GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2010-08 > 1282706914


From: Kathy <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Recording erroneous information
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:28:34 -0400
References: <4C72E404.6040603@att.net><CD6C00E7-D87F-4E3C-9C6C-45179BE3857D@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <CD6C00E7-D87F-4E3C-9C6C-45179BE3857D@comcast.net>


Donald Zochert wrote:
> I enter variant evidence in a research note attached to the pertinent
> event along with a summary of what I find unreliable or suspect about
> it. If it's justified I include my analysis of why I conclude some
> evidence is "known, reliably sourced information" and other evidence
> is not. This avoids evidence surety rankings and the use of alternate
> events. Both add clutter and not clarity to a database, in my view.

I agree. I don't use surety ratings. As they now stand in GB, they don't
make a lot of sense (they're not mutually exclusive, for one), plus I
don't find them all that useful. A writen explanation is usually more
explanatory. I really like the idea of the Rationale on the Assertion
tab of the Citation window, but it only applies to a single source, not
to the reasoning for the assertion as a whole as derived from multiple
sources.

I used to use alternate events a lot more, but now I combine all the
ones that can reasonably be combined. If two versions of the same event
are equally reasonable, I may maintain an alternate event.

> The analysis of conflicting evidence in most cases is something that
> might go in a footnote rather than be part of the body of a report.

Agree.

> For the record, I think of it as "conflicting evidence" rather than
> "erroneous information."

I was trying to distinguish between conflicting evidence that is
reasonable and that which is too bizarre to even be given a second
thought. For example, I have two birthdates for my great-grandfather,
each of which has reasonable supporting evidence. On the other hand, the
example I cited in my original email of a census stating that someone
was born in Iowa, when his birth certificate and a half dozen other
sources say Wisconsin, and stating that his parents were born in New
York, when they'd probably never set foot there in their lifetimes, I
consider erroneous information, just like the online family tree that
shows my father married to his mother.

I guess the question is should I come to that conclusion before I enter
the data in GB, or after?

Kathy

This thread: