WRIGHT-L Archives
Archiver > WRIGHT > 2002-06 > 1023432862
From:
Subject: [WR] Wright Database
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 02:54:22 EDT
Barrie,
While I appreciate your sentiments and concern on the subject of Bill
Stewart's response to my recent e-mail on the Deacon Samuel Wright research
and his Wright database, I don't think the List is the place we should debate
the emotional impact of a e-mail or any other exchange that heats up on a
personal level here. The quicker it disappears from the list the better for
us all. With that intent in mind, let me try to end this exchange with a bit
of a public apology.
I am afraid I did offend Bill with an implied criticism of his database,
which he most certainly has spent a lot of time developing and of which he
can be justly proud. For that I have apologized directly to him already. No
one else need worry that he was too rough on me. I am a big boy and modest
enough to take no personal offense at such exchanges. This being, to me,
merely another good example of how easy it is for misunderstandings to be
achieved via e-mail. It really just adds support to Bill's instinctive
wariness at embracing what he receives via the Internet. It is not a bad
instinct to have.
For the record, my intention in writing him was to introduce myself to
someone I knew did not know of the work we are doing and to alert anyone else
on the list who did not know that there is current research going on that
will, when it is published, provide additional information which will more
than likely cause everyone to want to update that portion of their database
dealing with Deacon Samuel Wright. It specifically was not my intention that
anyone should take the few selected examples given in my e-mail as any sort
of gospel on the subject. While I always appreciate whatever information
comes to me through the Internet, I myself would never accept what I get that
way as any sort of proof of anything, even with references given. Many times
the Internet information I get is very helpful in locating those documents I
need to make changes, but I never change anything unless I have seen the
original documents or done the original research myself. Therefore, I did
not intend to convey the message that anyone should rush to change their
database on the strength of a e-mail from me. Perhaps I assumed too much of
this intent was a given.
I had hoped my message was only that there is reason to perhaps want to join
our little discussion group if anyone had an interest in debating what we are
finding, or not finding, in the case of many records that have been reported
to exist for the Deacon and his family, but which we have been unable to find
in the current record archives here or in England.
The matter of citations in e-mails is a little more touchy. On advise of
counsel, I cannot cite my own original research as reference or that of those
who work with me on this project before it has been properly copyrighted via
publication. For that nod to professionalism, I make no apologies. All we
have is our own work product; I and those with whom I have collaborated or
have paid to work on this project. We all feel we deserve the protection of
the law for our individual and collective intellectual property. Since the
entire construct of our work is based solely on original research with the
original archived documents, we simply cannot, in good conscience, cite
ourselves as the references until we all agree our citation descriptions are
complete and accurate and everyone involved has had a chance to insure they
are given proper acknowledgment for their part in the work.
I am sorry if there are those out there who want to see the "proof" now. It
is not as simple as citing a single source. For age old controversies like
the parentage of Deacon Samuel Wright, it takes a long time to sort through
all of the issues. Within our work the "proof," in many cases, consists of
multiple, nontraditional elements. Many times we are left with the need to
discuss what documentation we found, or did not find, where we searched, our
search strategy, the implications of what was or was not found and where it
was or was not found. The wider historical context surrounding the issue is
often discussed in conjunction with the implications, of the results of our
search for documentation. In addition the citation of a dozen source
documents for a single piece of data or concept being examined may be
required. We are drowning in reference material in this modern age, and if
we rush into the instant gratification of Internet posting we will more than
likely only do a partial treatment of our reference citations, and we will
end up with nothing better than what has been previously published on the
subject. We decided long ago we were not going there. This work is far too
complicated for that.
While I cannot at this time provide all of the information in sufficient
detail that I would call it a "proof" for every item of accepted Deacon
Samuel Wright genealogy I suspect to be in error, I can provide a more
general picture of the changes I believe will ultimately be needed. I am
willing to do that rather than just sneak up on everyone with this. In any
case, ya'll can take or leave it at this point, it makes no difference to me.
It was, after all, just a "heads up" message and not worth getting all bent
out of shape over. I apologize for starting this side debate on the List and
for the List space that it may take to get past it. With that in mind, if
anyone feels a need to express themselves further on this subject, could I
suggest that it be done off-List directly to Bill or I.
But really, why don't we just forget about this altogether and go on with
some other efforts to help each other with the genealogy in whatever ways
that we are comfortable.
Wishing you all the best of luck "rootin' "!
Mike Wright
This thread: