Good examples are indispensable, but sometimes a bad example at the right time can teach a lesson that stays taught. Here's one published example from a few years ago, and here's another, simpler one:
Once upon a time, a friend of mine started a project with the information (source unknown) that the person of interest had been born in 1849 and married early in 1870. She sneaked a peek at the census and found the couple all right, noting that he was a property owner. She was in a hurry and didn't make a copy or write down the citation. How hard could it be to find a census again?
Then she looked for the marriage record. It wasn't in the index for 1870, or 1869, nor was it in the chronologically organized register itself. Then she looked for a deed of purchase. Again, not there. Annoyed but not altogether surprised, she went back to the 1870 census and looked again. Now she was surprised. The household wasn't there either -- even though it had been the day before!
That sound you hear is not the old "Twilight Zone" theme. It turned out that the census she had viewed, showing an apparently newly married couple, was for 1860, not 1870. The provided birth and marriage dates were more than a decade too recent, and in the absence of notes or copies she'd misremembered the date of the census she had consulted. (By 1870 the family had moved west.) The project went on to a successful conclusion with only an hour or so wasted.
And maybe it wasn't wasted. I'll skip the language of standards for the moment: No matter how picky we may appear to our non-genealogist friends, chances are we aren't picky enough.
Harold Henderson, "Genealogist behaving badly, but not for long," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 5 June 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Genealogist behaving badly, but not for long
Save And Share :
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Midwestern Deeds On Line -- More or Less!
Save And Share :
Monday, June 4, 2012
I know what you asked, but it's not what you need to know
More than a decade ago, I was working in
crowded library room where folks were giving and receiving genealogy advice. I
overheard the ultimate beginner question from an anxious newbie: "Where is my
family tree?" (I wish I could remember how the volunteer in charge responded!)
These days, when someone asks me a question, I usually have two answers.
The short version answers the question they asked. ("Umm, well, no, there were no birth certificates issued in Illinois in 1830.")
The longer version, which the questioner may not want to hear or read, answers the question they should have asked. ("Here are some ways you might be able to prove parents without a birth certificate.")
Highly skilled question-answerers can make this transition smooth enough that the asker sees the point before s/he stops reading. I have a ways to go on this part.
But we're all question-askers sometimes. How do we learn to ask better questions? I think it's part of moving from seeing genealogy as a series of lookups to seeing it as a long and sometimes circuitous research process. To be more specific, it's also a process of surgically removing assumptions from the question itself. Of course, in order to do that, you have to know what your assumptions are! (How many wannabe Native Americans ask what kind of kinship system their supposed tribe has?)
Check out page 11, standard 28, in the BCG Genealogical Standards Manual for starters. The standard is that "Previous assumptions (presumptions) brought to the correlation, often unconsciously, are recognized," and it's followed by thought-provoking examples of good and bad assumptions.
Improving our genealogical habits usually involves moving away from our comfort zone in time and space, into places where people had very different assumptions and expectations and institutions . . . and records. Sometimes part of the quest is just to figure out exactly how strange this new place is. What words have changed meaning? What did these people take for granted that I don't, and vice versa?
If we don't manage to ask ourselves these kinds of questions first, we may wind up as the research equivalent of a boorish foreign tourist, talking louder instead of learning the language, and wandering randomly into trouble.
[According to Blogger's count, this is the 900th post since Midwestern Microhistory began 23 January 2008.]
Board for the Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual (Provo UT: Ancestry Publishing, 2000).
Harold Henderson, "I know what you asked, but it's not what you need to know," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 4 June 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]
Save And Share :
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Weekend wonderings: when counties do have money...
It's interesting to research in a county courthouse where they've had relatively good times and reliable tax revenues with which to manage their records. Money definitely improves matters, but it doesn't always lead to the best decisions. In a single office I have observed:
(1) lamination of old worn books' pages (good short-term, not always so good long-term);
(2) retyping of old, presumably worn, books (seemingly well done, but where are the originals?); and
(3) good microcopies of every page of every book for copying purposes (gold standard!).
Quite a mix. Where have you seen money especially well used (or otherwise)?
Harold Henderson, "Weekend wonderings: when counties do have money," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 3 June 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]
Save And Share :
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Top Five MWM Posts for April 2012
I have my own favorites, but these are the people's choices from April (rankings as of late May):
1. Illinois Small City Directories Content and Index (April 5)
2. Indiana Genealogical Society seminar (April 28)
3. Michigan Small City Directories Content and Index (April 30)
4. Top Genealogists on the Web (April 8)
5. Tales from the Courthouse (April 20)
Oh yes, and for you contrarians, this post was the least viewed:
Volunteer for the 1940 Census Indexing! (April 7)
I'll post the favorites from May in early July, once the dust has settled. Sometimes folks read posts a few days or weeks after the fact.
Harold Henderson, "Top Five MWM Posts for April 2012," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 2 June 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]
Save And Share :
Friday, June 1, 2012
Continue Growing
This morning I got the welcome news that my portfolio met the standards of the Board for the Certification of Genealogists and effective today I am Certified Genealogist(SM) no. 1029.
I know a lot of folks find the initials "CG" intimidating, or even feel that they reflect some kind of repellent exclusivity.
I think they mean that we chose to test our work against the standards of genealogy. Nobody has to do that, not everyone needs to or wants to, but choosing not to do so doesn't make you better. One thing I learned by doing so is that I'm not as good as I thought I was -- I have a lot more to learn. Those initials could also stand for "Continue Growing."
And I know I couldn't have done it without my wonderful (and long-suffering) teachers and friends and clients and wife.
FYI for those embarked on or considering the same path:
* This was the second portfolio I submitted; the first one (two years ago) didn't qualify.
* I believe this was the first portfolio submitted electronically (as a PDF file).
* It took less than four months from submission to notification, although I'm told the usual is closer to six.
* Putting together a portfolio does take a lot of time from other pursuits, but in both cases I learned a great deal just from doing it, especially from carrying the case study and kinship determination project to conclusion (not that they are more important than the other five elements!).
* I have not yet seen the judges' comments, and they will undoubtedly give me some things to work on.
* Never submit the first one you do, of anything.
Harold Henderson, "Continue Growing," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 1 June 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]
Save And Share :
Honesty is the best policy
"Promote the trust and security of genealogical consumers" is the third of eight items in the code of ethics every member of the Association of Professional Genealogists signs on joining. I think it offers a relatively quick and easy answer to many ethical dilemmas we experience as genealogists, whether professional or not.
Item 3 does not say, do what's right. It says, do whatever will make it easier for people to trust a genealogist. Or, more dramatically, treat every person in such a way that they will not run screaming for the hills the next time they meet a genealogist!
This is actually prudence, just as honesty and treating-others-as-you-would-like-to-be-treated are usually good policies as well. Dorm-room bull sessions and philosophical journals do not linger long at this point, because it's not very entertaining or hard to figure out. By contrast, you can really get into an argument over eight people in a seven-person lifeboat, or -- back in the day -- whether to let a neighbor into your fallout shelter when the bombs are falling.
But most everyday ethical decisions (including decisions we don't even realize we're making) rest on the firm foundation of simple prudence. If I were to use client reports without getting the clients' OK, and they found out, they would have reason to badmouth genealogists ever after. If a relative gave me information in confidence and I used it or published it, ditto. So this isn't just about professionals.
In a former life I was a journalist, and I was always very conscious that my livelihood depended greatly on the willingness of strangers to talk to me. Genealogists are not in quite as dire a situation, but we do depend on the goodwill (or tolerance) of record custodians, and of one another, in order to do our research well. So prudence plays a big part.
Don't get me wrong. It's important to think about right and wrong, and there are really hard cases that require us to do so. But most of the time simply being prudent will lead us in the right paths.
Harold Henderson, "Honesty is the best policy," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 1 June 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]
Save And Share :
