tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post7818529787476978176..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: More Amazing Genealogical MythsJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-81181057691049514352013-08-23T07:36:12.681-07:002013-08-23T07:36:12.681-07:00Absolutely. Good ideas.Absolutely. Good ideas.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-11172622504143734672013-08-23T07:35:45.123-07:002013-08-23T07:35:45.123-07:00Exactly. That is why we need to come to an underst...Exactly. That is why we need to come to an understanding of genealogical standards so that we can at least understand what we are talking about. This is why I keep referring to the issue of the creation of a genealogical metadata, a system that can be created to talk about "genealogy" without resorting using the terminology of genealogy itself. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-2450978483880193822013-08-23T03:12:19.196-07:002013-08-23T03:12:19.196-07:00How about this one James?
"There's only ...How about this one James?<br /><br />"There's only one truth and so collaboration on a single, global family-tree will work?"<br /><br />There are many ills resulting from this notion. Yes, there is one truth but this will be inaccessible in the majority of circumstances. All we have is evidence for a finite number of discrete and separated events.<br /><br />The interpretation of the evidence is far from universal - even in sourced trees where some real work has been performed.Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-45931745037893987682013-08-22T07:17:13.012-07:002013-08-22T07:17:13.012-07:00Myth 4 (all resources for research are on-line) fr...Myth 4 (all resources for research are on-line) from the previous post and Myth 13 (all compiled research is on-line) in the current post seem very similar.<br />Some myths that could be added:<br />* Indexes are sufficient, so there is no need to look at the full record. (That's any easy one to dis-prove).<br />* Finding records for [some foreign country, fill-in as applicable] is impossible, so the immigrant ancestor is as far back as you need to go. FamilySearch has lots of non-US records and Cyndi's list can help find resources for many countries and even specific ethnic groups.<br />* Learning another language to look at original records is too hard, so it's ok to depend on someone else's indexing, transcription and/or translation efforts. This one may not be a complete myth, but every researcher can bring insights from their knowledge of the family to the record that the indexer didn't have.<br />* Ethnicity and nationality and citizenship are always interpreted the same way. Censuses include this information but the answers depend on how the question was asked and historical changes previous to the census year and also the attitudes of the informant. Establish the right region from ALL the evidence.<br />* A rare surname in the U.S. is also rare in the "old country", so every matching name is the right person or related.<br />(My research with families that immigrated in the early 1900's is evident).bgwiehlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904956507742860598noreply@blogger.com