> Subject: [RIWASHIN] Re: Order of accuracy of Washington County RI Primary Sources > Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:08:03 -0400 > From: "Barry H. Browning" <barrybro@twave.net> > To: RIWASHIN-L@rootsweb.com > > If the Washington County list members will forgive me for asking this > question of you all...particularly my betters in genealogical research > skills... > > Which of the following sources do each of you consider the most...accurate > in terms of the data they provide for local genealogy...local genealogy > defined as for Washington County/Pettaquamiscutt Purchase/Narragansett > Country/Kingstown(e), RI? > > If any care to do so, and in the interest of improving all our researches, > could you all rearrange the list of sources of local genealogy below, from > what is in your opinion most accurate/dependable to least accurate, and at > the same time, add any other sources not mentioned in their appropriate > places? Also, if you know the more correct names for the following > sources, in the interest of improving all our research, please correct what > I have written.... > > * Local town hall records in order of their establishment: > (North) Kingstown(e) > Westerly > South Kingstown > Charlestown(e) > Exeter > Richmond > Hopkinton > * Local Land Records > * Local Probate Records/Wills > * Family Bibles > * Published RI Genealogical Periodicals Covering Disputed Records > * Austin's Genealogical Dictionary > * Barbour's > * Savage's > * Local genealogies, for example > Kenyon, Hazard, Browning, Gard(i)ner > (Please expand this list if you know of other > Washington County family genealogies) > * Family Bibles > * Latter Day Saints data online > > Thank you all for your kind attention! > Appreciatively, > Barry Hale Browning Barry, You ask a good question. Generally, I would agree with your proposed order of accuracy. I have found some errors even in the local town hall records. So these are not perfect -- but as you say, are the preferred place to find a record. You should distinguish between primary and secondary records. This is an oversimplification but a primary record is one recorded contemporaneous with the event by an eye witness of the event. A doctor or mid-wife delivering a baby who reported the birth to the town clerk for recording would be considered a primary record. The parents reporting the birth also would be considered a primary record. I am assuming that the birth was reported to the clerk shortly after the birth and not years later. The same thing can be said for a death record. But when the death record gives the date and place of birth and the parentage of the deceased, then that information is considered secondary. Gravestones are considered secondary sources. Arnold's and Beaman's transcripts of the original records are also secondary sources. (James Arnold, "Vital Records of Rhode Island." Alden G. Beaman, "Rhode Island Vital Records, New Series," 14 volumes and "Rhode Island Genealogical Register," 20 volumes) That's enough with respect to primary and secondary sources. Back to your list. I would place Arnold's VR and Beaman's VR near the top -- after local records. I have found minimal typos and misreadings by these gentlemen when I hve had the opportunity to compare their abstracts with the originals. You list family Bibles twice. These vary considerably in quality and accuracy. The first question to be answered is were the entries made contemporaneous with the events or are they all in one handwriting and the same pen and ink done at a time much later than the events. Does the Bible include entries going back to 1775, for example, while the Bible was published in 1860? Published Genealogical Periodicals also vary in quality. "RI Roots" is excellent, but is not beyond error (note the correction I submitted that was published in the latest issue). Beaman's RIGR re-published some genealogies that are disputed. Documentation with more recent publications tends to better than that published 100 years ago. The two leading journals are the "New England Historical and Genealogical Register" and the "New York Genealogical and Biographical Record," followed by "The American Genealogist" and the "National Genealogical Society Journal." Austin's Gen Dict as originally published has many errors. Recent reprints include annotations for published corrections. I would place it on a par with the better local genealogies. I am not sure what you are referring to with reference to Barbour. Savage is a notch above online data. I think you have it overrated. The list of local genealogies is substantially longer. In the earlier eamil reply I made tonight I mentioned the Champlin typescript genealogy in the Westerly Lib. In my library, I have genealogies on the Babcock, Brownell, Burdick, Greene, Lewis, Perry, Clarke, Crandall, Hoxsie, Lanphere, Larkin, Lillibridge, Mumford, Peckham, Rathbun, Richmond, Sherman and other families. All of these have errors, and as you realize, all these errors have found their way into the internet genealogy databases. But some of these genealogies are good. Some are not quite as good. The LDS data online is no better or no worse than the other on line genealogies. But I agree with you that they should go on the bottom of the list as far as accuracy goes. A few of the submitters include documentation and to the extent they do, this is good. It then becomes easier to verify the information. Bill