Since were on this subject...how does the IGI records that are on film work. Do the films also contain the source information from the submitter and the relationship? For example, In researching my PAGE ancestry from Monmouth/Burlington Counties...it appears that a relative Theodore McKean submitted a great deal of information to the IGI, however, we have Not been able to determine how he considered himseld a relative??? to many of them that he submitted. For example in this records for birth it doesnt list parents...but Theodore is listed as a relative I have wondered if he just put his name on all of the Page records he could find?? Adam PAGE Sex: M Event(s): Birth: 1748 Of Freehold, Monmouth, New Jersey Parents: Relatives: Theodore MCKEAN Source Information: Film Number: 183496, Page Number: 575, Reference Number: 21081 Any thoughts Mathew ----- Original Message ----- From: JEFFREY OWENS <owensj@epix.net> To: <NJMONMOU-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2000 8:14 AM Subject: [NJMONMOU] IGI and Data Reliability > der@redrose.net wrote: > > > Donna wrote: > > > >.... I am not certain, but the IGI, usually a bit more reliable than > > > the Ancestral File.... > > > > > > Donna, > > > Whether the IGI is more reliable depends on how the info was put into the > > > index. There are two main ways, either by extraction, where volunteers > > > extract all info from an original source, such as a film of birth > > > records in NJ Vital Statistics, or a person compiles information from > > > many sources, and then sends in the information. So it can be very > > > reliable or subject to the skill of the submitter depending on which way > > > it was sumbitted.. The Ancestral File is of course all compiled and > > > about as reliable/unreliable as other compiled pedigrees on the internet. > > > > Yes, I am aware of that, as I have many LDS friends. What many > > people don't know, however, is that the people who send in that > > information (for the IGI) do have to prove it. At any LDS Family History > > Center, one may obtain "Request for Photocopies" forms which pertain > > to the IGI. Where any source is given as a Batch number, one can send > > for that photocopy. I recently did that, and received the photocopies > > from the submitter. In every case, the source was a church record. > > This was statistically probable, because a lot of the material was > submitted by LDS members about their own families. However, anyone can > submit material to the IGI regardless of religion or church > affiliation. Being labeled "church record" is not an indication of > accuracy per se. > > The IGI is rife with errors. There have been varying standards of proof > for the submittals to IGI. This is also true for other of the large > bodies of ancestral files, such as DAR. "Church Records" can be simply > the family information from research of members. All subject to the > same suppositions and errors made in any research. The IGI should > occupy a position below the 50th percentile in any list of potential > sources and their reliability. > > Use the IGI as a starting point, but verify everything against original > documents. And this includes the so called 'extractions' from originals > which might be correct, but applied to the wrong individual. Such as a > birth record for a child named John being associated with another John > with the same surname, but not the correct person. > > The verification of 'original' sources may seem time consuming or > redundant, but if you spend time chasing up the wrong tree, you will > come to learn why assumptions about the research of others can be time > wasting. Erroneous connections have a way of self perpetuation. Once > someone puts a wrong connection in a database such as IGI, or a web > published family group, then it spreads like a computer virus. Later, > when the real information is set forth, extinguishing the false data is > near impossible. If one does not verify what's collected, then you > become part of the problem. > > Jeff Owens >