SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 2000-10 > 0971346979


From: "John Townsend" <>
Subject: [SOG] Internet users, the 1901 census
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:36:19 +0100


Barney Tyrwhitt-Drake wrote:

[snip]
> You are absolutely right. Suppose the correct transcription is Sawyer
> and both prisoners put it in as Lawyer. The mistake isn't going to even
> get to the referee. This is where good skills and training come into
> play. I am not saying that the family historians used for the 1881 were
> perfect, but at least most of us have years of training and experience.

To which Hugh Wilding replied:

"But does it matter? What is being created is an index, a finding aid not
an original source. If we are serious about our research, then we use the
index entry that says "Lawyer" to find the original enumeration where we
discover the occupation is actually "Sawyer". Or are we being made too lazy
by "1881" etc.? Of course there is always the possibility that we make the
same mistake as the cons <g> but that's why we should also always be looking
for corroborative evidence when it comes to statements about employment and
occupation."

Of course, one should look at the original, and it would be important to
do that even if the transcription had not been performed by criminals. But
isn't part of the problem that checking the original source will not be
easy?

The argument that incorrect transcription is acceptable because it should
come to light sounds fallacious to me. At the best, it would result in
researchers'
time/money being wasted. Incidentally, I would be interested to hear if
there are safeguards to prevent the transcribers taking shortcuts, or even
deliberately introducing
errors. On the whole, I think I shall prefer to hope that my ancestors
lived on until 1911!

Regards,

John Townsend (#9638)

This thread: