Tony, You did a great job with that, and you already know all of what I'm about to say, but this is for the benefit of those who don't understand what a "source" is: An original source is an actual legal document, court record, church record, deed, pension file, tax list, affidavit, or some other document that was made by the ancestor at the time when the ancestor lived. There are many other examples of original sources that I do not list here, but the point is, it is the ORIGINAL--not a transcription, not a summary, and not something downloaded from the internet. Secondary sources can be helpful, but are not proof. They include: census listings, dates of birth found on tombstones, published town histories, databases at ancestry.com and other internet services, etc... These contain second-hand information. The census taker wrote down whatever people told him, and didn't always write it down correctly, or even visit the household, for that matter. Dates of birth on tombstones were given by someone other than the deceased, who may or may not have remembered or even knew the exact date of birth. Town histories and published genealogies usually present "history" in the best possible light, almost always without any citations of original sources--I have found them to be more fantasy than history most of the time. It is a lead, and nothing more. Here's a short list of things that are not valid "sources": 1. Family Tree Maker pedigrees where dates not entered are "estimated". This flies in the face of logic, especially where estimates build on one another. 2. A source on a pedigree that says: "12345678913847382843". This is not a source citation for any legitimate source document. A "citation" is a deed book and page number, a pension file certificate number, a will book and page, file number, microfilm group and roll number, etc..., along with the name and location of the repository where it was found. 3. User-submitted pedigrees sold by the Mormons on CD, or the name of some individual who emails you a list of names. 4. OneWorldTree, where any 9-year-old can "vote" for which birthdate or parents' names they think are the real thing, and thus vote it into being "history" without any proof. This has to be the biggest insult to serious researchers and historians, ever! 5. Family stories passed down for generations. These can be very helpful, but should be listed in research "notes", not in "sources". If you are a researcher, you will follow up on what Great-Aunt Sally told you and search for records in the place where she said the family would be, and find the original source documents. Aunt Sally knows a lot, but she might have a couple pieces confused, and if you post and defend her every word, you are subjecting her to public embarrasment when someone like me puts a post-em on there that disproves something. Real genealogical research requires time, money, and patience. That is what researchers find so offensive about nonresearchers who post pedigrees. Incredibly, many nonresearchers don't realize that what they are doing by posting their database full of suppositions is that they are claiming to be researchers when they haven't done any credible research. Tony, as you say, this is certainly academic dishonesty. The internet is clogged with enormous useless pedigrees that do nothing but undermine credible research that is being painstakingly done by others at great time and expense. As a researcher, I find it personally insulting when I see a banner on a rootsweb pedigree that says something like: "not all of this is verified, please verify your own work". The person is publicly demanding that others do what they themselves refuse to do, and they somehow believe that they have credibility! My approach has gone from the defensive, like what Barbara R. mentioned, to the offensive. If I see something in a pedigree on one of my people that I can easily disprove with original sources, I put a "post-em" on it. I also put post-ems asking to please tell us which record repository they found this marriage record (or whatever) in, so that I may write for a copy of it. When I see that they have transcribed something word-for-word from a book or something else, and haven't cited it--I cite it on a post-em. The vast majority never answer me, however, any new researchers who look up that name will not only see the unsourced information, but they will also see my dated "post-em", with an opinion to the contrary and/or a call for source documentation that has gone unanswered. I figure that is how other researchers will find me, and they do. It is unfortunate that the LDS site does not allow you to put post-ems on bad pedigrees that they have posted. Thankfully, rootsweb does, and many pedigrees get altered or taken down when I "blow the whistle". It doesn't make me popular, but it helps to control the spread of unsourced gossip. I make no apologies for publicly asking for sources when someone chooses to publicly say that they have done research by posting their "work". After all, that is how it's done. Peggy Reeves Burtonsville, MD ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [PACUMBER] Re: Feyerabend - Firoved family tree > In a message dated 4/16/2006 2:53:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: >> Working on allied lines to geT at the big picture!!- I hope you retain >> credit for your work.. >> > Frankly, in this electronic information age, I'm not sure how one does > this. > The simplest solution is not to put it when others can "steal" it. But > this > begs the issue. Unless one has been a total purist all his genealogical > career, we are all indebted to the work of others. > I have seen people lift other people's work bodily from a web site, add > some stuff of their own, and then complain when someone has "stolen" their > work. > They take wrong information, make it wronger, and offer a poor rendition > of > this, with poor or no citations for a serious researcher to be able to > evaluate the validity of the work. > It is simply a case of intellectual honesty and rigor. One should admit > they used the work of others. One should provide enough information for > others > to evaluate the work. We should have learned this in college, or in the > scientific community. > > Tony > > > ==== PACUMBER Mailing List ==== > A quick link to the complete list of PA USGenWeb County sites. > http://www.pagenweb.org/ > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 >