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