records on Ancestry are great & I wish there were
more. The family
trees on Family Search aren't always correct either. The records on Family
Search are great too.
This observation makes an immensely important distinction. Many
genealogists loosely refer to sites such as Ancestry.com or FamilySearch in
a generic way, as though everything at either site was of the same type and
quality. As the above quote implies, however, there is a critical
difference between actual records (which both sites offer) and family trees
(which both sites offer).
Even within these two broad categories---records and family trees---there
are fundamental differences in reliability that need to be noted. Both sites
apply the term "records" to several types of materials that careful
genealogists distinguish between: (a) image copies of documents; (b)
abstracts or extracts; and (c) indexes or database entries. Similarly, the
trees at both sites
represent an infinite range of reliability. Some
individuals, as Steve describes for himself, seriously try to provide
evidence for each assertion they make on the trees they post. At the other
extreme (and the more-common one, unfortunately), others naively copy
anything and everything they find anywhere and repost it as though it were
gospel.
It helps to advance the cause of reliability, IMO, when our discussions of
quality focus upon the distinctions between classes of material rather than
making generic indictments of providers. Certainly, television commercials
and shows such as WDYTYA "oversimplify" the research that accurate genealogy
requires. On the other hand, how many of us would have embarked upon our
genealogical studies if we had understood how many complications and
frustrations would thwart our discoveries? When providers such as Ancestry
and FamilySearch expand public interest in personal
history, that expansion
makes it possible to provide even more actual records for all us to use.
Neither we as individuals nor our societies or archives have the resources
or the PR skills to generate that public interest. However, we do have the
skills to educate those who are attracted to genealogy through television or
the Internet. When our online discussions routinely include distinctions
between the reliability of various types of materials---in a matter-of-fact
way that explains without condemning---we make that education happen.
Elizabeth
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Tennessee
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
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
|
