Gentry's discussion of Chalkelys [9 November 2010]
FYI, Gentry's description of the merits and demerits of Chalkley's is, of course, excellent. In theory, the copyright notice:
Would seem to provide ample permission to use this item. However I've specifically asked for permission to place this material into a wiki environment. Ms. Gentry was quite explicit in denying that permission. Possibly her views have changed, and the wiki involved was not "WeRelate", but if this discussion is to be placed here it would probably be a good idea to ask her again. Q 15:58, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
You're right. The copyright notice seems to provide ample permission. Proper credit was given, no changes made. Had you not been alive and well to inform me that the copyright notice doesn't mean what it says, I would have been none the wiser. :) --Ronni 16:58, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
I suspect that this time permission will be given. When I asked this before the Wiki world was brand new, strange, and more than a little obscure. I think if this is asked again there's a good chance that in the interim two years, a different view will have developed. Q 18:24, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
We may just want to remove her comments altogether. Your comment, that permission in the past had been denied, made me do my own research. As a result, I see that Ancestry.com has the actual report that Ms. Gentry refers to. Perhaps a link to that and some of our own cautionary words will do. Also, this Google book has the proceedings of the DAR that discusses this issue in length. I think overall, providing these links will make for a better Source page. --Ronni 19:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, Chalkley's is a valuable resource, but since its apparently so riddled with errors of omission and commission, that its important that people be aware of its limitations. One day someone's going to start a group project to verify Chalkley---It would be interesting to see what kind of error rate one would get if one checked a smallish subsample. That's a do-able project, I think.
Its probably not the errors of commission that are going to be the problem, but the more subtle omissions---the kind of thing where "I couldn't find my ancestor in Chalkley, so I guess he wasn't in the area---not realizing how riddled with omissions the work probably is. I can sort of sympathize with Chalkley---imagine siting there day after day extracting this stuff---the idea that one person working alone could get everything right is not, I think reasonable. I wonder how he felt when he found out that his work had not been recommended for publication because of the errors?!
At anyrate, links to the various assessments may indeed be the best way to go. Q 19:26, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Repositories? [7 April 2008]
Didn't Dallan say something about the term "Repository" being restricted to "physical repositories"? That would make a certain amount of sense, since the term would then apply strictly to where the original material (in BCG's sense of the word) was stored. Which might or might not be the County Courthouse. Q 19:30, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
I think you're right. What heading then should be used? Internet locations? Electronic versions? --Ronni 19:42, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Personally, I like electronic source, but almost anything would do. ---probably does need the word "electronic" or "digital"? in there somewhere. Or maybe "Physical Repository" and "Electronic Repository". That would be a nice symmetric pairing that conveyed a sense of distinctly different concepts. Q 19:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)