APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 1999-12 > 0944501815


From: "Everett B. Ireland" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] CDs, errors, conference attendees, etc.
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 09:36:55 -0800


Michael Neill wrote:

> IMHO-
>
> 1) I think there's still a tremendous amount that APG and other professional
> organizations can do to encourage the production of digital data that is as
> accurate as humanly possible without the creation of an "approval seal" of
> some type. Awareness of errors, careful and responsible integration of
> "computer" data into the research process, and reviews that focus on the
> whole product (not just "gee whiz," "golly," "isn't this neat?") are a part
> of this process.

We have to agree with this. Isn't that what responsible researchers should do?

>
>
> 2) While there are differences, textbooks in teaching field from my
> non-genealogy job (mathematics) are not "approved" by any of the several
> professional teaching bodies. However, there are textbooks and other
> materials written with the standards of one of our two bodies in mind. The
> bodies do not certify any materials, but the materials are created with the
> standards in mind. (FYI- NCTM and AMATYC are the ones that personally come
> to mind--I'm not mentioning them to discuss their standards--that's another
> list and another soapbox (grin!)). Admittedly, textbooks are not the same as
> CDs--this is mentioned for comparison only.

We are in a good position on this item. There are some excellent books on the
market now which can help the beginners chart there way through solution of
complex problems - and the NGS courses and syllabus are invaluable.

>
>
> 3) I agree that we need to be as concerned about accuracy "difficulties"
> with paper materials as well as with digital publications. Newspapers and
> other print materials genealogists use also contain significant number of
> errors.

Again, these are not unique problems for genealogists. We just have to be
professional in how we use them.

>
>
> 6) Re: 2000/2001. I'm not going to get into this debate (I do however have a
> definite opinion), but remember if humans had 6 fingers on each hand, we'd
> most likely be using a base 12 number system instead of a base 10 one and
> this whole 2000 thing would not be happening for another 1456 years (2000 in
> base twelve equates to 3456 in base 10). All because humans started counting
> using their fingers.

We do have an octal system - for four fingered people?

>
>
> Michael
>
> ==== APG Mailing List ====
> The Association of Professional Genealogists
> ************* 1979 to 1999 *****************
> Celebrating 20 years of excellence!

This thread: