I was going to suggest that BCG start gathering errata for Genealogy Standards
the way NGS is doing for Mastering Genealogical Proof
, but you've pointed out a problem with the definition of "evidence" that goes beyond the copy editing errors collected by NGS. "A research question's tentative answer" (67) sounds more like a "theory" than the definition of genealogical "evidence" as I understand it.
Thinking about terms and definitions is not a bad thing at all. I'm not sure where these discussions currently take place in genealogy world, other than on blogs and the TGF list. Topics in Genealogical Theory and Methods
, aka TIGTAM (http://www.tigtam.com
), would be the perfect forum, if it ever gets enough material to publish a first issue. Perhaps genealogists with postnomials talk about terminology and other big-picture issues at annual meetings or on private email lists, but then again, maybe they don't. The fact that scholarly genealogical publications focus more on method than theory doesn't seem to bode well for the field's gaining academic credibility anytime soon.
I had hoped Genealogy Standards
would stop using certain words interchangeably--search and research, data and information--because they are clearly not the same concepts at all, but alas, that practice continues. I also see that librarians and archivists are still referred to as "source caretakers" and "custodians" (16). Smooth move, standard-setting genealogists. Way to insult the very people you just insisted on respecting! No wonder information professionals aren't fond of genealogists. In one short paragraph, we've reduced them to nannies and janitors when they really have The Power to Name (http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-Name-Representation-Libraries/dp/1402007760/
), not to mention a profession and a scholarly field that are a lot further along than ours! And don't even get me started on "authored narrative" (64).
Good grief. I need to get myself a postnomial--posthaste!
[All the page numbers above refer to Genealogy Standards
, for which I would create a citation if I wanted to figure out any of the following: which of the two places of publication to use, whether to use the name of the publisher or the name of the imprint, and whether "50th Anniversary Edition" is part of the title or not. I do not wish to figure out any of these things at this time.]