Re: Genealogical Proof Standard

Jan Murphy

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:17 AM Adrian Bruce <abruce6155@...> wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 23:58, Jan Murphy ... wrote:
> I'm going to be very persnickity here but bear with me while I clarify
> 1) Calling your 90 year old mother "a primary source" is journalism usage.  In ESM's evidence anaylysis map, primary refers to the *information* not the source (container).
Ach - yes, you got me there. I called the mother the primary source,
when, as you say, I should have referred to the *info* that she
provided as primary. And, though you'll have to take my word for it, I
*was* trying to get it right. I can't say the habits of a lifetime but
certainly it's difficult to shake the habits of a couple of decades of
family history

If I've given anyone the impression that I think Mills is right and everyone else is wrong, I apologize. That wasn't my intention.  I only wanted to point out that if you are taking a course like the one at Strathclyde which is grounded in the older model, and then you dip your toes into the water at Evidence Explained and use the Evidence Analysis Process map, the terms will be used differently and it's confusing, especially if you don't know how the change came about. 

As Hilary said earlier, Evidentia (the software) can help us walk through the analysis and record our thinking.  Whatever system you want to follow and whatever language you use. it helps to write down your thinking about the document so you can go back and refer to it later.  

If FamilyHistorian won't deal nicely with a PDF report generated by Evidentia, at least leave yourself some sort of breadcrumb saying when you made an analysis and a pointer to where you are keeping your Evidentia reports.   

Jan Murphy
Moderator Pro Tempore

Join to automatically receive all group messages.