My practice is to consider anything that does not go back to original sources to be "questionable". A document such as a death certificate is "primary" only for that occurrence, that is, for the date of death. The date of birth on a death certificate I rank as "secondary". In any source, if I find any error, I rank that source as "unreliable". I continue to question any source that I have not entered as "primary". The bulk of my sources fall into the "questionable" category, with only a very few as "unreliable" and even fewer as "primary". Somewhere in number between "primary" and "questionable" are the ones I consider "secondary". This not to say that you or anyone else should follow what I am doing, but establish your own norms. If I find three or more unrelated "questionable" sources for a single fact, I begin to accept that as "secondary". As far as family trees published on Ancestry or any other source, unless the person furnishes the source that was used to verify a fact, I rate it as "questionable" until I can find a better source for the same fact. If I find even one noticeable error in that tree, the rating goes to "unreliable" since I cannot be sure that other errors have not been made. This seems harsh, but I am not condemning anyone else's work, but merely rating it for my own use in following up on what is there. Remember, too, that some original documents are questionable at best, such as census records. You must make two assumptions when using these records: one is that the person being interviewed knew the data correctly; secondly that the person writing it down wrote it out correctly. That is why I consider data such as date of birth of the deceased on a death certificate as "secondary" at best. Check the identity of the informant on the DC and then rate the information accordingly. On a death certificate, if the informant is the father, I rate the date of birth as "secondary" or "questionable" while if the mother is informant I rate it as definitely "secondary" leaning toward "primary". Whatever you do, be sure to be critical of whatever source you use. As people we are seldom perfect in what we do. Observe the Subject of this email and note the spelling. :o))) ----- Original Message ----- From: <BellBotm13@aol.com> To: <poland-roots@rootsweb.com> Sent: 12 October, 2008 11:12 PM Subject: Re: [POLAND] A Questioin of what to believe. > John, > I would think that whatever is entered on Ancestry.com or any other > genealogy > site is with good intention. Who would want to bother to foul up someone's > family tree, when they can do more damage with a virus . > > My opinion...........Shirley > **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your > destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) > ********************************* > Need to contact the list manager? Write to Marie at > Poland-Roots-admin@rootsweb.com > ---------------------------------- > Discussion of Polish food, culture, and customs are welcome on the list as > long as the discussion stays pertinent to the topic of this list: > researching our Polish roots. > ---------------------------------- > Browse the list's archives here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=poland-roots > Search the list's archives here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search?aop=1 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > POLAND-ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1722 - Release Date: 10/13/2008 7:50 AM