TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264028524
From: Kathy Gunter Sullivan <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] To codify or not to codify
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:02:04 -0500
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>,<12BFE09E3B3642C2A38A0D0FD531A61F@acer511eba12df>,<firstname.lastname@example.org><COL108-W27FD598FD9B2D9B197EED392640@phx.gbl><email@example.com><15E776ACFE614740902E3F0065B2A0BC@JackPC><firstname.lastname@example.org> <BB5D934E98294B2EA2F46845BD03CEBE@JackPC><4CDAAD1442AD4B4397E3A18BAD016A45@acer511eba12df> <03c201ca9a16$10be85c0$323b9140$@net><47E6306D1094437EAF6377C07E599D6C@acer511eba12df>
The discussion about standards is beneficial. I appreciate it very much,
and hope it continues to focus on genealogical standards. Some remarks
seem to wander a bit off-topic from standards discussion into
assumptions and generalizations.
> The peer review component of certification is the main factor (my opinion),
> though that's where I stop. But I'd like to see more peer reviews of
> professional research, independent of the BCG.
Isn't this part of the healthy process of publishing in respected
journals independent of any certifying body?
Isn't this process part of TGF study groups (and other informal groups)
who have the same discussions among themselves on a private basis?
> What I meant was that other professionals who make any claims that their
> work "meets the GPS" are being purely subjective, without any peer review
Does this pertain to a specific example or is it a generalization?
> Genealogists (CG or otherwise) who subjectively claim or wonder if specific research work meets the GPS or
> not, in their day to day research are using it in a different context. And
> that's why I keep asking "what's it mean to you when you say your work 'has
> met the Genealogical Proof Standard'. And I'd add, what's it mean to your
> client? Donn, do you make that claim in your contract (that your work meets
> a Genealogical Proof Standard)?
I don't know of any genealogists (professionals, amateurs, hobbyists, or
whomever of whatever ilk) making such a claim on their websites or in
their program profiles. Personally, I work toward it, but I would never
advertise a ridiculous statement that "my research meets the BCG
Genealogical Proof Standard," nor do my contracts include such a claim.
Thanks, everyone, for the discussion. I hope it continues.
Kathy Gunter Sullivan
Charlotte, North Carolina