APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2007-12 > 1197491027
From: "Melinde Sanborn" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] WIKIPEDIA vs "The Good Old Days" and Use ofencyclopediasasa source
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:23:47 -0500
While not containing information critical to a genealogical conclusion, the
Wikipedia entry for Henry Black, of Black's Law Dictionary, was quite
helpful in suggesting sources (by commission and omission) for the sketch on
the inside front cover of the Law and Genealogy issue of the NGSQ. It was,
at the time, the best "collection" of facts about Black that an extended
search could uncover online. It was written by a historian who did not
reference, or include without reference, facts in ready evidence in usual
sources, such as city directories and censuses. It was convenient, but
needed to be deconstructed and rebuilt on the "quality" of every statement.
A well known publisher issued yet another printing of Virkus a few years
back. It sells, yet it is a dreadful piece of flawed genealogy. Exhaustive
doesn't mean common, does it?
I have corrected Wikipedia entries only in instances when I was a witness to
events being discussed. I've never gone back to see if the changes were
"corrected" again, though.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Elizabeth Shown Mills
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [APG] WIKIPEDIA vs "The Good Old Days" and Use of
Tom Tinney wrote:
The Genealogical Proof Standard
"Acceptable conclusions, therefore,
meet the Genealogical Proof Standard
(GPS). The GPS consists of five elements:"
"a reasonably exhaustive search"
>A reasonably exhaustive search
must now include WIKIPEDIA, because:
(1) According to Alexa, it is Global #8
Tom, does this interpretation mean that "a reasonably exhaustive search"
must also include Myspace, Facebook, YouTube, and the other four sites that
outrank Wikipedia on Alexa?
BCG's definition of "a reasonably exhaustive search" is grounded--first and
foremost--in quality and appropriateness.
Speaking personally, here, while I frequently hit my Wikipedia hotlink, for
subjects of more-casual interest, I have not encountered a situation in
which the use of Wikipedia was critical to any genealogical conclusion I
have reached on the basis of the Genealogical Proof Standard. Would you give
us an example from your own experience? Or, perhaps, someone else on the
list can offer an example?
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message
|Re: [APG] WIKIPEDIA vs "The Good Old Days" and Use ofencyclopediasasa source by "Melinde Sanborn" <>|