How does one correct blatantly wrong information about one's ancestors?
You could also use latest changes and delete the information that was added incorrectly to restore previous information.
Also it is always good to contact the contributor of the incorrect information. That way, both of you can discuss sources and what is correct. After all, they believe what they posted was accurate.
If the information is sourced by a source that is wrong for the individual, then the source should be detached with an appropriate comment (go to Sources, and open the bad source, and click Detach). Then, the information should be changed, with a source to the changed information attached.
If the information is not sourced at all, then it may simply be edited to the correct information, with an appropriate source attached.
Please notice that any change is no better than useless if a source for the information is not attached. If familysearch is not able to offer up the needed source, then it may be passed in via RecordSeek from ancestry if appropriate, or you may create a source to support the information (hopefully adding a visual representation of the source along with typing in all the pertinent information for the source).
I will try it out.
☺️I don't know I am sorry
Sometimes the bold and blunt approach needs to be taken.
I once awoke to discover my great-great-great-great-grandfather merged with 4 other people who had the same name, 2 of of which were from the other side of the Ireland, and 2 from America. The damage was beyond being able to unmerge. Contacting the person proved useless. I then spent a few hours attempting restoring the others and did my utmost to correct things, but ultimately, I am only sure that I ended up fixing my own. I am certain that the other 4 still had some fixes to do, as it was impossible to tell where the sources had originally come from, due to the change history only showing the last person where it had come from (which was only the latest merge.... (perhaps that is a feature request----a history of where a source has been attached to?)
In another case, there is another researcher who 'is sure' that a similarly named person 'must' be the same, due to how names were often mangled, and insists upon merging the two. Beyond the names being similar and the locations similar, there are no sources supporting merging. I gave up on discussion. Every time I see them merged, I simply create a new person and then attach the sources to the one which is verifiable. I find it acceptable to show two mothers, with similar names, as at least it shows one with the name as it appears on all the child's records, and it shows a second person, who could possibly be the mother, as known at birth. Who's to say? They might be the same----but there is no proof. So, sometimes a hard line needs to be maintained.
I do not disagree that errors on ancestors are annoying. Proceed with tack and kindness. Act like you would want someone to act if they were confronting YOU with an incredible act of stupidity. Gently.
Now to the school of thought that information without a source is wrong. Not always. I added an occupation information of "Fisherman" to someone last week when an amazing letter surfaced written 140 years ago from way northern Jutland, Denmark to relatives here in the USA. It said the son has been helping his father fish. Inference? yes. Source? no.
Gail, the letter is a source. It's where you got the information that led to the conclusion. Similarly, "personal recollection" is also a source. It may or may not be an accurate source, but it tells you where the conclusion came from.
(Yes, technically "off the top of my head" is also a source. Nobody's ever that honest, though.)
I agree with your advice to always approach other contributors with gentle tact, putting yourself in their shoes: what would you want to see if you were the one who made that glaring error?
@Julia Szent-Györgyi I guess I don't understand the exact definition of source then in terms of genealogy research. I thought what I had was evidence, not proof. Records of money paid for the bulk sale of fish or taxes paid on revenue from the bulk sale of fish would be more what I thought sources were. I am sure someone will step in and send me a link now.
In my understanding, a source is anything that forms some part of the answer to the question of "why do you think this is true?". This is completely independent of the whole evidence versus proof question, although sources are, of course, generally evidence of some sort. (If the source comes down to "I made it up", then it's only evidence of my creativity, but that's still evidence.)
So for example, a list of names on a nursing school graduation photo doesn't prove that your ancestor was a nurse, but it is evidence for it, and the photo is a source for the conclusion of "occupation = nurse". Combined with, say, a Red Cross document about wartime employment and a family letter talking about working at a hospital, it'd be pretty good proof of the conclusion. Both the Red Cross document and the letter would also be sources.