I'm curious on what others do about putting a record that someone else gathered and shared but with no documentation. When it's the same town it's easier to accept but when it takes you to another state in Mexico I'm not sure if I should use it. It's not my direct line but my cousins line and the info takes it back to the late 1500's in Mexico when I only have it back to abt 1850. I always try to share my documentation when sharing files. Any suggestions?
Linda in Everett
Documentation of Information
This is such a common problem with internet genealogy. It seems that many people do not understand citing sources, and do not know what are valid references. I have occassionally tried to contact some people that have posted genealogies, and I have gotten very mixed responses. These have varied from none, to rather indignant replies, like "I know it's correct because my grandmother told me."
Family tradition is fine; sometimes it has basis in fact, sometimes not. If something is an unverified tradition, then so state! Perhaps someone will have the data that substantiates it.
Some data is open to interpretation: look at it critically. If the data is only suggestive of a connection, then state it.
I try to verify information against real sources whenever possible.
The Petronila de Moctezuma/Martin Navarro situation is a case in point. You see a lot of posted genealogies with them, but the evidence is lacking. I have looked at several histories, including "Montezuma's Children" by Chipman, They are not mentioned at all. Why?
In summary: I would make a note of the connection, continue to do the research; and someday may be able to make the connection.
George Fulton
Pleasanton, CA
Documentation of Information
In my opinion you should document where you got everything.
That way, you will always be able to re-evaluate your information by
looking at where you got it. I got a lot of information, for example,
from two family researchers. As time went on, I discovered that one of
these sources was very dependable and the other was full of errors.
Since I have documented where every piece of data came from, I can now
evaluate it intelligently. When I find new evidence, I know which I
can trust the most.
I have always been very wary of undocumented sources. I use them with
great care. Sometimes I have even been known to just throw them away,
because I would rather have less information that I am more sure of -
quality rather than quantity.
Everybody's database contains some junk. The problem is, what if you
can no longer remember which is junk and which is solid research? The
only way you can know is to document. It is one of the reasons I am
hesitant to share my work - because often when I have done so, the
receiver takes the whole thing, throws away all my carefully
documented source citations, and then re-publishes the tree, empty of
all source documentation and most of the comments. Well, some
of it was doubtful, but the documentation said so. Now it is
miss-represented as being all true and of equal weight!
--
Best regards,
Stuart mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com
Documentation of Information
I have had the same experiences that you wrote about.
When I first started out I did not document everything, or if I did, I did not put it into the computer with the rest of my work. Now I am going back and checking all inputted information and making sure that sources are with all data.
I have corrected errors that I had originally copied from reliable sources but have turned out to be wrong. In both of these instances the errors were made when I first stated collecting info and did not realize the importance of documenting all sources. I had blindly folowed someones work that did not have sufficient documentation.
Quality is the key to genealogy. I have put to much work and time to sabotage it all in the interest of quantity.
________________________________
From: research-bounces@lists.nuestrosranchos.org on behalf of Stuart Armstrong
Sent: Sun 4/19/2009 8:48 PM
To: gpf13@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Documentation of Information
In my opinion you should document where you got everything.
That way, you will always be able to re-evaluate your information by
looking at where you got it. I got a lot of information, for example,
from two family researchers. As time went on, I discovered that one of
these sources was very dependable and the other was full of errors.
Since I have documented where every piece of data came from, I can now
evaluate it intelligently. When I find new evidence, I know which I
can trust the most.
I have always been very wary of undocumented sources. I use them with
great care. Sometimes I have even been known to just throw them away,
because I would rather have less information that I am more sure of -
quality rather than quantity.
Everybody's database contains some junk. The problem is, what if you
can no longer remember which is junk and which is solid research? The
only way you can know is to document. It is one of the reasons I am
hesitant to share my work - because often when I have done so, the
receiver takes the whole thing, throws away all my carefully
documented source citations, and then re-publishes the tree, empty of
all source documentation and most of the comments. Well, some
of it was doubtful, but the documentation said so. Now it is
miss-represented as being all true and of equal weight!
--
Best regards,
Stuart mailto:stuartarms@gmail.com
Documentation of Information
Thank you to those of you who responded to my question on documentation of research. I respect your opinions...
Linda in Everett
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Ricci, Richard wrote:
I have had the same experiences that you wrote about.
When I first started out I did not document everything, or if I did, I did not
put it into the computer with the rest of my work. Now I am going back and
checking all inputted information and making sure that sources are with all
data.
Quality is the key to genealogy. I have put to much work and time to sabotage
it all in the interest of quantity.
---------------------
In my opinion you should document where you got everything.
That way, you will always be able to re-evaluate your information by
looking at where you got it. I got a lot of information, for example,
from two family researchers. As time went on, I discovered that one of
these sources was very dependable and the other was full of errors.
Since I have documented where every piece of data came from, I can now
evaluate it intelligently. When I find new evidence, I know which I
can trust the most.
I have always been very wary of undocumented sources. I use them with
great care. Sometimes I have even been known to just throw them away,
because I would rather have less information that I am more sure of -
quality rather than quantity.
Everybody's database contains some junk. The problem is, what if you
can no longer remember which is junk and which is solid research? The
only way you can know is to document. It is one of the reasons I am
hesitant to share my work - because often when I have done so, the
receiver takes the whole thing, throws away all my carefully
documented source citations, and then re-publishes the tree, empty of
all source documentation and most of the comments. Well, some
of it was doubtful, but the documentation said so. Now it is
miss-represented as being all true and of equal weight!
--
Best regards,
Stuart
Documentation of Information, Two tips
Dear Researchers--
I have taught Beginning Hispanic Family History in years past and I have always told people that the need for documentation was the most important thing that they could learn from me.
I would like to add two items which I have not seen mentioned. First, whenever I write down my source, I always include the date it was given, along with the name of the person and usually their relationship to the person for whom the information is given. Sometimes, people in their later years, will develope dementia or other problems. I want my records to show if their information came at a time that they could correctly remember or if they might have had memory problems.
The second tip is to say "apparently" when writing about something which is unclear. For example, I will say "apparently Jose and Maria had 10 children". I might find later that they had more or less but I have not nailed myself down to one answer. By using the word "apparently", I have left the door open for future revelations and eventually the correct answer on children might become evident.
Sincerely,
Patricia Burton
San Diego
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Erlinda Castanon-Long wrote:
> From: Erlinda Castanon-Long
> Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Documentation of Information
> To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
> Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:14 PM
> Thank you to those of you who responded to my question on
> documentation of research. I respect your opinions...
>
> Linda in Everett
>
> --- On Mon, 4/20/09, Ricci, Richard
> wrote:
>
>
> I have had the same experiences that you wrote about.
> When I first started out I did not document everything, or
> if I did, I did not
> put it into the computer with the rest of my work. Now I am
> going back and
> checking all inputted information and making sure that
> sources are with all
> data.
>
> Quality is the key to genealogy. I have put to much work
> and time to sabotage
> it all in the interest of quantity.
> ---------------------
>
> In my opinion you should document where you got everything.
> That way, you will always be able to re-evaluate your
> information by
> looking at where you got it. I got a lot of information,
> for example,
> from two family researchers. As time went on, I discovered
> that one of
> these sources was very dependable and the other was full of
> errors.
> Since I have documented where every piece of data came
> from, I can now
> evaluate it intelligently. When I find new evidence, I know
> which I
> can trust the most.
>
> I have always been very wary of undocumented sources. I use
> them with
> great care. Sometimes I have even been known to just throw
> them away,
> because I would rather have less information that I am more
> sure of -
> quality rather than quantity.
>
> Everybody's database contains some junk. The problem
> is, what if you
> can no longer remember which is junk and which is solid
> research? The
> only way you can know is to document. It is one of the
> reasons I am
> hesitant to share my work - because often when I have done
> so, the
> receiver takes the whole thing, throws away all my
> carefully
> documented source citations, and then re-publishes the
> tree, empty of
> all source documentation and most of the comments. Well,
> some
> of it was doubtful, but the documentation said so. Now it
> is
> miss-represented as being all true and of equal weight!
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Stuart
>
>
>
Documentation of Information, Two tips
this is nice!!
thanks for sharing
Yolanda Guerra
--- On Tue, 4/21/09, patricia burton wrote:
From: patricia burton
Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Documentation of Information, Two tips
To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 9:27 PM
Dear Researchers--
I have taught Beginning Hispanic Family History in years past and I have always told people that the need for documentation was the most important thing that they could learn from me.
I would like to add two items which I have not seen mentioned. First, whenever I write down my source, I always include the date it was given, along with the name of the person and usually their relationship to the person for whom the information is given. Sometimes, people in their later years, will develope dementia or other problems. I want my records to show if their information came at a time that they could correctly remember or if they might have had memory problems.
The second tip is to say "apparently" when writing about something which is unclear. For example, I will say "apparently Jose and Maria had 10 children". I might find later that they had more or less but I have not nailed myself down to one answer. By using the word "apparently", I have left the door open for future revelations and eventually the correct answer on children might become evident.
Sincerely,
Patricia Burton
San Diego
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Erlinda Castanon-Long wrote:
> From: Erlinda Castanon-Long
> Subject: Re: [Nuestros Ranchos] Documentation of Information
> To: research@nuestrosranchos.org
> Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:14 PM
> Thank you to those of you who responded to my question on
> documentation of research. I respect your opinions...
>
> Linda in Everett
>
> --- On Mon, 4/20/09, Ricci, Richard
> wrote:
>
>
> I have had the same experiences that you wrote about.
> When I first started out I did not document everything, or
> if I did, I did not
> put it into the computer with the rest of my work. Now I am
> going back and
> checking all inputted information and making sure that
> sources are with all
> data.
>
> Quality is the key to genealogy. I have put to much work
> and time to sabotage
> it all in the interest of quantity.
> ---------------------
>
> In my opinion you should document where you got everything.
> That way, you will always be able to re-evaluate your
> information by
> looking at where you got it. I got a lot of information,
> for example,
> from two family researchers. As time went on, I discovered
> that one of
> these sources was very dependable and the other was full of
> errors.
> Since I have documented where every piece of data came
> from, I can now
> evaluate it intelligently. When I find new evidence, I know
> which I
> can trust the most.
>
> I have always been very wary of undocumented sources. I use
> them with
> great care. Sometimes I have even been known to just throw
> them away,
> because I would rather have less information that I am more
> sure of -
> quality rather than quantity.
>
> Everybody's database contains some junk. The problem
> is, what if you
> can no longer remember which is junk and which is solid
> research? The
> only way you can know is to document. It is one of the
> reasons I am
> hesitant to share my work - because often when I have done
> so, the
> receiver takes the whole thing, throws away all my
> carefully
> documented source citations, and then re-publishes the
> tree, empty of
> all source documentation and most of the comments. Well,
> some
> of it was doubtful, but the documentation said so. Now it
> is
> miss-represented as being all true and of equal weight!
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Stuart
>
>
>