Please allow me to contact the user who posted news re Jan Gerits van Mauwerick Schaef(f).

I need to know the source he used.
Answers
-
You included a particular username in your question. That clearly implies that you were looking at some sort of contribution by that user regarding the ancestor you are researching.
In almost every place where you will see a contributor's username, you can click that username, and a little contact card will pop up that includes a button for "Chat". Clicking that Chat button will let you send a message to that user.
1 -
It may well not be possible to contact them (and I note that this user doesn't appear to be listed on the main FS Chat directory, as is their right).
Could you provide the PID for the profile he's contributed to, please, which may enable Community members to help you (perhaps with your underlying sourcing question).
0 -
The profile may be KJJ8-Y5C for Jan Gerritsz van Maurik, with an alternate name "Schaef" mentioned in a Note and in the name of his father, Gerrit Schaef van Mauwerick
But, I do not see that contributor active on that profile.
0 -
-
Why do you allow people to post without requiring to provide contact details and source? I have found several posts on FamilySearch that are really nonsense, but still confusing. Obviously FamilySearch does not use fact checkers, and this is why many people have serious doubts about FamilySearch. It's really sad.
1 -
Ah! That profile is not in the FamilySearch tree but in a submitted Genealogy/Pedigree Resource File.
If you click the username when you see that pop-up, you can add the name to your contacts and then send a chat message.
2 -
what's next? I would like to read the source
0 -
You will need to ask the submitter for his information. He may share.
0 -
I already asked in my chat
0 -
Some folks don't log in every day or every week. Some people don't reply or may reply weeks later.
0 -
Yes, not helpful. Thanks for your help.
0 -
Just to be clear, what is being referred on this string as the username is not the username. It is the contact ID of the person. Family Search never provides a username to anyone else. However, the functionality described is correct for the contact ID.
0 -
Personal privacy is a right. That contributor has uploaded personal research to the Genealogies section to allow others to see the work. No one is obligated to share name and phone/email contact info to the world. A method to contact other contributors is in place, as shown.
2 -
I am not referring to freedom of privacy but to the need for fact checkers and providing evidence.
-3 -
I'm sorry, but "fact checkers" on FS would be completely impossible. The collaborative Tree has over a billion profiles. A hundred people each checking 50 profiles per day would take a decade to get through all of them.
But there's another aspect where that suggestion falls flat: the section of FS actually being looked at isn't the collaborative tree, but the public cloud backup service for genealogy files. Those files aren't interactive; not even the uploader can edit them. If the trip from the generating software or website to the upload failed to carry all of the notes and sources along, the user can't really do anything about it. (If he notices, and it's bad enough, he may delete the upload and try again, but if you were in his shoes, would you bother? It's a backup, not a working file.)
If you have a question about such a file, you can send a message to the account that made the upload; that's the best that FS can — or should! — do.
3 -
The Genealogy link provided does list two sources (derived from MyHeritage):
1. FamilySearch Stamboom publisher: MyHeritage
2. Verschuren-Klomp en Paardekooper-van Kersbergen author: summer
https://www.myheritage.nl/profile-303265411-3002547/jan-geerits-schaef-van-maurikThese may or may not help, obviously, and may or may not involve primary sources, but the user has at least provided them.
0 -
I don't know what to do with this info. I'll wait for (username removed). FamilySearch should have the source that I am looking for.
0 -
FS has very many primary sources in its collections but not everything, it all depends which provider(s) the record custodian has done a deal with.
MyHeritage may be the only provider with access to a primary source here, or the 'source' indicated may turn out to be a MyHeritage family tree without proper sourcing, or FS may in fact turn out to have access to a nice primary source.
Suggest as a start, if not done already, you search both FS Historical Records and MyHeritage for information on this individual; (username removed) doesn't need (and, it looks like, doesn't want) to be a gatekeeper. As Julia says, his entire involvement here appears to be having used FS' public cloud backup service (i.e. Genealogies) to keep a safe copy of his own family tree research.
If you don't have a MyHeritage account, my understanding is that you can get free access at your local FS Center (or maybe at your local public library).
2 -
I really don't want to offend you, but our discussion is still only confirming that people can post whatever they like, without substantiation. Some fellow genealogists of me in the Netherlands even refuse to make use of FS: it is very unreliable.
-1 -
I do understand what you are saying (and am 100% not offended, I have said far worse things in the past about FS' lack of curation, and indeed their general approach to information governance, than you have here) but you can still get benefit from FS if you prefer to avoid all the user-contributed stuff (Family Tree, Genealogies) and stick to the Historical Records (and Images).
2 -
Yes, I know, thanks.
Just an example of the rubbish: see
https://www.familysearch.orgther mar/tree/person/details/LHBL-12V
Father JC married his mother Beertie years after son JC was born and married?? Of course father and son are the same, probably born around 1640. JC remarried Beertie in 1683 after his first wife Neeltje died in 1683.
0 -
Have you looked at the trees on other websites, particularly Ancestry? You will find them just as flawed, with no evidence of the integrity of their content and with no way to make changes. Apart from the Genealogies section - which seems to have been the subject of your original issue - you can make any changes to profiles in FamilySearch's Family Tree as you feel fit. So, you are free to go right ahead and edit the details on the individual (to which you provide the link above) in order to reflect the accurate data and relationships for which you have evidence.
Yes, we all get upset by some of the ridiculous inputs that have been made by careless users (some of which date back many years), but the positive side of Family Tree is that (unlike elsewhere) you are able to fix errors, add notes (in the Collaboration sections and against Vitals details) and add outside source references to back-up the entries / changes you make.
Family Tree is just one of the many products where you can work on your genealogy, of course, so if you find the product unsuitable to your needs I would suggest just using FamilySearch in a way @MandyShaw1 suggests.
6 -
@Teus31, people who distrust everything on FS on principle are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, they are the ones who are behaving truly stupidly. And it all has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.
FamilySearch offers, without charge, a vast repository of genealogical documents, many of them indexed, along with a ginormous collaborative family tree where any user can edit (and therefore fix!) almost anything, plus cloud storage for genealogy files, a research Wiki, a place for people to upload photos and other media about their ancestors, this Community, and various and sundry other genealogical material and services. In other words, they provide, for free, everything that the big for-pay genealogy companies provide, plus some things that those companies do not.
Utter balderdash in family trees is nothing new and not unique to any genealogy site or service. For example, on a supposedly-curated supposedly-collaborative genealogy site, the Famous Relative's brother acquired a new wife, simply because the one name matched and the dates were only a few years off. (The addition was "substantiated" with the other couple's marriage record, showing the wrong parents, religion, and birthplace and date.) But that tree is paywalled as well as curated, so I couldn't fix it; I had to ask a paying subscriber to detach the incorrect relationship. I don't know how long the nonsense was up, but I'm sure it was long enough for dozens of users of the individual-tree sites to dutifully copy it into their trees. I don't even look at those sites, because they're even worse than the nominally-curated one: the (expensive!) systems are set up to encourage people to propagate each other's errors, but there's no mechanism by which to tell anyone that something is wrong.
As with everything in genealogy (and beyond), the details matter. When you find something on a website, you have to consider how it got there. You have to be the curator. It's better that way, if you're trying to find out new things. If you only want to look at already-curated things, visit a museum.
7 -
@Teus31 Thanks for your posts. I am not here to try to defend Family Search for what it isn't. I think it is clear from this discussion string that Family Search is not a site the employs "fact checkers". But then I don't know of a site that does in any meaningful way. If you do, let me know. As we all know, sources are the key to genealogical research. In the example you provide, there are no sources with the exception of 1 source for Derk van der Lingen, GDHL-TPP. I have almost zero confidence in the example you provide. And as you say, it looks like rubbish. But if we look further to the descendants of Derk van der Lingen we find additional sources and start to get some confidence is some of his descendants. The question I ask is "do i have sources or can I find some to help clarify this person". Well, enough talk about what Family Search isn't
What is Family Search? The goal of Family Search is to provide the platform, tools, and archives (historical records) to enable us to individually and collectively accomplish our genealogical research. And it does this free of charge to all users. Look at each of these elements.
1- To many the highlight of Family Search is the archives or database. It is massive and being expanded continually. For example, in 2024, there were 1.7 billion searchable names added from historical records, 150 million people added to the tree, and 530 million sources added to ancestors in the tree. As indicated in a previous post, we may elect to just use Family Search for its historical records archive.
2- Platform and tools. There are two main sections to Family Search, the archives (discussed above) and Family Tree. The Family Tree has these elements.
1- Family Tree seeks to have only one profile per person. This profile is public where any user can work on it. But in the end, it is only as accurate as the sources and research it is based on. The good news of this is you can benefit from the good work of others. The bad news of this is that there can be a lot of misinformation. But again, it is only as good as the sources and research attached to the profile. On other sites, you can have your own personal tree and profiles. On these sites, there can be 1000s of profiles for any individual. You can see some of these profiles and some you can't. But these profiles are only as accurate as the sources and research behind them and sorting through them is a daunting task. On the other hand, Family Tree only wants one profile per person available for all to work on. I know it is frustrating when users add misinformation. But I have found where I do the research and add sources, the profiles become more stable and reliable. And I have benefited greatly for the good work others have provided. In other words, I don't have to work on every profile in my tree where others are working.
2- There are many tools behind Family Tree. These include search bots that are continually checking the archives for sources which may apply to an individual (record hints). data alerts highlighting non sensical data and need for more research. These and many more such as the ability to send a message to other users. But as has been stated, they are free to respond or not.
In short, Family Tree is a collaborative tree with its goods and bads. To me, the goods outweigh the bads. I benefit greatly from the good work of others. In my own case, a lot of these benefits comes in the form of memories added to my ancestors. I have learned so much about my ancestors from these added memories that otherwise, I would never know about. And yes, I do have to spend some time cleaning up things others have contributed and adding sources to bring clarity and confidence to the profiles.
I choose the fully participate in all the aspects of Family Search benefiting from the goods and enduring the bads. Other may choose to use only portions of Family Search such as the archives or the private genealogies. I think it is good to understand what Family Search is and what it isn't
8