Elizabeth,

Very good advice.  Where may we find your work on the internet?  I am quite 
curious to see what perfection looks like.

Seriously, I believe that some of you are discussing two different 
situations.  IIMO most who "publish" their histories on the internet are 
doing so with the idea of just getting their family story out there, not 
writing history.  Then there are those of us who publish for clients, their 
family history.  Two different environments and situations.  My data goes 
out there on the internet sites for others to see and use for hints and 
starting places, for generating thought and hopefully to contact "family" 
who may have more tidbits and especially, pictures.  I always state do your 
own work.

I do not consider genealogies "published" at places like Ancestry or LDS to 
be anything other than a well from which we dip into to gather bits of 
thought provoking information to be assimilated into our own research at 
some point in time.  Whether we chose to do further research or just pour it 
into our tree is a personal choice.  Believe me, I have seen plenty of 
"professional genealogist" work that isn't worth the paper it is printed on 
and is still accepted by various societies.  My own Mayflower Fuller line is 
a prime example of genealogies done a long time ago and accepted as fact 
that are pure fiction.  I also believe there are a minority of those who are 
looking for that famous or infamous person to be related to.  I don't know 
how many times I have heard, "I think we are related to so and so and I want 
to prove it.  These people are biased already and will become related to 
whomever it takes to get there.

So if we agree to disagree and accept the fact that some care, some don't, 
we can only try to lead and hope they follow.

Steve Stevens

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Shown Mills" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] reliable sources


> 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 

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