melsonr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Robert Melson) wrote:
>In article <l8lcr3pt14n7spoonctqp06bhtid1j2g00@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
><snip>
>> For you, yes. For others, the object may be different.
>>
>> For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history,
>> whether it is of my family or some other. History is aided by facts
>> when they are available, but useful history can be built based on
>> analysis of subjective information as well.
>>
>> lojbab
>
>I think one of the things Hugh's been getting at is the
>question of what standards one applies to the analysis of
>information, not the nature of the information, per se. So
>let me ask, what guidelines/criteria/rules do YOU apply in
>the analysis of your subjective information?
In my case, I treat unverified data as ... unverified and presumably
subjective data. In the absence of anything else, I apply a common
sense check, and then use it, noting to myself that it is unverified
(I mark the source, of course, and I know that the source is not a
verified one).
If data is heavy with violations of common sense (we all probably know
of the data sets that have people who are their own great
grandparents, or people who lived 200 years, or were married before
they were born), then I generally ignore it entirely.
If people have a specific day month year, I usually presume that there
was some primary source behind it at some point, though it might be
15th level hearsay.
I'm perfectly happy to include data in my tree that has a chance of
being bogus, over no data at all. But I remain aware that the data
may be bogus.
I do tend to prioritize sources by reliability in choosing which data
value to display as my preferred value. But I retain other proposed
values in my notes, often with a note as to why I am choosing a
different value.
>All of us here, I think, like to believe we're fairly
>rigorous in the conclusions we draw from the data we dig
>up, tho' the truth is that some are more demanding than
>others.
I don't claim to be rigorous, because my concept of rigor is probably
too much like Hugh's mathematically trained concept, and I don't think
mathematical rigor can apply to the social sciences. I would accept
scientific rigor (which is less than mathematical rigor), but in my
mind, that would require DNA testing - not an option for most of my
research.
Rather, I just try to exercise reasonable judgement, and then provide
some do***entation of what I've done. On the other hand, I don't
do***ent my sources according to any academic standard. I just make
sure that it is pretty obvious to me (or someone who knows my data
pretty well) why I've put this particular factoid in my database.
I have people that I work with, and they seem satisfied with my work
quality. And since most of my work these days is with ancient French
parish records and I don't know more than a few words of the language,
getting compliments on the quality of my work from native French
speakers tends to be self-confidence building.
>And, certainly, I'd be much more inclined to trust
>the research of somebody I knew dotted all the I's and crossed
>all the T's, rather than merely waved his hands over the data
>and pronounced it acceptable.
Of course.
On the other hand, I tend to appreciate someone who has done an
enormous amount of work, even with a small amount of error, over
someone who has invested an enormous amount of effort dotting the Is
and crossing the ts. I *respect* the latter, especially when it leads
to finding something that wouldn't have otherwise been found, but I
wouldn't ever do that sort of thing myself, and I don't really
"appreciate" it to the same degree that I would, say, a truly large
collection of 95% accurate data, where the 5% is not likely to be too
far wrong.
But I hope that someone who is doing something that meticulous is
doing it for themselves, and not for me. With a hobby the first and
only one you have to please is yourself.
As you might gather, I greatly appreciate ancestry.com, with its
enormous quantities of data, often poorly indexed by people who don't
know the language. I can live with the indexing problems, so long as
the data is available.
> Hugh may be the one extreme and,
>for all I know, you might be the other (tho' I'm not suggesting
>that, at all).
>
>As to standards and standard setting organizations, I have to
>say it all depends. If your objective is to join the DAR/SAR,
>then you'll do***ent your claim in accordance with their rules
>and standards.
Obviously. But precisely because I don't respect the rules, I would
never bother (even assuming I qualified).
And of course if you are foolish enough to try to be a "professional
genealogist" and get people to pay you for what you do, then obviously
you have to keep the customer satisfied, whoever that customer might
be. I for one wouldn't pay someone by the hour to meet AGS or DAR
standards.
Indeed, other than some weird inheritance thing that promised me big
bucks for meeting some legal standard, I'm not sure I can imagine why
I would ever bother to meet someone else's standards for any reason
other for my own convenience.
>If you're gathering information on your ancestors
>in order to prepare LDS temple ordinances for them, you follow
>THEIR rules.
Considering the crud that has made it into the IGI database, I'm not
impressed by their rules.
Of course, if you are doing something according to their rules, you
aren't doing it according to someone else's rules. Since the
standards are not in fact "standard" what plays here might not play
somewhere else. Working with French and with Canadian records and
researchers, I've quickly learned just how many different standards
there are, and just how incompatible they are.
As a result, it is hard to take any standard seriously.
>If you're a hobbyist, you have a choice and do what satisfies your own
idea of thoroughness and reasonableness.
Except for those who are "professionals" or wannabes, we are all
hobbyists.
lojbab
|
