How can I evaluate a source's reliability for genealogy research?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
To judge a genealogy source’s reliability, treat it as evidence, not truth: check provenance, original vs. derivative status, citations, and whether professional standards or peer review apply (examples: genealogical journals and societies emphasize methodology) [1] [2]. Use tools and software that preserve data integrity (GEDCOM-supporting programs like Ancestris) and structured evaluation tools (Evidentia) to organize and test claims [3] [4].
1. Treat every item as evidence, not fact — provenance is everything
Reliable genealogy practice begins with provenance: what created the record, when, and for what purpose. The National Genealogical Society guidance frames this: researchers must “assess the reliability of information” and not accept items as fact without evaluation, weighing authorship, context, and possible errors [1]. Published family histories can be useful starting points, but you must find and verify the primary sources they cite rather than accepting their narratives at face value [5].
2. Distinguish originals, contemporary copies, and derivative compilations
Original records (e.g., civil registers, wills, newspapers) carry greater probative value than later compiled pedigrees or crowd-sourced profiles. The Family Tree Magazine comparison highlights large databases and cemetery indexes that aggregate content; these are valuable but often derivative and may contain user-created entries that need verification against originals [6]. The Family History Fanatics guide explicitly recommends fact‑checking cited sources within published genealogies to see whether the documentation actually supports the author’s claim [5].
3. Use scholarly and society standards when available
State and national genealogical journals and societies publish vetted methodologies and case studies that set community standards. ThoughtCo. lists respected journals and notes they lead on methodology and case studies—use their practices as benchmarks for evidence weighing, citation standards, and conflict resolution between sources [2]. NGS guidance likewise emphasizes methodical assessment and weighing of conflicting evidence [1].
4. Look for citations, trace them, and check context
A reliable secondary source provides precise citations you can locate. If you can find the cited record, confirm that it actually says what the compiler claims—this is a central test called out in guidance on published genealogies [5]. Absence of specific citations or vague references is a red flag; the Ancestor Hunt and other practical blogs stress checking original newspapers, indexes, and repositories when a secondary source cites them [7].
5. Beware of convenience databases and community content pitfalls
Large commercial and volunteer-run sites speed research but mix primary records with user-submitted family trees and cemetery transcriptions that vary in accuracy [6]. Family Tree Magazine explicitly urges separating “truth from fiction” in big cemetery databases and other repositories that host both documented records and unverified profiles [6]. Treat user-contributed conclusions as hypotheses to be tested.
6. Use structured tools and software to preserve integrity and document reasoning
Genealogy software that honors GEDCOM standards can help preserve data fidelity and source links when you transfer files between tools—reviewers note Ancestris and other programs for maintaining exchange standards and data reliability [3]. For evidence analysis, dedicated programs like Evidentia enforce structured reasoning and citation tracking, helping you record how you weighed evidence and reached conclusions [4].
7. Cross-check with newspapers, society collections, and updated databases
Newspaper databases and society projects continually add material; monitoring updates can yield primary evidence to confirm or overturn prior conclusions. The Ancestor Hunt reports on GenealogyBank updates, illustrating how new digitized titles can change the evidence picture and must be incorporated into reassessments [7]. Professional centers such as American Ancestors provide curated collections and staff expertise that raise confidence when sources are found there [8].
8. Expect and resolve conflicts using documented methodology
Conflicting statements across sources are normal; the appropriate response is methodical correlation, not dismissal. The NGS guidance and genealogical journals recommend weighing evidence, considering indirect evidence and the totality of records, and documenting rationale for accepting one interpretation over another [1] [2]. Software and journals exist to help you apply that rigor [4] [2].
Limitations and final notes: available sources provided here do not present a single, unified checklist; instead they offer complementary guidance—methodology from NGS [1], practical site cautions from Family Tree Magazine [6], software and tool suggestions [3] [4], and examples of how new digitized material can alter findings [7]. Use those strands together: verify provenance, trace citations to originals, apply society standards, record reasoning, and re-check as new records appear.