If part of a good source/record shows a proven error, what is the proper procedure for using and documenting the record?

Question

Is it proper to leave it out or must it be included if that record is being used? Won't I just be passing along bad info if it is included. Here's an example, on one list Martha DOE was born Dec 14, 1837 and died June 20, 1895. On another list of the same info it shows Martha DOE was born June 20, 1895. An obvious missed typo, but what is the proper procedure for using and documenting such a record.

Thanks  post Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Comments

In a written work when quoting something that includes an error the author has recognized the annotation “[sic]” is used immediately after the error (that is, with the brackets, but not the quotation marks).

Wikipedia notes in its article sic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic :

The Latin adverb sic ("thus", "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")^[1] inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed or translated exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous, archaic, or otherwise nonstandard spelling, punctuation, or grammar. It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might be interpreted as an error of transcription.

The typical usage is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in quoted material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text. It is generally placed inside square brackets to indicate that it is not part of the quoted matter.

Answer 1

Thank you for being concerned about data quality!

Do identify errors found in the sources you use, and discuss them to the extent necessary. The discussion can go in the text of the profile, in the source citation, or in an extra footnote. Where it goes depends on your preference, and also on the nature of the error.

I  profile https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stuart-2724 is one where I dealt with a few of the kinds of data errors you describe. (Also in her aunt's profile https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stuart-3471 )

We also sometimes encounter serious errors in published genealogy. Sometimes discussion of these errors ends up being a major topic in the profile, as in https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lammertsen-5

There are additional examples all over WikiTree where people have documented errors in sources.

Comments

I agree with Ellen. Citing erroneous sources is very important. With a short description why e.g. the date in question is wrong and where to find correct information. For example put  a short summary of your own Research under "Research Notes", or directly under the "Sources", where you describe how you have determined the correct date. So that you still know in a few years, what you did and why you rejected this piece of information. And especially with sites like Wikitree almost more important: With this you also give other users here directly the own information about it - and prevent for example that someone comes across this incorrect source and changes the data with good intentions "due to new sources".

Answer 2

I think there are many ways of handling this, so I'll share what I've settled on for now in the profiles I manage. Even though I'm a relative newbie, I've come across this kind of thing a lot because of the number of US immigrants from non-English speaking countries in my heritage.

I have started creating a "Research Comments" section beneath the "References" section specifically for this kind of commentary. Two places where you can see examples of this are:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pysh-4

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Makar-22

As you can see in both of the above examples, I'll simplify the narrative in the main part of the profile (and in the data fields for the person) by writing the correct information (to the best of my ability to ascertain), but then I will call out errors in records, errors in the transcription from the written record to the database, and so on, as bullet points in the "Research Comments" at the bottom.

My main motivation for doing it this way is that I hope it will be helpful to other people who are trying to research the person (or their relatives), without muddying up the main profile for people who just want a summary of facts related to the person.