Thanks
Kirsten. A good point.
There is of course
no substitute for looking at the source itself and, to that extent, I
completely agree that our primary focus must be to provide comprehensive source
citations so that anyone reading our research can find that source.
Nevertheless (and I
think this point is made by Geoff in one of the Legacy training videos), even
though we may not be researching professionally, our goal is surely to assemble,
and perhaps share with others, a reconstructed family history that is as close
to the truth as possible. With this in mind, I take your
point that any research analysis exercise carries the danger of being
subjective. Indeed, in
reply to my original query, Jenny made the point that "Verified"
might mean different things to different people, and I suspect the same can be
said when it comes to assigning a “Surety Level” value to each citation of a
source. Because of this, I don’t
tend to use either of those features myself.
One of Elizabeth
Shown Mills’ most important points – if I have understood her teachings
correctly – is the need for an objective, standardised means by which all
researchers, regardless of their experience, can record the quality of the
information they record in their software program. I am not a programmer,
but it seems to me that
a ‘pop up screen’ with 3 checkbox choices each time we enter a piece of
information from a source would do the trick:-
·
Is the data’s source an
Original or a Derivative?
·
Was the information provided by
a Primary of Secondary informant?
·
Does the information represent Direct
or Indirect evidence of the date, name, place, event or circumstance in
question?
This would need to be
attached to the individual piece of data, not the source.
I assume I am
correct in thinking that, for the moment at least, any such analysis has
to be entered into the individual’s ‘Research Notes’ screen? But it
would be marvellous if there is a way in which Legacy’s already comprehensive
reporting features could be extended to the type of objective data analysis
recommended by ESM i.e. if there is any means of incorporating the 3 questions
somehow. Just a thought if anyone might have any other
ideas?
Regards,Nick
--- On Fri, 26/2/10, Kirsten Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Kirsten Bowman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Credibility analysis of evidence
To: [email protected]
Date: Friday, 26 February, 2010, 7:55
Nick:
Also keep in mind that _Evidence Explained_ was written for a fairly broad
audience including professional genealogists and history writers. Some aspects
of the book could be considered overkill for the family history researcher
working at a hobbyist level while a professional genealogist, for example, is
under an obligation to include an evaluation of the evidence for his/her
clients. Further, your analysis may often be subjective and others might view
it differently. If you notice something particularly unusual about your
source, that should certainly be noted. But if you include a complete source
citation then others can, and should, evaluate the evidence for themselves.
Kirsten
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Ingham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 3:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Credibility analysis of evidence
Many thanks to Ron, Jenny, Charles and Carol for your responses and
suggestions, which I will take on board.
Nick
--- On Thu, 25/2/10, Nick Ingham <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Nick Ingham <[email protected]>
Subject: [LegacyUG] Credibility analysis of evidence
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, 25 February, 2010, 12:26
As a relatively new user of Legacy, I am finding the source writer system to be
a great tool.
I have been studying the brilliant ‘Evidence Explained’ by Elizabeth Shown
Mills and, in accordance with Ms Mills’ suggestions, I would like to be able
to attach a short ‘credibility analysis’ each time I extract a particular piece
of information from my sources – basically to identify:-
(i) whether the data’s source is an original or derivative,
(ii) whether the information itself is from a primary or
secondary informant, and
(iii) whether that information is represents direct or indirect
evidence of the date, name, place, event or circumstance I am trying to prove.
It strikes me that this sort of analysis really ought to be attached to the
specific data somehow, each time I extract a piece of information from the
source, but I am not sure how to do so.
I would appreciate any guidance members of the list might be able to provide as
to how, and where, this type of analysis is best entered in Legacy.
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
