WeRelate:About using sources

Why use sources and how to pick reliable ones

Since by convention, we do not work on living persons, most of the facts we deal with happened in the past, often long before we were born. Thus, almost nothing is known first-hand. All our knowledge is informed by other sources.

Experience teaches genealogists that recording sources is as important as collecting the raw facts. Probably more.

It helps avoid doing the same research multiple times.

Questions often come up years later, long after your memory of the source has faded.

When you work with others, you want get them to the same point you are, so they are in a position to add to your work. So... tell them how you got there.

People with the same, or peripheral, interests may not be aware of your source, and it may provide them information they have been lacking.

When you encounter discrpepant data, you will need to judge the reliability of the relative sources where the data came from. Is it authoritative? Is it independent or just a restatement of other sources? Is it contemporary?

There are occasional issues with typos, mistranscriptions, or fraud. These are minimized by proper citing of sources.

The Internet has allowed almost anybody to publish family trees, and the quality ranges from mostly poor to excellent. There have been many books published, sometimes in conflict, or of poor quality. And there is the ever-present possibility of human error in all records. So, given that not all sources can be trusted, what are the characteristics of a good source?

Usually more contemporary records are the best. Ideally, this is information collected at the time by official record keepers, or people with first-hand knowledge. Most later work will often be based on these records, even if it is misinterpreted or mistranscribed.

An original is clearly better than a copy,

Many times, older documents are not available and a copy must be used. A copy that is a transcript may be better than an index or abstract, as it provides more context.

Most indexes or copies for which the original source is a contemporary record, and whose main purpose was to present the information found in the original record, are generally reliable. It usually requires the original, or a very high quality independent source to show that such records are wrong, and if there is not indication of a problem, the effort may not be easily justified.

There is a major drop-off in quality from using contemporary sources to using secondary sources. When judging secondary sources, i.e., sources that are based on somebody else's collecting of facts, the following criteria may help:

Does the source indicate how it knows the presented facts? Many sources fill in missing facts with guesses and assumptions. If the primary source is not indicated, it will still need to be located to make the fact credible.

Does the source show broader knowledge, rather than a limited knowlege? For example, are all the children in a family presented, or just one? Is a person followed throughout their life or is all the knowledge based on one point in time, such as a marriage? Broader knowledge may indicate the source had exposure to a wider collection of evidence, making them more likely to have resolved possible conflicts.

Does the source indicate and explain assumptions, or are they asserted like other facts?

Is the data precise where appropriate, coherent and consistent? This may be an indicator of the care that was used in collecting it.

Is the data consistent with historical and geographical conventions? This may indicate whether the data is likely to be correctly interpreted.

Of course, some genealogists are known for consistently high quality work, and many prefer these to lesser-known authors to save time. But secondary sources cannot make anything true simply by stating it. And any authors that identify sources can be valuable, since it is the primary basis of a fact, not the reputation of the author, that makes a fact credible.

Some things are unknowable. The documentary evidence may have been lost, destroyed, or even never created. Genealogists must make assumptions to continue research. This is normal. But assumptions are not facts, and should always be explained so collaborators may build on, correct or adjust the assumption based on new information.

Each page is a collaborative product. Thus citing of sources is not meant to be a personal research log. It is not necessary to cite every source investigated. A certain amount of authority is required, or some unique evidentiary value is needed, to make the citations useful to a reader. New sources should be added when they are of higher quality, provide independent primary evidence, or add information that is not already seen on the page. When sources refer to another source or quote it, then the original source is preferrable. Duplicate sources giving the same information do not represent progress, unless there is some unique analysis or interpretation provided. When sources disagree, this should be explicitly noted. Value is provided by resolving such differences, if possible. If one answer is assumed to be better, the basis for that assumption should be explained.