On Mon, 23 May 2011 10:12:46 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> On Mon, 23 May 2011 04:52:05 -0700 (PDT), Tom Wetmore >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> This thread is an offshoot from the Linux thread that is going off on a num= >>> ber of tangentsl. >>> >>> How should we store evidence in genealogical databases? >>> >>> You get a marriage record in the mail; you find an image of a census record= >>> at Ancestry.com; you find the record of an event on a page in a book you f= >>> ound on Google books. What are you going to do with those three records? He= >>> re are some possible answers. >> >> It's easy for me - I establish parameters. If it is online or in a >> book I don't want a hard copy unless it is my direct line. Most people >> who have all that paper can't find anything anyhow. And finding it >> serves no more purpose than listing the source where others can see >> it. After I have proved it to myself I have absolutely no need to >> prove it to others. If they are not satisfied with what I have they >> can do their own research. > >Moreover, the relatives who have even a minor interest in >any of this have about 1/4 as much interest in where I found >something or what it really says. If I share sources with >them, they aren't in footnotes; the narrative text gets >generated with footnotes because that's how software does >it, but I go back and edit the document pulling those >footnotes into the prose; as in , "I finally found this >marriage in the next county over (Tyler) in the >chronological record but just not in the county we thought." >Everyone is happy, particularly after I send the one who >does care a copy of the unedited version. > >If someone doesn't wish to believe me, showing them papers >won't change their mind and not showing them papers won't >change the minds of those who do believe me. > >Cheryl Approaching from the other side, I don't need to see the paper for a fact posted by another - just the source in case I want to endorse it. Unsourced "facts" are often just conclusions - those are pretty scary. Hugh