TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-10 > 1286673355
Subject: Re: [TGF] EE Discussion - Section 1.15 - Proof Arguments -Addressing Conflicting Evidence
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 21:15:55 -0400
References: <4CA23816.firstname.lastname@example.org><4CB07A6D.email@example.com> <4CB09FE6.firstname.lastname@example.org> <AANLkTim+ikC3UQfaFk1bqfmdjm4Bt1jhq3qaor9mmDHB@mail.gmail.com><C16BD8B3-29A0-4BC4-A471-5953EC60BB0D@me.com>
Thing is, I don't have a tree on Ancestry or intend to have one.
(Although, Harold, you do have a point about it having "a wider audience
than those conventional publications to which some of us also aspire."
So, I never say never.) I do believe that the best remedy for "sloppy"
or inaccurate trees is to provide a better example that has proper
citations and explanations of my reasoning, etc. The questions are when,
where, and how to make that happen. My pondering was directed more at
"those conventional publications," or as part of the BCG certification
portfolio, or client reports, things like that.
Jacqueline Wilson wrote:
><snip> you are only responsible for your own tree imho. But by adding a note to your tree that your person is NOT related to the other folks hanging around on neighboring branches and why, well it can only be a could thing. Hopefully whoever is searching will look and read what is on both branches!
>But we all learned better, at some point, by seeing someone else do better. A good tree won't change
>the world but it might provide a good example for those who do view it and
>start thinking differently. And, frankly, it may have a wider audience than
>those conventional publications to which some of us also aspire.