APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101918899


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Original vs Derivative, etc.
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:35:41 -0600
In-Reply-To: <df.7c5f24d.2edf3eb5@cs.com>


Kate, thanks for "biting" -- with a sound set of teeth - -and, Elissa, for
emphasizing that this is an idea forum, not just a Q&A forum, and that we
all learn best when we all share our ideas.


Christine Rose wrote:
< I could for instance create an original painting of San Francisco's
1906 earthquake and fire, without having been there. Anyone copying my
original
painting (if I were so skilled as to create one!) would be creating a
derivative.>

Chris, this is a great analogy to help us all separate "original creation"
from "accuracy of content," which is where most researchers seem to get hung
up in evaluating what they find. Nobody could assert you were around in 1906
to have firsthand knowledge of the event. Nonetheless, you could certainly
create an "original" painting in which you interpret that event. In order to
decide whether your "original" was "accurate," we would need to study the
subject in considerable detail.

It seems to me that even though we all wish we could simplify evidence by
making it either *this* or *that*, as in . . .

SOURCE
Original vs. Derivative

INFORMATION
Primary vs. Secondary

EVIDENCE
Direct vs. Indirect

. . . what we actually have in each of these three aspects is a sliding
scale, from one extreme to the other, against which we have to measure every
thing we find. As Chad and Jim so wisely pointed out, "originals" often are
not truly the originals--only the closest we can get to it. As others have
pointed out, even if someone has firsthand, primary, knowledge of an event,
their recollection or intent may be flawed. In the end, the critical
determinant is our own judgment and how carefully we have weighed and
measured every aspect of what we have found.

That, IMO, is the most important benefit of separating "source" from
"information" from "evidence" -- rather than simply labeling something
"primary source" or "secondary source." Separating the source (the physical
container) from information (the contents of the container) from evidence
(what we deduce from what we see) requires us to be more thoughtful and more
analytical rather than just latching onto a court record and saying "Aha!
Primary source!" and accepting it as gospel.

Elizabeth

-----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
*Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian*



This thread: