Hi, all,
Kathleen Much makes several important points regarding
documentation of genealogical information. The WFT and LDS
Pedigree files, though helpful, contain very many factual errors.
And there are professional reasons for steadfastly avoiding
the use of information plagiarized from another source.
Unfortunately - and I do not say this in support of
anyone in particular - these warnings hold for any source of
information, including any that might pass for "original"
documentation. Why is that? Many of the only available
versions of ancient documents are copies, and the quality of
a copy depends to some extent on the attentiveness of the
scribe, not to mention the quality of information in "the
original" document, if there was such a thing.
All experimental scientists know that, despite
appearances to the contrary, it is extremely difficult to
keep accurate records of things that, in the grand scheme of
life, can be described relatively accurately and completely.
How much greater this "problem" must be for sociologists and
historians, whose objects of study, though perhaps unambiguous
in a previous age, have been blurred by the passing of time?
The moral of the story? Everything must be taken
with a pinch of salt - everything.
It might also be helpful to one's research to assign
a probable level of certainty to every bit of information, and
to revise this as and when new information becomes available.
Thus, the level of certainty can range between 0 and 100 and
go up or down on access to new information.
Moreover, it is always the case that some information
is better than no information - as long as one can be cool-
headed and clear-minded enough not to be locked into thinking
in a certain direction, just in case a key bit of information
might later turn out to be definitely false or probably
incorrect! If one demands absolute certainty at every stage
of reseach, one will not get very far. Breakthroughs come from
making good guesses about what is likely to be the case and
then finding (not inventing!) factual information that
corroborates one's hunch.
Don't despair! Just think about the difficulties
faced by ancient historians, who often have very little
hard information to go on. And yet, it can be possible to
build a relatively accurate picture of what has happened.
One of the main reasons this is especially difficult for
genealogists working on events of the last several hundred
years is that we (usually) want to be very specific about
the lives of specific persons. The more precise one tries
to be, however, the easier it is to factually incorrect. For
example, the molar gas constant, a universal physical
constant, is 8.3149... J/K/mol, so 8.315 J/K/mol is factually
correct and 8.314 J/K/mol is not, even though the percentage
error is tiny (<< 1 %). So, for example, if very detailed
information is given for a marriage that allegedly occurred
in the 17th century, one might guess, depending on the
source, that it is fairly probable that the named persons
did actually marry, but perhaps not on the given date,
again depending on the source of information. The most
ancient source of information on such a marriage might
be a parish record, but hundreds of years later it might
be completely unclear whether the information was recorded
round about the time of the marriage or much later, or
whether the "original" document is indeed original.
Best wishes with your research,
Don Haynie
>From: Kathleen Much <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Kathleen Much <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: LDS vs. WFT
>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:58:11 -0700
>
>People new to genealogy think they have found a bonanza when they
>discover the WFT and LDS Pedigree files. NOT!
>
>It takes a while before you find out that both these sources are
>worthless as documentation; in addition, the WFT violates copyright
>all over the place. At least the Pedigree files were contributed
>voluntarily (though they too may contain plagiarized and unattributed
>material), whereas the WFT filches original research and then tries to
>sell it back to the originator.
>
>I am grateful to the LDS for their microfilm projects and use the IGI
>as a clue to finding original records, but I learned the hard way
>(many years ago) that the Ancestral File is hopelessly corrupt and
>that any entries in the IGI that are not verified by checking primary
>sources are not trustworthy.
>
>The same is true for books, of course. If an author cites primary
>sources, you MAY wish to believe his/her research. But it's still a
>good idea to spot check the work to see how accurate the citations
>are.
>
>We don't need to pick on historians (or genealogists) for slipshod
>methods. There are meticulous researchers in both fields, and there
>are many reprehensible frauds in both. What we need is a way to tell
>them apart, and probably the best way is to CHECK their work and
>spread the word when we find good and bad research.
>
>That's my aim here: Don't trust the WFT or the LDS Pedigree CDs. Check
>the original record indexed by the IGI. Don't accept undocumented
>research wherever it comes from.
>
>Kathleen Much
>[log in to unmask]
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
>http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
