This is a copy and paste of the wording of John's submission email: "Since these are going into the archives - I'll offer my corrections to the original transcription to facilitate folks searching by the more common spellings of their ancestors." Only someone who is deliberately trying to misunderstand his intentions would even question this. He clearly stated that he's offering "corrections" ... "to facilitate folks searching by the more common spellings of their ancestors" - a thing which can only *HELP* rather than hinder. Anyone *knows* that you cannot change a transcription of an original (unless, of course, there is a typo and has not been proofread) and John was just trying to make it easier for someone searching for information. He was not suggesting that the original be changed, in any way, shape or form; he was just offering a more common spelling for folks to use in a search engine. Thank you, John, for this - and I, for one, appreciate your trying to *help* folks instead of making it more difficult ..... Barbara --- On Tue, 9/8/09, Ginni Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Ginni Morgan <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PaOldC] correcting existing records vs. "Annotations" > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 12:16 PM > To all~ > > Both John and Sandra raise very good points.  I think > Sandra is right > on the subject of "corrections" in that a published > "transcription" is a > historical document in and of itself.    We > should NOT change it. > However, John's thought that we should provide additional > known > information and reasonable alternatives for research is > also well taken. > So, what we have here is not really a disagreement on the > particular > act, but rather on what to call it.  I believe that > what John offered is > not a "correction", but an "annotation".  Looked at > this way, I think we > would all agree that the both the original "transcription" > and any > "annotations" made thereafter would be available to > researchers.  Those > researchers could then decide what/which to believe (and > use).  Or they > can try to locate the original documents and make their > own > transcription.  One would hope that said researcher > would then include a > summary of the available information (with sources) in > their > documentation along with their own analysis of the evidence > collected. > > At any rate, I think that Sandra is correct in that we > should not go > about changing published transcriptions for the reasons she > stated.  I > also think that John is correct that we should all offer > reasoned, > documented supplemental information and annotations to > those same lists. > This gives all of us more information/leads to follow up > with our own > research. > > Sandra and John,  I wish to thank both of you for your > contributions to > our knowledge. > > Ginni Morgan > Sacramento, CA > (searching for Paxton, Keepers, Jordan, & Hayes in > Chester Co) > > >>> <[email protected]> > 9/5/09 8:05 PM >>> > > Sandra, > > You bring up a good point.  I agree it's important to > never 'correct' > the original transcription but to report it > faithfully.  However, I > believe in today's Google world, it's more critical than > ever to provide > interpretations, additional information and context > including alternate > spellings to facilitiate search engines.  The whole > point of this > newslist is to help people find their folk isn't it? > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sandra Ferguson" <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected], > "cyndie eckman" > <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > > Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 5:47:07 PM GMT -05:00 > US/Canada > Eastern > Subject: correcting existing records......... appt. > officers batallion > of  Chester Co Flying Camp. >  > I have a real problem with trying to 'correct' > transcriptions, as I've > mentioned many times before..   When we do > this, anyone can decide that > any name on a list  or any bit of info is 'incorrect' > and wish it to be > changed to something the person believes is > correct.   We really can't > do this.  Transcriptions of original documents 'are > what they are', so > to speak...warts and, perhaps, errors and all!.  When > we begin changing > spellings or whathaveyou, they then become nothing but the > idea of what > others feels they should be, and rendering them useless as > documentation.    So, if folks feel a name is > incorrect, etc, they could > present actual documentation that this could not possible > be correct, > which could be appended to the record...but, the mere > belief that > something is incorrect isn't enough.   This > is the only way we can all > know that something is being presented as it originally > was, and not > altered and changed by others.   Changing , > or correcting original > document contents is a very slippery slope. >                 >          Sandra