[WikiEN-l] Age fabrication and original research

[Cary Bass]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Durova wrote:
>> Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the
>> brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon
>> the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong.
>> The more distant, the more likely a mistake.
>>
>
> Your presumption here is that the information came from "the
> brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew". That may very well have
> some weight in evaluating the information on a death certificate.
> The birth information in the SSDI could reasonably be from a
> different source: her own application for a social security number.
> Other official sources exist
>
>> My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's name.
>> And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires.
>> In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I
>> was present when the later data was recorded and the person who
>> answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply
>> misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden
>> arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's
>> a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial
>> marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence
>> of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came.
>>
>
> Spelling gives rise to a broad range of different errors. My own
> father misspelled my middle name on my birth record as "Micheal"
> even though his own first name was "Michael".
>
> On census records spelling errors abound. When census takers went
> out to gather information in a less literate era they were left to
> their own devices when they had to record the name of an
> illiterate, particularly in the case of an immigrant whose name was
> in a strange tongue. Priests who performed marriages often "fixed"
> names to make them more consistent with community norms.
>
>> Let's go with the secondary sources here. No disrespect
>> intended.
>>
>>
> Leaving data from a secondary source untouched when it is in
> reasonable doubt is more obtuse than disrespectful. If we continue
> in this way we perpetuate errors, and only add fuel for those who
> consider Wikipedia unreliable
>
> One secondary source that uses 1904 for Jeane Dixon's birth is
> IMDB, but they err in their link to her husband James Dixon. He
> was an acquaintance of Hal Roach, and the Dixons were married in
> 1939, but the linked James Dixon was *born* in 1939.
In my experience, IMDB is hugely unreliable as a secondary source,
notably because the material can be edited by you and me (provided you
have an account); and while it is all subject to editorial review, a
good portion of the data is accepted without question.

- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkrDsrsACgkQyQg4JSymDYncJwCeL92o7D5JX1bupsrOl1vh0oH6
PtEAn2xF8qZJHJ/t51rUywv8LXhwWhnD
=DONK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----