Page 22 - index

Genealogical Research Standards 2 1
words, who created the record? For what purpose? Was the
record created under legal oath or as part of a church
sacrament? Who was the informant? Did he or she have any
self-interest slant in reporting? We can't always answer these
questions, but we must consider them.
To point out the need for careful examination, both
original and derivative sources can harbour misinformation.
Just because a source is original does not necessarily make
it accurate or true. And at times, both primary information
and direct evidence can be unintentionally or deliberately
erroneous. This is why family historians and genealogists
are urged to hunt out as many sources as reasonably
accessible, to show that NDP concurs among them for a
certain event.
Here are some examples of circumstances when even
original, contemporary sources have been known to
provide erroneous pieces of data:

If a clergyman makes a baptismal or marriage entry in
his register many years after the fact (from a forgotten
slip of faded paper or from a participant's memory), will
it be legible or error-free?

The father who books passage to North America for his
family may be influenced by passage fares that escalate
according to age; he may falsely declare several of his
children as at or below a required age.
It was not uncommon for men to change their age or
date of birth to be eligible (or, in some countries, their
names to become ineligible) for military senrice.

You can imagine the outcome when an underage female
eloped, or an older man wanted to shave his age for a
much younger bride. When the bride and groom have
provided information in person, at the time of marriage,