SOUTH-AFRICA-IMMIGRANTS-BRITISH-L ArchivesArchiver > SOUTH-AFRICA-IMMIGRANTS-BRITISH > 2007-03 > 1173239487
From: Delia Robertson <>
Subject: Re: [ZA-IB] Umtata Methodist Registers Part 1
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:51:27 +0200
References: <EIENJANPGDBOHENDCLJKGEILDNAA.email@example.com> <005d01c76012$9d5a09f0$0200000a@cornishterrier><014301c76019$8ffbc800$0400000a@Marielle>
Dear Marielle and all,
While ZA-IB is primarily for discussion of immigrants from the British
Isles prior to 1900, my view is that, *if you have the time* when you
are transcribing a source document, it is preferable to transcribe the
whole thing. My reasons are two-fold: as you say, having gone on the
list they become part of the Rootsweb archive and therefor accessible to
researchers of any persuasion, far and wide; secondly we do not know
what personal information someone may have, now or in the future, that
establishes a connection with some of the individuals mentioned in the
source . . . whether it be employee, friend, lover, enemy, etc. These
are the things that add to our knowledge of the times and the people who
shared that space with our relatives.
With specific reference to those for whom only first names are recorded
. . . I think those too, should be transcribed (again, providing you
have the time). Surnames were not then a factor among the Xhosa people
and family histories may not have been written down, but that does not
mean they were not recorded in the oral tradition. There are currently
a number of initiatives to record as many oral histories as possible,
and anything that can potentially add to that would be greatly welcomed,
I am sure.
Thank you for your many contributions to the list.
Marielle Ford wrote:
> Okay, before this goes any further, I had no intention of sparking any
> animosity in this debate - just curious as to what others thought I should
> I know that some other transcribers have chosen not to include info that
> seems irrelevant to the specific lists, and, in fairness to Moira, the focus
> for the SA Brit list is mainly on British Immigrants.
> Having said that, I see Ian's point in that if it is available, then perhaps
> it should be included. After all, if you type a certain name into google,
> it is likely to pop up from the Rootsweb archives even if you have not
> belonged to one of the lists.