Sourcing challenges: assumptions

There's an old saying about assumptions, and while it may not be exactly true, the fact remains that assumptions can be very dangerous things.  In any genealogical compilation, assumptions have been made - some explicitly, however, many of the assumptions are implicit.  Many of the assumptions that are made are not even necessarily realized by the compiler.

For example, let's say one source indicates that John and Karen had a child named Joe.  First of all, usually the source doesn't explicitly identify that John is a male and Karen is a female.  That's an assumption (although a reasonable one) based on the names of those people and the surnames of the children.  Secondly, even if no further information is given about Joe, most people will happily record the information in their records as though Joe is a male, and while Joe is commonly a male name, there could be errors in the source, and perhaps "Joe" was "Jo", or maybe Joe is actually a female.

The second point is that the source does not state that John and Karen as married, and while this is probably true, it is also typical that people will assume that is the case within their transcription of the source.  The quick and easy assumptions continue to pile up.

Imagine now that the source has a listing of children, and the first child is listed as christened in Holy Church, New Kent County, Virginia.  The second child is listed as christened in Holy Church, and the third as well.  Again, there are quick assumptions made that the second child and third child were christened in the same Holy Church (the one in New Kent County, Virginia).

The thing is, assumptions are made because they appear reasonable.  It's only when you find out conflicting information that the assumption starts to show flaws.  One of the goals of the Genealogy Project is to explicitly identify the assumptions.  Part of the way this is done is through the fact rating approach, and partly through the use of additional fields and notes.

At the risk of getting highly technical, the next few posts will deal with some of the more common assumptions and sourcing challenges, and how they are handled within the Genealogy Project.

Genealogy Project - A Reboot

Due to some computer issues, I've recently purchased the most recent version of Family Tree Maker.  While there are definitely some problems with the Family Tree Maker line (which we won't go into here), after restoring the family file, I realized that I had, in my attempt to collect names, failed to keep a clean file.

For example, certain sources were essentially web-based indexes.  Some of these citations may have been accurate.  However, my goal was to have a well-sourced genealogy, and when looking through, I realized that some of the sources I used probably didn't fit.  In my very first post, I mentioned that I wanted source to be viable.  I didn't think, in retrospect, that some of the sources that I used were.

The second thing was that Family Tree Maker now allows for a description field in facts - one which allows for the input of a location, and then a description.  This, in and of itself, is one of the main things which made me decide to "rebuild" the Genealogy Project.  For one thing, Family Tree Maker tries to place things on the map based on the location field.  In some instances, the location was XYZ Church, in State.  I wanted to maintain all such documentation in the file, so that became the location, and was, in the end, something that Family Tree Maker ("FTM" from here on out) couldn't work with.  The new version allows me to input a place, and put churches, hospitals, etc., in the description field, thereby retaining all the information without creating problems of unknown locations in the location field.

An added benefit of rebuilding the file is that I am rating each source citation used.  FTM has the four star system, which I am using for simplicity's sake, although I feel it leaves some things to be desired.  Nonetheless, it allows for a quick comparison between sources for purposes of quality.

I plan to get blogging again, if only to document the Genealogy Project approach, and I may start to share family information again as I get to interesting people or genealogical dead-ends.