APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101887258


From: Gordon Remington <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Sources: Original vs. Derivative
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:47:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <007101c4d753$7943a430$0900a8c0@LISSALAP>


Thanks for changing the subject, Elise.

David Samuelsen has been following the "Sampubco" thread and wondered what the more recent postings had to do with the original question about his business.

Gordon Remington, Salt Lake City

"Elissa Scalise Powell, CGRS" <> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kate Lynn [mailto:]
> Subject: RE: [APG] Re: SAMPUBCO
>
> Ok, I'll "bite." I'm addressing
> the question of the validity and classification of "reproduced" sources.
> So here goes, be kind.

(The subject heading was something else, so I change it.)

Good for you Kate. Don't be afraid to jump in. As my dad always said,
opinions are like noses... everyone has one. And in this forum the
discussion is the thing, not who is "right" or "wrong."

> If I make a photocopy, or scan, or digital image of an original
> document, or print from an FHL film, and then thoroughly examine and
> evaluate that facsimile to my satisfaction; I will tend to consider that
> I have a "primary" source, and will cite it as such.

I believe that by the standard definition this is an "original" source which
is defined as something created at the time of the event, etc. This may be
just semantics, but that is why we have standards... so we can all talk the
same language.

Assuming the copy
> is exact I am not bound by the actual physical construction of the thing
> but am concerned with the information contained therein. When I extract
> information it is my responsibility to ascertain the credibility of that
> information to the standards expected of me as a professional. If, upon
> my examination, I determine that the information to be extracted is
> possibly inaccurate, example: a death certificate where the names,
> dates, places have been reported by someone not in a position to be
> personally aware of the certainty of said information; then I would have
> to determine that I had a "derivative" and questionable source.

I would beg to differ on this point. A "derivative source" is an abstract or
transcript or anything else that has been interpreted through a human hand
or brain and come out as something other than the original. I believe what
you mean is "secondary information" which can be questionable such as from
the example you cite.

The
> value then would lie in comparison of information, thus to be considered
> as a *possible* "secondary" source, and in any new and/or conflicting
> information that can act as a basis for further research. Again,
> whether that death certificate is an original or an exact reproduction
> of the original is academic to my purpose.

I agree with this point. Semantics: "secondary source" has been changed to
"secondary information."

Now for further discussion is the age-old question of if a scanned or
otherwise reproduced image is considered an "original" source since its
definition is "made at the time of the event." Or is a picture worth just as
much?

-- Elissa Powell, CGRS in Pittsburgh




==== APG Mailing List ====
The Association of Professional Genealogists
http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html


This thread: