... You will see that I have quoted the US 1900 Federal Census for
the data on Charles HINTE & his Family... Far too many family trees assume too much already, only to be later proven to be guesses rather than fact. I am determined not to perpetrate this problem in my case....
Then don't quote from U.S Census data either... My grandmother was listed as a "son" in her first census... a deceased twin, rather than the living twin, was enumerated in another... dates are often incorrect, even birthdays in the 1900 Census... step children are usually not identified as "step"... names are spelled atrociously.
I have a branch of my tree that had been so messed up in the past by so many people that the DAR kicked out everyone who had been admitted under my 5grGF and stopped accepting membership based on him - and there is no doubt that he served in the RW. But, even primary sources can occasionally be wrong - my mother's birth certificate spells both her parent's names incorrectly; my grGA/U's ages are incorrect on their marriage license (and not because they weren't old enough to get married). While I agree there is A LOT of MISinformation out there, sometimes things just have to be concluded on the preponderance of evidence.
You are absolutely correct, when you say that "irregularities occur" in the US 1900 Federal census & in all probability all Census & for that matter many other records! This is Why I always endeavour to check original documents as well & the fact that they in turn may not be completely accurate is always a problem.
I do not claim to be infallible in my research, however I do go to the lengths of appropriate care as far as available documents allow, I would guess that Genealogists in general accept that were one does provide provenance (Sources?) at face value then we have done our best to establish that we have correct information.
Part of my point is that there are some that do not go to sufficient lengths to get that provenance in the first place. In my case there are three family trees on Ancestry.com that include my parents were that one owner of these trees just will not remove the data on Ancestry that is plainly incorrect, she has corrected some of the data, that I provided her to prove that we have no connection??? However she will not remove the incorrect inclusions??? I have corresponded with this person for some years in an attempt to get these changes made!! So you see we have other problems of incorrect data that makes others think that because these are published trees , that they are fact???
Generally we were not there, so History in what ever form is to be used in that form, unless we can prove otherwise.Therefore you're "Preponderance of evidence" is valid, again given that you're sources are entered in you're data notes.