Online Resources Vs Original Resources

[AndrewMartin]

With the rise of websites containing "pay-to-view" or with free historical information and images, do you feel that people are more likely to use this method and accept this as the way to (re)discover history instead of looking at the original item?

It's all too easy to just surf a website, look at the items and then that's it.. but there is definitely merits in actually going and looking at the original item - be it a physical three-dimentional museum piece or an ancient book in the local records office.

Is our future threatening our history?

Get voting (and discussing!).

[bekahsgran]

Hi
Yes, you are correct that it is so easy to just surf a website, and whilst it can be a good starting point to set you off in the right direction, online resources are only as reliable as the person inputting the information, and as we are all aware we are only human after all, and errors do occur.
So I have to vote, that record offices wont become redundantbecause there will always be the need to check the original documents whatever is available online.
We have all, at sometime or other, come across people who take all their information from the internet, without even bothering to check its authenticity, and one can soon pick up the holes in this info.
So everyone PLEASE remember, don't take online research as gospel, always check the originals!
Well there's my twopence worth
Anne
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~annesgenealogy/index.html
Researching Websdale, Jillings, Egmore, Lovett, Savage, Seymour, Graves and Plunkett in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

[Bee]

I was going to vote NO but changed my mind to OTHER, meaning that I hope record offices don't become redundant.

It's all very well taking information off the web, even if it is correct (which it isn't always),but there comes a point in your research when you have to get out from behind your pc and start delving into the record offices and libraries.

From a personal point of view I just wish that record depositories did Sunday opening and night shifts because at the moment that seems to be my only spare time.

happy hunting

Bee

[Kazza]

Great question,  should get people thinking,  and some of us venting. 

I voted No, Looking at real physical historial pieces will always be preferred by people.

I use the internet to tell me where I can find things to look at.  Nothing compares with looking at original documents.  If you can find them.  If not I will still want to look at a film myself.  And fightng with an unco-operative microfilm reader is a pleasure everyone should try at least once. 

As family historians we should be getting back as close as we can to the source materials.  There is so much transcribed material on the internet that is just plain wrong.  It is so easy to race ahead taking material from the LDS and other sites willy-nilly,  but that is not thorough research.

Every time I find something on the internet I treat it as a lead,  not proof.  I need a certificate in my hand,  or sight of a record or a film,  before I am close to satisfied.

The original documents are to me the fun bit,  they are almost the object of my quest.  For me they contribute a lot to Bringing them to life.

Kazza.

[GreySquirrel]

If we are honest, the recent (last three to five years) popularity of genealogy is largely due to the internet and its success in making a range of core materials (censuses, BMD indexes etc) available to a wider audience regardless of their geographical location. No one could have predicted five years ago that the BBC would run a highly successful series on genealogy on primetime TV.

So I would say that we owe a great deal to the internet.

I would also say that there is no real difference between searching a copy of a primary source on the internet and searching the same thing on microfiche or microform. For example, the censuses are not available in their original form -- the actual enumeration books. A film is no better than a website in this instance. Indeed, websites facilitate searches because of their surname indexes (which although prone to mistrancription are still a major leap forward, as anyone who used to search speculatively through microfilm upon film hoping to find someone will be able to confirm).

What I do always treat with extreme caution is individual family histories on websites. I would recommend that no one simply copied someone else's data into their own tree -- what you will almost certainly be doing is bolting on someone else's errors and corrupting your own information and adding wrong details or even "relatives" you don't have. If there are errors on my tree, at least they are of my own making and I have no one else to blame.

[MarieC]

Great question!

I agree that going to look at the original documents is ALWAYS to be preferred!  Certainly, there are plenty of errors in things that appear on the Internet!

However, for those of us on the other side of the world, in Australia etc, we just cannot do this if we are researching in Britain!  And I am green with envy of people who can pop down to the local record office. 

As well as the wonderful service provided by LDS centres, I have got some valuable stuff via the Internet, including from very kind people such as those who inhabit this list - the greatest genealogy chat group in existence, in my opinion!

MarieC