In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:54:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:
A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which narrates that it was built in 1791, built of sandstone, and has a clock tower of gothic style dating from 1806 built by village subscription to celebrate Trafalgar, and that six generations of the family of the Lord of Boggle, is hardly likely to be lying. And if the same information can be verified for the website of the county historical society, then common sense says we have enough.>>
------------------
Historical Society websites are not reliable sources. For the most part they consist of segments written by amateur historians and amateur genealogists.
I started the Local History Project, and not even I would consider a site like that reliable and citable.
IF one of those authors has been previously published by a third-party publisher (who does fact-checking), then it might be considered a reliable source. But not until then.
Will Johnson
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220572846x1201387511/aol?redir=http... Aprilfooter427NO62)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com writes:
A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which narrates that it was built in 1791, built of sandstone, and has a clock tower of gothic style dating from 1806 built by village subscription to celebrate Trafalgar, and that six generations of the family of the Lord of Boggle, is hardly likely to be lying. And if the same information can be verified for the website of the county historical society, then common sense says we have enough.>>
Historical Society websites are not reliable sources. For the most part they consist of segments written by amateur historians and amateur genealogists.
I started the Local History Project, and not even I would consider a site like that reliable and citable.
IF one of those authors has been previously published by a third-party publisher (who does fact-checking), then it might be considered a reliable source. But not until then.
One fact is that local histories are seldom written by people who live far away from the community in question. Most are indeed written by amateurs, and they often draw unsophisticated and unwarranted conclusions. I've seen awful work done by professionals too, so I'm not about to abandon my judgement when I see academic or professional titles attached to somebody's name.
Reliability depends just as much on context as anything else.
Ec