Ancestry Magazine

The Web is full of answers—as long as you know which ones to trust.

There may still be a few diehards who distrust any information obtained online, but for most of us, online databases have become a major source for indexes and images associated with family history. But can you trust the information you find in cyberspace?

The Web carries whatever a user posts without regard to quality or value. Researchers have the responsibility of evaluating the information.

Whether it’s from a computer display, print publication, manuscript record, sworn testimony, or casual conversation, it’s important to consider the quality of any source you use in your search for family history. To determine if a source is trustworthy, you can start by asking the following questions about every item of information before you decide to record it in your family tree.

What was its source?

If your information came from the very earliest record made of the information, it is an original, with no opportunity for mistakes or losses in recopying. Otherwise, the source is derivative, with the possibility that inadvertent errors could have occurred while recopying or resending the information. Example: A page from a census is original; an index or a transcribed database is derivative because it depends on an interpretation of the original.

Who provided the original record? And when?

Did the recordmaker see the event that was recorded or know about a relationship firsthand? Was the information recorded while fresh in his or her mind—before memory had a chance to play tricks? If so, the information is primary and more likely to be reliable. If the informant’s knowledge came from someone else, or if it wasn’t recorded in a timely manner, it’s secondary information—less likely to represent actual facts. Example: The time and cause of death on a death certificate is primary information, but the decedent’s age, birth date, or parent’s name listed on the same document is secondary information.

Could bias or self-interest have altered it?

If the original informant had a reason to embellish or misrepresent facts, the information should be accepted cautiously, at least until it can be confirmed via other means. Caution is also needed if anyone who recopied or retransmitted the information may have had a reason to alter it. Example: Finding a probate file that includes relationship information can be a huge boon, but if it was provided by a descendant of a beneficiary, accept the information cautiously.

Is it consistent with information from independent sources?

Information that checks out with other sources is more trustworthy than information that conflicts with other sources. In those instances, you need to decide which source is more believable. Or, better still, seek another source of information that confirms the information. Example: A 1930 census record that lists a different year of immigration than the 1920 census means it’s time to find a source of primary information, like a passenger arrival list made at the time, to confirm which year is right.

Donn Devine, CG, CGI, has been a genealogist for 30 years and has published research findings in leading national journals.