APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-08 > 1093051826


From: "Elissa Scalise Powell, CGRS" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] errors in census ages - new wrinkle
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:30:26 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20040820184213.72792.qmail@web52903.mail.yahoo.com>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Remington [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:42 PM
<snipped> It does raise a question, however. If such errors are not as
ridiculously
> off as 231 years, can we rely on the census ages in on-line indexes for
> narrowing potential candidates or do we need, as always, to "consider the
> source" and rely instead on our best judgments.

I would say to not rely on our best judgment but rely on the source. As we
all know the index is a derivative source passed through a brain that saw
the original and filtered out through the screens of experience, bias,
error, omission and interpretation. The size and amount of these filter
screens give the index its quality.

But no matter how high the quality of the index, one should *always*
interpret the data for oneself by looking at the source. You wouldn't stop
at the index at the back of the book without looking at the book, would you?

I had a student who could not get past an Ellis Island database summary
entry that said his grandmother was married when she came. He refused to
believe it was her although the spelling of the name was pretty close and
the town she came from was also close. He was hinging his entire judgment on
one letter that could have been a typo (or lie on her part). Perhaps if he
had looked at the original he would have seen enough convincing evidence to
know it was her, but he could not get past that single index entry to even
try.

An index is only a tool to get back to the source, and that should be our
goal: to view the original in the context in which it lives. For census this
also means looking at the neighbors; for passenger lists looking at other
passengers who may be travel companions; for probate looking at everyone
named in the papers. That is where the true treasure lies. Not in the
derivative source.

My .02,
-- Elissa



This thread: