Genealogical sites of ill-repute
Does Familysearch or any other reputable genealogical site give a list of genealogical sites one shouldn't trust? For example I found this at wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Legendary_David_Hughes_Genealogies
or: https://fabpedigree.com/ which states on it's main page: "
PLEASE do not treat the information in this genealogy as authoritative. Just use it for hints, and research using some of the more reputable genealogical websites".
Is there somewhere a list of "do not trust" genealogical sites? Or could we discuss here and create a list for benefit of all?
Answers
-
Perhaps you could use the basic principle: "Don't rely on a single source"
1 -
Basically, you should assume there probably isn't even one website that can be fully trusted for the data it presents!
Whilst I would agree with @Re Searching of always checking the data by examining different sources / websites to see if the details concur, maybe there is a common origin of what might transpire to be inaccurate data on an individual / family branch and this has merely been copied / transferred by users from one website to another.
Ideally, you should attempt to check original documents yourself, but that is easier said than done. There are often access problems - as well as financial considerations - in obtaining copies of the material from which you could make a direct, personal judgment on the validity of the data found on one of an increasing number of websites that have appeared in recent years.
That statement you have shown above:
PLEASE do not treat the information in this genealogy as authoritative. Just use it for hints….
is probably best applied to any source / website where you find information that you believe might not be completely trustworthy. Even the "more reputable websites" often get things wrong - especially if the detail has been added there by its individual patrons / subscribers - who are far from likely to be expert genealogists.
5 -
Yes, sadly perhaps, the problem with…
"Does Familysearch or any other reputable genealogical site give a list of genealogical sites one shouldn't trust? …"
… is that those who are "fingered" as untrustworthy could well turn round and say, "Who gave you [insert name of supposed reputable site here] the right to sit in judgment?".
There are some who were known con-merchants and it wouldn't be a bad idea to highlight them, if only to persuade ordinary people that not everyone has their best generalogical interests at heart.
But in the end, without an authoritative peer review process such as takes place in academia (usually), it's down to us. Caveat emptor…
2 -
Some excellent professional genealogists are also bloggers/writers and may write warning pieces. It's a good idea to follow and read them as they also often have advanced knowledge of coming updates or changes. Many of them are also on advisory groups for the major providers.
1 -
It would be at least interesting to have a compilation of all of the published-but-fraudulent genealogies that have been identified; I know there are a few famous ones, but cannot for the life of me remember an author's name or other relevant search term. But poking at the question, my main thought is whether we'd just be re-inventing the wheel. If there is such a list already, where would it most likely be?
When it comes to websites, I concur that none of them fall into a single classification: no genealogy site's information is 100% good or 100% bad. Heck, not even historical records are 100% good; they sometimes get things wrong, too, accidentally or deliberately. (And then there's the problem where the record may be fully accurate and truthful — about someone else.)
Thinking about it further, I'm not sure a website-level reliability classification would be useful. Most often, you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I see this most often with regard to FamilySearch, actually: people encounter a misindexed record or a mistake in the Tree and then spend the rest of their genealogy careers loudly dismissing everything FS as utter and complete junk. It would not be good to perpetrate similar things about any website.
3 -
Gustave Anjou is a name I always remember for famously producing fraudulent genealogies. Some compilations are known for having good and bad parts - I won't name those, since some of their information is good and valid.
1 -
Thanks every one! Never heard of Gustave Anjou. He must not have ever been involved in the area I am working. One of the sites I am dealing with is: http://www.biblesearchers.com/ it's contents are cut and pasted all over the biblical era genealogies. There is not a thing at that website that has a source. I'd sure expect to find this site in any list of untrustworthy.
I can recognize most sites are generally trustworthy and any errors are honest mistakes. But there are a few places that obviously don't past the muster.
Whom amongst the professionals would be recommend for feedback on the merits of sites?
The wikitree tip I found on David Hughes is helpful. Is there any chance of confirmation by others? So I don't have to rely upon a single criticism? Another angle on "Don't rely on a single source"! ;-)
Thanks again!
0 -
If the fact is traceable to primary source document(s) that provably belong to the right person, then Eureka.
Otherwise, from my experience it's a question of bringing together enough secondary sources that are genuinely independent of one another to build an acceptable (to you) level of certainty.
Two of my ancestors are listed in fairly well known and much quoted 20th century printed genealogies. One of them has her grandmother listed as her mother. The other's listing is very vague and sounds untrustworthy; but bringing it together with family records (also in our case known to be dodgy), with the Providence Gazette, with a Mass. town history, with another less well known printed genealogy, and with the 1800 census, I was able to identify the individuals concerned with sufficient clarity for my purposes. (The IGI, incidentally, confused the issue with an incorrect and totally unsourced given name which had got into FSFT.)
0 -
Thanks. In the Biblical era, the primary source is the Bible. After all, it's called Biblical genealogy!
The problem is the introduction of totally unproven stuff which is interweaved into the otherwise proven (by the Bible). And it seems this stuff comes from sites which totally lack any sources, yet a couple insistent patrons take that material as gospel. Try as I may with explanation's in reason statements, comments of memory items, life sketch, etc, they still persist with the "fictious" without any explanation in return, and delete much of my content as they see it as unagreeable to their position.
Another example of a questionable "document" re the biblical era is:
Note, the text in bold is the original. The non-bold text is my inserted commentary about it. Also read the comments for this artifact. The pdf link at the top of the document provides access to an original without my clutter therein. Once again the document has no sources whatsoever.
Another is: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GFJG-3HB I discovered this person's brother back in June and created a parent "placeholder", and since then a patron keeps merging the unnamed parent into a fictitiously unproveable person. I have filled the PID with all the known facts on this person, yet they persist with the false relationship. You may have to restore life sketch and vitals to see my statements of support. I just unmerged them, so that both the factual and the fictitious relationships show at the moment, but you can expect them to be merged again before the day is over.
0
