ADVANCED-RESEARCH-L Archives

Archiver > ADVANCED-RESEARCH > 2005-05 > 1115252217


From: kastf <>
Subject: Re: [ADVANRES] primary resource
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20050504200744.18509.qmail@web61007.mail.yahoo.com>


I used to let it get to me, but I decided that as long
as I had the right information, that was all that
really mattered. You can't change some people's minds,
nor their attitudes. When other researchers find me,
and ask to swap info, and then question me about my
differing facts, I explain the problem about where
they recieved their "facts" and then I ask if they
want the real or the "fantasy" information! lol It has
worked every time so far. Just keep plugging along,
correct the information that others have if they will
allow it, and chalk up the one person that denies the
obvious as
obtuse. That may sound harsh, but that is the way I
have come to look at it.
--- faye parker <> wrote:

> Sumner County TN's page administrator left out my
> grt. grandfather's name in a pedigree chart, and
> refuses to change it. She hates me so won't take my
> word for the fact my grt. grt. grandparents did have
> 3 sons not 2.
>
> kastf <> wrote:I have to get in on
> this one also. Many times, I have
> run across a "family tree", that would seem to
> connect
> to my research. I then find that there are NO
> sources
> listed. It is frustrating to say the very least. I
> ran
> across a family tree a few years ago, that had my
> grandmother's name wrong. And I do mean wrong! They
> also listed her husband's name, my grandfather,
> BACKWARDS! First name last, last name first. I
> contacted the "researcher", explained the problems,
> and offered proof of what I said. I never heard a
> thing back from her. Since then, I have been in
> contact with several others, that obviously had
> gotten
> information from the first "researcher" [don't get
> me
> wrong here, posting to Ancestry.com is all well and
> good], since they had the very same mistakes
> included
> in their research and had not bothered to check the
> validity of it! I was successful in helping them
> correct their information, but I know I will run
> into
> many others with the same erroneous information as
> the
> first researcher. And so the snowball
> continues.......
> --- Iris Kisch wrote:
>
> > Hi all -
> >
> > Documentation of sources is indeed a big issue,
> and
> > like many others on this
> > board, I have come across information from many
> > other researchers who made a
> > choice not to include documentation. Over time, I
> > have come to enjoy
> > collaboration with other researchers who are
> > interested in sources and
> > documentation. Although I have had many requests
> to
> > share information from
> > researchers who are not as conscientious with
> noting
> > sources, I simple
> > refuse to share my findings. Perhaps this is the
> > wrong thing to do, but
> > again, experience has taught me that sharing
> > information with these less
> > than careful researchers, results in finding my
> > information posted to some
> > website by the 'inattentive' researcher as his/her
> > own work.
> >
> > While I strongly believe in providing free access
> to
> > information, and will
> > willingly share information, I ensure that those
> > with whom I chose to share
> > information with are just as conscientious and
> > careful a researcher as I
> > believe I am. I have ended up collaborating with
> > other researchers on the
> > same ancestral line, and since we are all careful,
> > and diligently record all
> > sources, we are experiencing great success in our
> > research. True, it takes
> > time and money, but we try to save each other the
> > time and money by sharing
> > our documentation and research sources. In my
> > estimation, it takes time,
> > but it is well worth waiting for, because when you
> > find a researcher who
> > applies the same diligence you do towards
> research,
> > your findings are more
> > accurate.
> >
> > I think the best way to treat the work of those
> > researchers who elect not to
> > share sources is simply in the way that one would
> > treat oral family
> > histories - an interesting source that requires
> > proof! It may or may not be
> > true. Again, if a researcher would like to be
> taken
> > seriously, he or she
> > will list sources without reservation. It would be
> > an ideal world if
> > everyone applied the same diligence to research
> and
> > documentation as most of
> > us believe we do ourselves.
> >
> > Happy Ancestor Hunting To All.
> >
> > Iris Kisch
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "DPeyton"
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ADVANRES] primary resource
> >
> >
> > > I have to chime in on this also. It's somewhat
> > discouraging that
> > > individuals use information, thinking a valid
> > source isn't important. I
> > > think some researchers are so anxious to make a
> > connection that they
> > forego
> > > validating the information, which is a
> > disadvantage. The hearsay or
> > > 'family' story should be used as a clue and
> > investigated further - but on
> > > this board this is like "preaching to the
> choir".
> > >
> > > Denyce
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Karen"
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:30 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ADVANRES] primary resource
> > >
> > >
> > > > I know what you mean. Nothing is more
> > frustrating to me than to
> > > "discover"
> > > > a new link only to be told the proof is "WFT
> > so-an-so" and then to learn
> > > > that tree has no proofs listed either. It's
> > good for clues, but
> > someone,
> > > > somewhere had to have found at least a shred
> of
> > proof or they surely
> > > > wouldn't have posted it as fact. It's almost
> > like they're saying, "I
> > > found
> > > > it, it's mine, you can't have it." I have
> > encountered several so-called
> > > > researchers with this attitude. Not on this
> > board, so please no one
> > > should
> > > > take offense.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that at least some of these folks
> HAVE
> > no proof and are
> > relying
> > > on
> > > > hearsay or very flimsy circumstantial
> evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Gene Stuff"
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 11:17 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ADVANRES] primary resource
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I hope it isn't taken the wrong way, but in
> my
> > opinion, a HUGE
> > > improvement
> > > > > in genealogy would happen if we could just
> get
> > more researchers to
> > > > document
> > > > > their sources AT ALL. I feel uneasy about
> > scaring them off of this by
> > > > > demanding overly picky criteria about how
> they
> > ought to properly do
> > it.
> > > > (My
> > > > > apologies to the truly advanced researchers
> > who want to discuss the
> > > > minutia
> > > > > of documentation. Please continue to discuss
> > it.)
> > > > >
> > > > > KG
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
>
=== message truncated ===

This thread: