>Wonder what kind of market would be available for a site that only allowed
information that was documented.

>My take on it is you use these sites as guide lines and only put documented
facts in your ancestral tree. They can help sometimes with correct
information and also lead you to correct finding the correct information.


A site that actually requires documentation is very likely to happen. The
more consumers call for it, the sooner that day will come. We've seen that
principle work in the past with genealogical software which, in its earliest
incarnations, provided no documentation capability at all because the
developers saw little demand for it. 

But, of course, "documentation" does not equate to *reliability*; and
"correctness" is a matter of judgment. Documentation helps us assess the
likelihood of reliability. Yet even the most reliable types of sources can
err on any individual detail; and *information* that is correct from one
standpoint may generate a wrong *conclusion* if used in a different context.


Today, in the September issue of the _NGS Quarterly,_ I read a review of a
recent book by an academic who described genealogy as "essentially an
exercise in information-gathering." The reviewer, Helen L. Whyte, CG, of
Ottawa, gently knuckle-rapped the book's author for that description. In
doing so, Ms. Whyte makes an important point: reliable genealogy is not
simply the gathering of "facts" or the assembly of "information."  

Everything we think of as a "fact" is simply an assertion someone has made.
Without knowing the basis for an assertion, we have no way of judging
whether that assertion might be credible, which is why so many genealogists
quickly condemn those undocumented trees. But the presence of documentation
does not mean that an assertion is correct. In the end, "correctness' is a
judgment call each of us has to personally make; and that judgment call is
made on multiple levels. We not only have to consider whether a particular
detail in a particular record is accurate for its intended purpose, but also
whether that piece of information applies to our person of that name. 

Conclusions about identity and kinship ultimately have to be made on the
basis of all the information known for a person. The more complete the
research is into a human life, the more accurate a conclusion is likely to
be. As we strive for that impossible goal of total accuracy, we help
ourselves as well as others if, each time we record a 'fact,' we don't just
cite a source attach an image but also discuss our reasoning. (Why do we
feel that source is reliable? Why do we think it pertains to our person?
Etc.) In doing so, we also silently educate those who assume the hoop-la
over citing source is just pointless make-work.

Elizabeth

-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
The Evidence Series

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