>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