Detaching sources for invalid reasons
Recently someone detached 20 sources and 3 children from my GGGgrandfather's page. I asked her why and she replied very nicely that she detaches sources if the source is behind a paywall (for example Ancestry). She also would detach sources that came from FS sources which had not yet been indexed and reviewed. I called FS support twice. First a very knowledgeable Elder said the reasons were not valid. I called again to verify and a very helpful Sister confirmed what the Elder said. The person doing the detaching never answered me about why she deleted three children. She won't reply to me anymore. What can be done about this? TIA BTW I think her intentions are good but her reasons are invalid.
Best Answers
-
It has been suggested before on this forum that sources that are behind a paywall should not be attached. The logic for that argument is flawed.
I have my parents' birth, marriage and death certificates. They are not freely available online. The only way for anyone else to get them would be to order, and pay for, copies from the relevant government department, effectively putting them behind a paywall. That does not make a person's birth, marriage or death certificate invalid as a source.
As to what to do about it? The only solution may be to attach the sources and children again, and again, and again ...
4 -
WOW!!! I am amazed at that! I got mad just reading that!!! I'm so glad she hasn't stumbled on my ancestors because I will put sources from not only Ancestry, but other data bases as well. (Many are free, local archives, etc.) Now I admit, if I can find a viewable source in FamilySearch that is the exact same image, I will delete the Ancestry source. BUT is she aware that the research wiki's are full of links to many sources behind paywalls, including Ancestry? And removing images that haven't been indexed? What??? She is really judge and jury for the images that FamilySearch chooses to provide people! ****! Good luck!
0 -
Detaching images just because they're not indexed is especially misguided. Those are often primary sources, for heaven's sake! Indexes are derivative sources at best, often slightly wrong, sometimes completely messed up, and they're not in any way better than the original image -- they represent the opinion of two or three volunteer indexers, and that's all.
If this person encountered a citation of a printed book, would she detach that, since it's not online and free?
For Ancestry sources specifically, you can usually generate a "share" link that anyone can use, without a subscription. Whenever possible, I suggest using those on FS and WikiTree -- but being behind a paywall does not invalidate a source. It just makes it harder to verify or use.
As for what to do about this seriously-misguided person's changes, I guess you get the unenviable task of learning all about the Change Log and its Restore function.
1 -
George
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Your are CORECT.
The User/Patron, may be well indented; but, their reasoning and actions, are FLAWED and INVALID.
In fact, their actions, are UNACCEPTABLE; and, SHOULD be "Immediately" STOPPED, curtailed.
I am SURPRISED, that 'FamilySearch', has NOT already, contacted; and, WARNED, the particular User/Patron.
This is definitely a case; where, 'FamilySearch', SHOULD kindly take the User/Patron to task, DIRECTING that the User/Patron, IMMEDIATELY; and, PERMANENTLY, "Stop"/"Desist", from that current course of action, that they have been and are undertaking.
WITH the WARNING, that if they "Continue"/"Persist", that their "Privileges", to use 'FamilySearch'; especially, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', WILL be SUSPENDED, for a period; or, worse, depending upon their reaction, REMOVED / REVOKED immediately.
Plus, 'FamilySearch' NEEDS to go back, through the the work/actions, of this User/Patron; and, "Reinstate" ALL such instances; where, they HAVE done such.
This is a case; where, this "Knowledge Article", in 'FamilySearch', applies ...
How do I report changes or problems made by other contributors?
that comes to the fore ...
In particularly, the last sentence in that "Knowledge Article"; which, is very IMPORTANT:
Quote
------------------
If you have questions regarding inadvertent, suspicious or potentially malicious errors in records that you are unable to resolve per the instructions above, contact FamilySearch Support.
------------------
IF, 'FamilySearch', has NOT already taken action, against the particular User/Patron concerned; THEN, 'FamilySearch' SHOULD "Immediately" DO so.
==========
Hopefully, a "Moderator" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ], here in this Forum, WILL "Immediately" take this matter of yours, DIRECTLY, into the Workings, of 'FamilySearch' "Support", to better assist you.
==========
And ...
You were right, in bring this matter up, in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
As, it would appear, from you post, that in the FISRT instance, that 'FamilySearch' "Support", MAY have FAILED to take, the necessary action; ESPECIALLY, if such, is STILL occurring.
I TRULY hope, that the matter, is IMMEDIATELY address, by 'FamilySearch'.
Good Luck.
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective; and, another avenue to pursue.
Brett
2
Answers
-
Julia Szent-Györgyi I did an experiment with someone in the last few months, and that share link did NOT generate the image, just the index information.
0 -
I've encountered Ancestry share links that were to the image, and others that were useless, and I don't know if the difference was due to user error, or Ancestry data structures, or timing, or what. But either way, I appreciated the effort.
0 -
No, it's actually pretty hard to make a user error with this sharing function. LOL. I think Ancestry changed something to make it work differently. On purpose or not? Who knows.
0 -
The nature of the Family Search tree means that this will always happen. People will always mess things up, sometimes with good intentions. Then you come along and fix them. When we die, a great deal of our work will evaporate with us. It's the nature of the tree.
2 -
@George Waller Hi, if you haven't already corrected the detached sources perhaps these knowledge articles will help you restore what was removed.
All the best
Cedar
2 -
I agree. I would suggest a general rule - DO NOT DETACH A VALID SOURCE UNLESS IT CAN BE REPLACED WITH A 'DUPLICATE' WHICH IMPROVES ACCESS. DO NOT DETACH AN INCORRECT SOURCE WITHOUT INCLUDING A 'REASON STATEMENT' (hopefully these won't disappear in Change Log - but I am seeing more 'unhelpful' changes to Change Log).
Possible Workaround: Include a transcript of the record in the Record Notes. This will allow the person without paywall access to view the pertinent data (usually a 'limited' transcript of a record is considered 'fair use'). In addition, if desired a transcript version of the record could be saved to Source Box and/or duplicated as a Document under Memories (which might prevent their deletion or aid in 'recovery').
2 -
@genthusiast Adding a duplicate document under memories sounds like a good idea, I do wonder how that will work under copyright laws. Perhaps a reworded source under memories would work, as you have mentioned 'fair use,' would be feasible. As we are able to add our own personal documents, the sources could be added to a journal style memory. Plus keep a copy of documents and sources as a personal copy in another format so they are easily reattached if you are unable to undo the changes. It can be difficult if someone has changes made to their line which are unnecessary.
What I would urge anyone to do in this situation is to 'follow' that particular ancestor or anyone else you are interested in. Then you can track any other changes that are made and correct them as soon as possible.
1 -
Yes, one has to make sure copyright is followed. For example, I had to ask permission for a newspaper article - just in case they would not grant it for a transcript reproduction - I did receive permission thankfully. Later an image copy was found so I no longer needed my reproduction - though I decided to keep it as a backup - plus sentimentality of the work in reproduction of that Image.
1