ESM's QuickLessons A DearMYRTLE Genealogy Study Group

Hilary Gadsby

Sources, Information, Evidence
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “Sources, Information, Evidence," Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/sources-information-evidence : accessed 25 June 2016).         
and
A Basic Vocabulary for Historical Research
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “A Basic Vocabulary for Historical Research," Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/basic-vocabulary-historical-research    : accessed 25 June 2016).    

Much of what we do as genealogists piecing together what we can find about our ancestors can not be "proved" in the way that science calls proof. We can never be certain that history was how it appears to us.

This does not mean that what we create will be a work of fiction. By careful choice of source, extraction of information and analysis of those pieces of information we construct a credible case to support our hypothesis.

The information contained within a single source whilst directly answering a question will invariably not be sufficient to confirm an identity. We need to take all the information we can find and put it into context. Only when we have done this can we have any certainty that the information is relevant to the question we are trying to answer.

Understanding the terminology we use in our historical research as discussed in the Quicktips post is key to ensuring that the lineages and associated family information is as accurate as possible. Many historical documents may not have survived or details regarding our family may not have been recorded. Even when we do find references, to what we believe to be our family, we need to show due diligence and consider what inaccuracies may be present both intended and accidental.

In my blog post I discuss how I started to piece together a part of my husband's family. 
It's still a work in progress with missing parts of the puzzle. 
I need to discover more reliable sources, to provide me with the information, that I can use, as evidence, to support any conclusions I draw.

ESM's QuickLessons A DearMYRTLE Genealogy Study Group Lesson 2

Hilary Gadsby

QuickLesson 2: Sources vs. Information vs. Evidence vs. Proof    
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickLesson 2: Sources vs. Information vs. Evidence vs. Proof,” Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-2-sources-vs-information-vs-evidence-vs-proof : accessed 18 March 2016).

Only this last week in the MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) I have been part of we were discussing Primary and Secondary sources. Primary being original, contemporary records and Secondary being hearsay and writings of others. However this classification may not truly reflect the nature of the source.
Within a document information may exist which is first hand knowledge alongside other second hand or hearsay. Each piece of information and the assertion or claim that is made must be evaluated for its ability to be used as evidence supporting a proof.
A strong proof is only as good as the building blocks, that is the evidence, that is used in its construction.

In my example from Lesson 1 I had a person who I had gathered some information about and whom I suspected would be someone listed in the 1939 register. I set out with the intention of finding her to support the theory that she was still alive in 1939. If I found her I might also be able to ascertain more information about where she was living her date of birth and possibly who was living with her.

Using the diagram above let us see what I have here.

Source = Find my Past Website Index and scanned images of pages of the 1939 Register with some redaction.

Evaluation = Original page as digital image, Index is a derivative created recently

Information = Other than the address in 1939 the name, occupation and date of birth in the register are reliant on the veracity of the person giving the information, which should generally be the individual or a close relative, though it could be someone unrelated. The information about the date of birth cannot be primary as it is being recorded sometime after the date.

Evidence = Whilst the information in the digital images can be used to form part of a proof none of it can be considered to be more than an assertion. We have no means of determining the absolute truth.

Assertions from other sources may be combined with the ones from this source to build what we may call our current hypothesis, proof or conclusion. 

Conflicting information should not be ignored but discussed in a proof statement or argument.

In discovering the correct person in the register the analysis of the information supports what is already known. 

The conclusions drawn should meet the genealogical proof standard. Should further research be needed, collecting the evidence together will allow us to interpret what we may need to find, to meet the requirement of thorough research.

Whilst I endeavour to look at everything I find I may have not always been diligent. 

Evidentia can help with this analysis and as I work through rebuilding my tree I will be using it to assist with building the evidence into a strong proof. It will at least provide me with some idea as to where the evidence is weak or if I need to look for more information.

At each stage of processing a source and its contents we need to decide whether what we find is convincing, or may contain an error, and these considerations must be included in any discussion of the evidence we are using to support our conclusion.

Nothing is absolute anything can contain an error which is why no single piece of evidence is enough to support our conclusions.

 How can Evidentia work for me?                   

Genealogists come in all shapes and sizes but there is one thing that most of us strife to do but very few of us really do well.

What is it that we are so bad at but is really so important and should be the one thing that we would hope to do right?

We are endlessly told how important it is to cite our sources.

Why is this so important?

Well as any experienced researcher will tell you, I wish I had documented my sources so much better when I first started (remembering to date and document what you can remember of a conversation with an older family member, or noting all those negative searches which you repeat a year later even though there is no change in the information).

Most of us have been there and it is so difficult years down the line to be sure what you have or have not done in the past.

Secondly how many of us have entered a source thought we had got as much from it as we could find only to go back years later and realise it held clues which now fit into the bigger picture.

I have 2 marriage certificates with witnesses whose names I did not recognise who later turned out to be members of the family by marriage or illegitimacy.

When I first saw Evidentia being used by other genealogists on a Google+ Hangout I was not sure whether I was ready to embrace using it to enhance my research process.

To see how Evidentia works have a look at the videos on the developers YouTube Channel http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYKbwE4VYrXm--D2FF7hZ7Q/videos . 

You can also get a 30 day trial to see whether you think the program will work for you. 

Like most programs the first version will not be perfect but the developer is working with users to improve the program so that it can be a great resource for the genealogy community.

The timing in relation to the release of a new book by Thomas Jones http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/cs/mastering_genealogical_proof could not be better.

Evidentia will make you think about how you record your source and about what that source is telling you. It will also help you to decide whether what you have is sufficient to support the facts you have documented.

Analysing the evidence is not new and is something we should all be doing but how many of us are doing it well.

When I document a source I need enough information so that anyone including me can go back and find that information at a future date. Quoting just a url and a date accessed is not enough as tomorrow that url could change the internet is an ever changing source of information and even archives can move so don’t forget to record as much as you can about your source.

In Evidentia you can use templates provided or create your own which can be a great way to remind you what you need to record from those commonly used sources. 

Could these templates help when we are recording our research? 

I know I have got back from a research trip only to find I have forgotten to record something.

Could Evidentia help by producing a template for further research when we have analysed what we already know?

I have not got a copy of Mastering Genealogical Proof as shipping to the UK is likely to be expensive, but if this book deals with the topic of extensive research then it may be that Evidentia will be able to guide users as to how extensive their research needs to be in the future.

I have on my computer a program called Gensmarts which I had hoped would help in this respect but like most programs if what you have recorded is poorly inputted then you do not get meaningful results.

I have high hopes for Evidentia and would 

encourage all serious genealogists to give the program a try. In the absence of anything to replace or update Gedcom this program could be a significant tool.

Documenting Sources in online trees

The genealogy community can be very critical of those who do not cite their sources.
A regular topic that comes up on genealogy forums is the lack of documentation of sources especially on large trees.

I believe there are a number of reasons why the larger online trees do not have sources.

Many people start trees online then give up once they get to grandparents or beyond the people they remember and these trees are often unsourced as they have been produced as a passing whim. There are a large number of these on websites such as Genes Reunited which are free or minimal cost. When they go back to these later they do not think that they have not added information as to where they found out how these people fit in their family.

Very few of us can say we documented all our sources from the start and we can be reluctant to go back and add them later, even though it may save us time overall.

Few of us trust everything we read and given the rate information is added to the internet we do not always want others to use the information we have obtained at our own expense.

Basically the reasons for not including sources in online trees as I see it are :

1. Laziness
2. Lack of trust of others
3. Cost associated with obtaining the information

Genealogy is not a cheap hobby and those who would call it their hobby are well aware of this.
Don't criticise others who seem to be unwilling to share but do as you would like to be done by.
If you choose not to put your sources on your tree mention this in the opening page.
If you are willing to share with others invite them to contact you.
Some of my best leads have come from others but by confirming things for myself I have found information beyond what others have given me which has made this hobby so much more enjoyable.

Those who just include other peoples research do not know the joy of discovering something new for themselves.