Should this become the official WikiTree policy on the definition of Original Sources? [closed]

Question

I am regularly trying to help new members understand the difference between "primary/original" sources and "secondary" sources.   I have noted that there is no Help Page to specifically address the issue.   I would like to create such a page to help everyone who is struggling.

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/25911/important-understand-distinction-between-original-derivative   is the page that is pointed to in several other help pages, such as the Pre-1700 Help Page.

Buried in the Help Page on marking data as "certain" or "uncertain" is the following information.   https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Uncertain#What_are_examples_of_sources_that_provide_uncertain_information.3F

What I propose is to merely take this information and create a simple Help page called Original Sources.

Please vote the appropriate answer and provide any comments under that answer.

Comments

Scott, I have seen - and have in my possession - government-issued primary documents that contain errors. Trying to get those errors corrected is worse than trying to pull an impacted wisdom tooth with a blade of grass.

I have also a digital copy of an official primary document that has a child being born the day after he died.

Primary documents are not always as accurate as we would want them to be, and I'd put more faith in my great-grandmother's Bible (found no errors in that) than in a government clerk who could not care less if what they are recording is what they are being told (plenty of errors  on names, dates, and places).

---

Those issued goverment documents are actually secondary sources. The form that was completed to get the government document issued is actually the primary source as completed by the informant. We accept government issue to be primary sources because there are laws governing these government documents, and government employees are expected to be diligent when they issue a government document.

---

We are mixing up terms here. Please see the distinctions made by Elizabeth Shown Mills:

https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-17-evidence-analysis-process-map

Unfortunately, I've learned her use of terms is limited to the US, so that could be a problem for wikitree.

---

I'd agree with you Melanie, but I've also seen major errors in a family Bible due to poor recordkeeping as well. So I suppose I tend to rely more heavily on official documents, even though the truth is probably family Bibles are probably equally reliable.

Jillaine - that's an interesting article, and after walking through it's example it makes sense, but it might be too deep for the casual genealogist to use. I think what I see Robin trying to aim for is a quick cheat list of the "usually" reliable sources versus those that are typically "mostly" reliable and on to those that might be questionable or need validation. I guess we've all heard the words of direct, indirect, original, derivative, and so-on, and for scholars this might be the best approach. But I'd have to see a practical way to explain this to a non-scholar that would be easy to use and simple to apply and accomplish the goal of helping genealogists understand when a work is typically accurate and when it's been transcribed multiple times or that leaps of faith have been made.

---

I agree, with you Melanie, I found several official documents, that used a wrong family name, Tiernigo instead of Tiernego, aswel with my greath grandmother as my 2th great grandfather including Birth, Marriage and registration.

---

Scott, I see your points. But if we could at least get the distinction between types of sources and types of information found in those sources, I'd be much happier.

As I've written elsewhere (excerpted):

"We also need to distinguish a SOURCE from the INFORMATION found in that source. We keep conflating the two. And even the information is neither certain or uncertain-- it depends on the question you're trying to answer...

"... When we attempt to boil this complexity down to a fixed list of certain and uncertain sources, or blanket statements about reliability of original over derivative sources, we do a disservice to ourselves and our community." 

---

We should be more concerned with accuracy and reliability than with the distinctions between primary, secondary, etc. sources. We must also consider what is "accurate"or "correct"? For example, the spelling of my name: which is more accurate or "correct", how my mother clearly and very emphatically told me to spell my name when I was six years old or the (different) spelling appearing on my birth certificates, which I first saw some 15 years later? And this is only one of many, many examples of this problem.

---

For everyone that keeps commenting, this is why I chose to close this question.....I got it....

---

Thanks for the clarification, Robin. Sorry I kind of re-opened the can of worms. For what it's worth, I think it's an excellent idea, but I can also see it's a big rabbit hole and there's lots of opinions out there as well as lots of ways to work this. I'll let it go...

---

Robin, I think this is a subject worth discussing and I would like to see you open the question back up. We do need a page clarifying the different kinds of sources, utilizing whatever definitions are appropriate. In spite of the fact that most of us are not professional genealogists, we still need to work with a common understanding of what are good and better sources. This site should be about educating people about genealogy, not just letting people flounder about. I hope you move forward with this as a project.

Answer 1

Yes, this would be a beneficial change to our Help Pages

Comments

I agree with this change. To go with it, it might be a good idea if the information at present in the section

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Uncertain#What_are_examples_of_sources_that_provide_uncertain_information.3F

were replaced with a link to the new help page. That way the information would not be in two different places, so there would be no risk of it getting out of synchronisation if changes are made in the future.

Answer 2

No, a Help page of this type is not needed

Comments

I don't see definitions to explain original and derivitive, only examples. I see that you use original and primary as interchangeable. This creates a lot of confusion for me because in evidence an original document can have primary and secondary source information. The destinction should be made between what is primary sources and what is secondary sources and not between what is an original document and what is derivative. Examples should also point out this difference.

---

Great suggestion, Louis...

Using this definition, would this work for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

---

Can' support it as currently proposed.

---

No. The wikipedia definition does not agree with genealogical definitions of "original" and "primary." They ARE NOT the same thing, though the wikipedia article says they are.

While a help page may be useful, these definitions are incorrect and will only confuse the matter more. There are many reliable genealogical sources for the definitions. What you have proposed, and what wikipedia uses, are inconsistent with generally accepted genealogical definitions. Some of your examples are inconsistent with those definitions.

---

Although this was closed before I saw it. I will add some links  from the  Strathclyde university beginners course here:  Primary, derived primary and secondary sources. It doesn't include 'original source'. It isn't a term I've seen used.

https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/genealogy/0/steps/12998

This section about evaluating databases is useful stressing that these Data bases, containing  info derived from primary sources,  vary in quality and completeness: Examples given include Ancestry's England and Wales marriages (lack of detail as to coverage; this is just one of several such databases ) It also points out that Family Search indexes miss important details  (this lack of detail is also true of the Ancestry generic indexes such as the Eng and Wales marriages)   https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/genealogy/0/steps/13028

---

When this policy is finalized, could sources for the information in it please be attributed? We expect profiles of persons to show sources and can cite authorities for outside references.  Please consider the same methods here.  Regardless of how well meaning it is, a general description can lack authority.  One standard that has some relevance:  <http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/Primary%20Source%20Literacy2018.pdf> .  Another that uses the term 'original source' in a similar context <https://libguides.pittcc.edu/historical-investigation/primary>.   With an established source, we will a basis for agreement.

---

https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-17-evidence-analysis-process-map

---

OMG, Jillaine. I don't think you should have closed the question. It is worth discussion and I think the page is badly needed.  I think guidance for the "casual" genealogist and those who are interested in becoming more "serious" genealogists is needed and would be very helpful. Going forward in ignorance on a site like this is NOT helpful to any of us least of all the site.

---

(I didn't close the question; Robin did.)

---

Whups! I'll redirect my comment.