Family HIstory Data - Possible, Probable, Proven
@Family History Research
@Yancey/Yancy Family Genealogy
Here is a question for any of you - - there is no precise right or wrong answer - just want to get people's feedback
As we each all gather our genealogical data - some of the information in our genealogical data - may be data that we really don't know if it has primary evidence to support it or not. Some items /"facts" may only be possibilties,, others because of circumstantial evidence may be "probabilities", other info we may know may be backed up by primary evidence - allowing us to consider it fact (or at least supported by primary documents) (any source primary or secondary can be wrong)
MY QUESTION
how do each of you differentiate the data you have gathered into these different categories?
1) POSSIBLE - but we havent really looked into it
2) POSSIBLE - but we have really looked into it and have not yet found proof
3) PROBABLE - we have looked into it and have not yet found proof (primary documentation) but due to circumstantial evidence it appears to be probable.
4) "PROOF" - I use the term a little liberally here - In this case - just that primary sources are known to exist to support the fact.
Are you someone who takes your genealogical data very seriously and try to differentiate between these categories?
OR are you one of those people who just collects all you can find - and puts it into one homogenized collection of data with no real differentiation between these categories.
and my next question is:
How does this apply to what and how you make updates to FAMILYSEARCH???
I realize there is no hard and fast policy
but FamilySearch being a single collaborative database - the general answers to these questions
can really be a major issue.
Not really looking for any one specific response to this question.
Just wanted to bring up the subject and allow people to share their perspective.
. . . and one last thought
when Family Search asks you "How do you know such and such added fact in the system is correct" . . .
how do you respond??
What good is the most common answers like "It came from a GEDCOM"
or "It came from Ancestry.com" or "Family Records" - - - people may as well leave the answer blank - than use these answers. . . . (one of my pet peeves)
Answers
-
I would like to respond to the last part of your question first because this has been an issue for me as well. As someone fairly new to all this, I don’t always know what the proper answer is for a reason I’m making a change, I know what I would call it by that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone else does. There should be a drop down list to choose from, that way it would at least be more uniform for everyone 😊
as to the first parts of your question, I don’t like adding info that doesn’t have a source. Usually I like to make sure it’s accurate by following the family line and or checking the sources and History. Some things I just know to be true because it’s family I already know about. But for the most part, I like to try to make sure there is sourced info before adding anything
0 -
[ please click expand post ]
good point about the drop down.
with over 25 years of IT experience - in virtually every case where someone creates a "free form" field like this in an application (where someone can enter whatever they want or nothing at all) the field then loses virtually all of its value - and may as well no longer exist.
same applies is here.
some sort of very general drop down would be nice.
and I wouldn't mind if it was mandated.
I mean what value does "gedcom file" or "ancestry.com" or "the Internet" give
None!
Here are the type of things I would prefer
examples:
Primary:
1) Marriage info came from Marriage bond in Caswell County, NC 5 April 1798
Secondary:
2) Marriage info came from "Caswell County NC marriages" by John Doe
3) History of the Yancey family of Caswell Co., NC by Dennis Yancey (which cites marriage record)
Personally I don't consider"
"A gedcom file" or "Ancestry.com" or Rootsweb.com as "sources"
I just consider it info we may have collected - that indeed may have some clues and areas for pursuit
Im not saying we cant get info from there - Im just saying we may have no clue if its possible, probable or provable. and we dont usually even have a clue what any source for it was secondary or primary.
blatantly erroneous info propagates like wildfire in today's world - especially concerning the very earliest family in a given line of descent - as people makes guesses, theories, and pull straws out of the air - that in turn get copied and taken as if they were equal to proven information.
and then there's the people who you ask where they got their info from
and they just hum and hah . . . and never give you answer because they don't have one.
OK - I will get off the soap box now - and get back to preparing for Hurricane Dorian
0 -
A drop down box with an explanation of what a Reason Statement should contain would be helpful to instruct users. (Similar to Indexing instructions.) Using the Genealogical Proof Standard can guide users in what to write. It is meant to cite proof for changes you make or when attaching sources. To simplify I think of Who (is the record about), What (the record it), When (was the record created), and Where( was the record created). Including these, or a variation, in your Reason Statement shows other users where to find verification. It takes a little more time but provides better accuracy and should discourage others from changing information you have shown proof of.
0 -
In most cases I do not get a response when I ask someone why they included or changed data. When well-justified, explained, and heavily sourced data is changed without providing a reason or source, I am certain to get no response.
There is a small number of users who simply have no interest in being careful or thoughtful. These hit-and-run users are not "participating" as some like to claim--they simply cause destruction and move on. If we want to encourage hit-and-run users to participate, the status quo is not the way to do it.
Some controls can actually encourage more participation, and can encourage better participation--first by educating and then by nudging toward collaboration.
- Include instructive "hints" for every input field, so people understand what is expected.
- Allow labeling of sources as primary, secondary, or hearsay.
- Require a reason for every field change. Make details tied to sources more difficult to change--for instance, require a multi-field reason statement that must address each source attached to that detail.
- Disallow "GEDCOM file" and "Ancestry trees" and similar as an acceptable reason statement *for overriding existing data.* Hearsay should never trump anything. A little NLP triggering an explanation of refused change could go a long way.
- The more established a record or field is (e.g., after there are at least X sources or after a field has been changed three times), the more justification and sourcing should be required for any update.
- Allow moderators for established records. Let them approve changes (within a 5-day window or it gets approved by default). Require moderators to provide an encouraging personal "reason" message to the user whose changes are being rejected. Don't like the idea of one person holding all power? Fine--allow anyone and everyone to be a moderator for any record. That won't solve squabbles among those who really have an opinion, but having to sign up to be a moderator and take a 5-minute training will not be worth it to the hit-and-run participants.
All of this has been proposed and rejected in the past, but as long as Dennis is off of the soap box, I thought I'd take a turn.
0 -
I completely agree with Nathan. Too many times I've had someone change well documented facts because they saw something else on another site. Nothing is documented, no sources, etc. When queried, there is no response. Sometimes when I change it back, they change it again. I've given up on Family Tree except for adding memories to my 4 generations.
0 -
Since all researchers probably will agree that any document or source could contain errors, even our best efforts could be lumped under " doing the best we can". I believe one of the overarching goals for Family Search/Family Tree is to help as many people as possible participate and contribute to the tree. I think it is also the book we hope to present to the Savior at the second coming. As such, we need to make efforts to have it as correct as possible. Nevertheless, in view of broad participation we should maybe be careful about making it too cumbersome or difficult. True, it is frustrating to see careful research efforts changed for no real reason. However, too much required explanation may hamper efforts. Personally, I do not enter anything in the tree without sourcing it. I also believe in making merges showing on what basis I believe them to be the same: name, birth dates, relationships, places etc. In contacting other contributors, I have found most people to be pleasant and appreciative of research and sources. Where conflicts have arisen, we have tried to collaborate. Those who do not respond may be beginners or struggling in other ways, some just do not know what or where messages are. I think most people are learning and doing their best. As we all grow in our efforts, the tree will get better and better. I also believe that doing this work for our kindred dead will help all of us as well. In that spirit, maybe we could focus on allowing it to be a growing experience for all the contributors.
0 -
I don't think anyone is suggesting we condemn the beginners. But we are nowhere near "too cumbersome or difficult." Quite the contrary, blowing away years of research can be done in seconds, without a second thought.
Letting people destroy research without even trying to help them understand what they are doing is not encouraging participation--it is encouraging only more thoughtless destruction. Real, lasting participation requires learning and growth, and the status quo does not encourage that.
0 -
[ be sure to click expand post ]
Oh I agree with Carole that we have to be careful not to be too exclusive and not make it too cumbersome for beginners.
the whole point of FamilySearch is to get as many involved as possible
but I don't consider a drop down that people select to tell me where they got their info from - or why they believe it to be true - I don't consider that
too much of a cumber
Its amazing out of 10 people - you ask where thy got their info from and you are lucky if even 1 out of the 10 has any clue . . .
and about half of the merges you look at and wonder "What was this person thinking!?"
also see this recent post:
https://community.familysearch.org/s/feed/0D53A00004Z18D0SAJ
and here are some facetious stories that I have compiled over the years - to make the point:
The story of Bubba: http://yanceyfamilygenealogy.org/bubba.htm
The story of Jenna and Vera http://yanceyfamilygenealogy.org/jenna_vera.htm
@Janell Vasquez
@Carolyn Webber
0 -
In my personal tree, I have true proven records which I worked to back up with US census records to verify location for the family. I have records that I am working on
that I have not verified. The second group I would not enter in my tree.
0 -
and when you say "your tree" are you talking about FamilySearch
or a local tree in a program like RotsMagic, FTM etc?
so how do you keep track of the "unproven" families
if they are potential candidates for the family relations? how do you best keep track of this collection of (yet to proven) information?
0 -
If I add something to Family Tree, it is because I have confidence that it is the right thing to do. I have added information from family stories and other non-verifiable sources, but I always flag it with notes to confirm what I know and don't know - and why I chose to add it.
What I love about the open source nature of this platform is that others know more than me - I have seen my initial data posted in 2012 (when I first started using the system) get updated with more complete information just in recent months. Twice I have been kindly corrected when I posted something in error.
0 -
Thats a great attitude to have.
yes it will be working together that we can all make this system better.
great ideas you shared!
thanks for your feedback.
0
