Standards

Anyone who has even dabbled in genealogy learns very quickly there are public trees who adhere to standards and trees that only copy and paste from others, never documenting or providing sources for their information.

The other day I stumbled across the BCG (Board for Certification of Genealogists). Of course one can become certified as a genealogist. There is even a book available for the standards one needs to follow to become certified. Does this mean you need to be certified? No. Does it mean you don't need the book? Actually, if you're serious about your genealogy, even as a hobbyist, I believe it's a good book to have on your reference shelf.

Why? Because we owe it to our ancestors to make sure we are documenting their lives using the highest standards possible. Pages 29-31 are worth the price of the book. The Genealogist's Code. There are many statements in this section. The last two codes under To protect the profession can never be repeated often enough.

"I will not represent as my own the work of another. This includes works that are copyrighted, in the public domain, or unpublished. This pledge includes reports, letters, lecture materials, audio/visual tapes, compiled records, and authored essays."

"I will not reproduce for public dissemination, in an oral or written fashion, the work of another genealogist, writer, or lecturer, without that person's written consent. In citing another's work I will give proper credit."

While all of this is great and it's how I do things, I can't stop others from stealing my work and attempting to pass it off as their own work. If I see it done, it doesn't make me happy, but I can't force someone else to have my standards.

The very best I can do is make sure I adhere to my standards.

When I first read a summary of the standards, I was surprised that I was already doing things according to the BCG standards. As I thought about it, I realized of course I would do things that way. I come from a science/medical background. I am used to documenting, documenting, documenting. I'm used to seeing "facts" and knowing that all by themselves those facts mean nothing and might not be real.

In my day job I've seen results that aren't true results. They were true for that particular specimen, but a quick glance at the results told me immediately they weren't true results for the patient the specimen came from. How was I so sure? Because the patient was not only alive, but alert. Those results were compatible only with death or right before death. They were not compatible with life. Because of my training and the standards we use in the modern hospital laboratory, I knew better than to trust those result and I knew better than to release them. My job was to determine if the problem was a mechanical problem with the instrument, or if the problem was with the specimen itself. After a quick evaluation, a new specimen was obtained and ran. Those results were compatible with life and the level of illness associated with that patient. Determining the reason for the problem with the first specimen was also researched and documented, also. It was important to document the right results and to document why the first set were wrong.

The same applies to genealogy. You have to show why this document belongs to your ancestor and you have to show why another document with the same name on it does not belong to your ancestor. Some are easier to document than others. John Smith was in New York City on 14 April 1883. You have found a newspaper where he attended the wedding of his sister, Jane Smith, the daughter of James and Jenna Smith. You know the sister belongs to your ancestor named John Smith and so do the parents. You know this because you have copies of photographs of that wedding that has been passed down through the generations.

It doesn't take anyone too bright to realize that the marriage record for John Smith and Abigal Johnson who married on 16 April 1883 in Los Angeles, California is not your ancestor. In 1883 it was impossible to get from New York City to Los Angeles in two days.

Yet there will be many who do place John Smith in New York on the 14th of April who also attach the marriage record of the wedding that took place two days later in Los Angeles to your John Smith. John Smith did marry Abigal. But he married Abigal Jenson, not Johnson and they married in Dutchess County, New York, in 1885, not in Los Angeles, California in 1883.

For the most part, most of the standards just mean you need to use common sense. Can you find a document for the life event? Yes? Great. Does it make sense that it belongs to your ancestor and not someone with the same name? Yes? Fabulous. Can you find additional documents, such as tax records, deeds, etc., for your ancestor in that area? No? Are you sure it's your ancestor? No? Then you can't use it at this time. You can save it and see if you can find more evidence that proves this document belongs to your ancestor or disproves it, but you can't state it as fact yet.

That's where so many get into trouble and I've done it myself. We're so happy to find this that we don't stop to evaluate it with everything else we know about our ancestor. We state it as fact when it hasn't been proven yet.

This is where knowing the standards will go a long ways to prevent all of us from barking up the wrong family tree.

But the most important thing to remember about the standards, if I can't read your report and retrace your steps showing how you came to that conclusion, you have not come close to adhering to the standards set up for genealogists.

You can get a copy of the Standards Manual here or here.