Am I an Evidence-Based Genealogist or Conclusion-Based Genealogist?

In his post “Are you an Evidence-Based or a Conclusion Based Researcher?” Randy Seaver brought up some interesting points about how we enter facts into our genealogy software and come to conclusions about what information from which sources for each fact is more true. He describes an “Evidence-based” user as one who enters information about a birth source, for example, from five different sources, as five different facts. This user then comes to a conclusion about which fact is most true and makes it a “preferred” fact in their software. The “Conclusion-based” user, on the other hand, evaluates all the evidence or sources and picks the best one, thereby reaching a conclusion as to which fact is most true. This user then creates one fact and cites one source (or multiple sources) for this one fact or conclusion.

I like to consider myself to be somewhat of a hybrid. Because I do sometimes like to use the report functions of my Rootsmagic software, I don’t like to enter more than one version of each fact. Having 5 instances of the Birth fact, for example, clogs up my narrative report and makes it difficult for me to read and understand. Instead I enter 1 fact and if there are differences within the evidence I’ve evaluated, I try to capture that within my fact description, citations, and notes.

For example, with the case of my brick wall, William Edward Peters, I have one Birth fact listed for him. I usually list the most specific information I have found, in this case, my birth fact says William was born 10 Mar 1874 in Thomasville, Oregon Co., MO.

For each piece of evidence I create a source citation and in the detail text field, I add the text that provides birth date and place information. In the screen shot below, the obituary from the Pocahontas Star Herald stated that William was born in Thomasville, MO on March 10, 1874.

Here is a table of information I collected about William’s birth. I used a total of six pieces of evidence or sources.

Birth Date	Mar 1877	1900 Census, Highland Twp., Oregon Co., MO
	Abt 1875	1910 Census, Big Apple Twp., Oregon Co., MO, taken April 28, 1910: lists his age as 35; 1910-35=b. 1875
	Abt 1872	1920 Census, Thayer Twp., Oregon Co., MO, taken Jan 6, 1920, lists his age as 48; 1920-48 = 1872
	Abt 1873	1930 Census, Bristow, Randolph Co., AR, taken Apr 15, 1930, lists his age as 57; 1930-57=1873
	Mar 10, 1874	Obituary Pocahontas Star, Feb 3, 1948
	Mar 10, 1874	Death Certificate, William E Peters, Feb 3, 1948
Birth Place	IL	1900 Census, Highland Twp., Oregon Co., MO
	IL	1910 Census, Big Apple Twp., Oregon Co., MO
	IL	1920 Census, Thayer Twp., Oregon Co., MO
	MO	1930 Census, Bristow, Randolph Co., AR
	Thomasville, MO	Obituary Pocahontas Star, Feb 3, 1948
	Thomasville, MO	Death Certificate, William E Peters, Feb 3, 1948

In the notes field for the Birth fact, I then analyze all pieces of evidence and state which pieces corroborate or contradict each other. I will usually indicate whether I think one piece weighs more than the other based on time it was created or from whom the information was provided.

Here are the notes I compiled about the six sources I analyzed about the birth of William Peters.

This is what my Rootsmagic narrative reports would look like if I had created a new birth fact for every piece of evidence I analyzed or encountered:

I really don’t like the way this example reads and says he “was born” six different times! Instead I prefer the more narrative approach with all of the facts listed within my source citations’ detailed text fields in the footnotes or endnotes of my report. A report with one fact listed and all six sources cited with the evidence analyzed and written up in the birth notes section looks like this:

Rootsmagic does have the capability of identifying one fact as the preferred or primary fact as Randy learned in his later post, however, in my Rootsmagic report, all six of the birth facts are still listed, even when one is identified as the primary fact.

So in conclusion, I consider myself to be an evidence-based genealogist, however:

·         I do NOT enter my evidence as separate facts.

·         I do, however enter them as separate sources under one umbrella fact.

·         In the example above, I used the most specific date and place.

·         However, if I had copied a specific date and place of birth for an ancestor from someone else’s family file off the internet, with no other corroborating evidence to support that information, I would probably not enter it as a fact in my database.

·         If I only have census reports as evidence and they say three different years of birth, I would simply state birth as between the lowest and highest year. In the case of my ancestor William Peters, discussed above, I would state “bet. 1872-1877” for date of birth.

·         Places of birth are trickier for me and I have not yet decided on a course of action. In the case of William Peters discussed above, I initially put “Missouri or Illinois” in the place of birth field. However that screws up my place list. So in that example, I might create two separate facts, one for Illinois and one for Missouri.

And why am I an Evidence-Based genealogist? Frankly because I love the records and what better way to show the love than to cite them and include them in all facts containing the information they reference?

So what are you? Do you evaluate and include every piece of evidence in your software and reports and analysis or do you determine your conclusion and use one piece of evidence to support that claim?