GEN-EDITOR-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-EDITOR > 1997-09 > 0873184134


From: Janet Reinhold <>
Subject: Editing a Newsletter: Sources
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:08:54 -0700


I was so proud of my latest 36-page issue. But now I am "dis-couraged."
I just learned from a close correspondent that an article I published in it
was somehow wrong. The person was very upset that, the way it was
presented (as an article), was going to lead someone astray in their
genealogical research on that line.

This has happened to me before. Another case comes to mind in which I
published a family group sheet that I combined from two researchers, only
to have the one write me a long letter--she was really upset that I
accepted this other person's linkage to a wife that she did not feel was
substantiated. "How to learn the hard way."

Let me elucidate, I am not the family expert on these names. I have one
line myself, the Conkles of Washington Co PA, and there are at least 10
different lines (Kunkle, Kunkel, Gunkel, etc.) which have not been
connected yet. So I get many articles and queries from people whom I am
counting on to be researchers. We haven't had one reunion yet for all of
us--just the lines have reunions every now and then. We have one surname
researcher who compiles information on all of the lines, and he has
organized them a certain way, and I use much of his information. But he
doesn't always footnote his items thoroughly enough for many subscribers.
He has a big heart and is very generous with sharing and spending $ on
research, well I am so grateful to him.

I know I need to become more of an expert, and I am hoping to over time,
but in the meantime I get so much material that it is not always possible
to be on top of it. Everything which goes into my newsletter has at least
one source---the submitter. To analyze each article would take so much time
that I couldn't get the issues out in a timely manner.

Then I get some "in-fighting" within the lines, between folks who go with
the "family tradition" story and those who use a more logical
"preponderance of evidence" approach.

I guess what I am asking you to do is comment on this: what do you see
your own job as being when it comes to unsolicited articles? Other than
retracting the article in the next issue, or correcting it, or adding an
errata, or simply by quoting the letter as sent to me, what would have
prevented it in the first place? Perhaps the answer lies simply in
becoming an "expert."

It is times like this which make me feel like "quitting." That is to say,
would it not be better to eliminate the forum completely rather than
provide a platform that's wrong?

I see that the Taylor newsletter editor indicates there are other Taylor
letters around. I never thought Kunkel (etc) was common, but maybe that is
what should be done. One of the reasons I started the newsletter was to
provide a means for "less duplication of effort," which in our case
_should_ mean that especially the expensive research could be shared
(German extractions of church records, e.g., by a German genealogist).

Well I'll sign off now.
:)

Janet Reinhold
PO Box 4001
Covina CA 91723
Family genealogy at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/8878
Editor for the Kunkel Kunkle Conkle Gunkel "Spindle" Family Genealogy
Newsletter at http://www.flash.net/~conkle/INDEX.HTM
Fax: 626-915-0798
Email:

This thread: