GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-01 > 0949208094


From: "Janet Denham" <>
Subject: Fw: Fw: books evaluaton on line
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:54:54 -0600


Has anyone done a review of Wurt's "Magna Charta" volumes? I ran across one
reference that indicated there might be serious errors in it.

Lee Denham
A progression in ignorance is a progress nonetheless




----- Original Message -----
From: Stewart Baldwin <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: books evaluaton on line


> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 09:31:49 -0800, "Chris Bennett"
> <> wrote:
>
> >Then maybe, in the spirit of what Leo is trying to do, you should forward
> >him your ratings, notwithstanding your doubts about the value of such
> >systems??? ;-) Chris
>
> I have never expressed doubts about the usefulness of offering
> opinions on the value of commonly used sources. In fact, if you check
> Dejanews, you will find that I have actively offered such ratings in
> the past. In late December 1996, I posted my own grades (on an ABCDF
> scale) of a number of the commonly used sources. Others also offered
> similar grades during the same period. On 19 July 1997, I posted an
> item with the subject line "Sources" which gave a synopsis of some of
> the ratings that had been offered the previous December, and other
> discussions along the same line took place at other times. Since I
> gave Leo the dates that I posted these items, I was assuming that
> these earlier s.g.m postings were part of what was used to create the
> current web page, although it is obvious that many of the opinions
> come from elsewhere, as there are a very large number of sources on
> the web page which were never discussed in the s.g.m threads (often
> with very high grades, which is why I am concerned about the possible
> grade inflation).
>
> If a page like this is being offered to the public, it is important to
> keep in mind how it is going to be used. A novice who uses one of the
> ratings on this page wants to know how reliable the genealogical
> information in a source is. It was suggested in discussions a few
> years back that every source, no matter how unreliable, has possible
> leads, and therefore no source is useless (although I think there are
> some books that are so bad that they are useless even as finding
> aids). I pointed out at the time that it was important to distinguish
> between a source's value as a finding aid (i.e., as a clue toward
> further research), and its value as a source for genealogical
> relationships (i.e., if a relationship is taken from that source
> without following up the actual evidence - which is how they are used
> 99% of the time - what are the chances that the information is
> correct?). If a book is very bad as a source for genealogical
> relationships (for example Burke's Peerage) but makes a good finding
> aid (which it does, used carefully), some are tempted to bump up the
> grade to reflect its value as a finding aid, something which is a
> terrible mistake, in my opinion. I feel that the main grade given
> should reflect ONLY the reliability of the genealogical information
> contained therein (because that is how the book actually get used by
> the rank and file genealogists), and that the value as a finding aid
> (or its value in other areas, such as historical), if any, should be
> given as a different grade. Note that this may sometimes mean that
> the low grade is not the fault of the author of the work, if the work
> is being used in a way different from what the author intended. As an
> example, Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies was written as a finding aid to
> the major Welsh genealogical collections, and deserves an "A" if used
> as a finding aid as it was intended to be. Used by a novice as a
> source for relationships (which is not the way it should be used), it
> is no better than a C- or D+, because Bartrum was only reporting what
> was in the major manuscripts, not trying to difinitively decide which
> versions were correct. Thus, this source should be rated a C- or D+,
> with a note explaining that is was intended as a finding aid. Sources
> which are purely finding aids (like the various genealogical guides)
> should be given no grade at all as a source for relationships (because
> they don't give any), and a separate "finding source" grade for their
> value in that area. The difference between using a book as a finding
> aid and using it as an actual source for relationships is something
> that too many novices don't understand, and any such rating system, if
> it is to do a service rather than a disservice, needs to make these
> differences clear. After all, it seems to me that the purpose of such
> a list is to try and steer people away from sources that are likely to
> fill their databases with junk, and toward the more reliable works.
>
> I think one problem is that this web page is trying to do too much too
> quickly. There seem to be a lot of sources here which were never
> discussed on s.g.m, and though I am unfamiliar with many of them, the
> large number of "A's" and "B's" makes me suspect that some of them are
> being graded too quickly and too leniently. Perhaps a better way
> would be to start with a dozen or so the most commonly used items and
> post the grades that have been adopted, asking for comments.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
>
>

This thread: