Sources and Citations - Plea for educating contributors
I am a frequent contributor to the Family Tree. I often see edits that give their "source" for the their added info as "Ancestry" or Gedcom or something else that is NOT a source. FS does have a tutorial and info on how to and what constitutes a source....why not put that link in every space where info can be added. On "Add Source" the process and parts of a source are pretty laid out with info buttons..... so perhaps encourage adding their source to the "Add source" page too.
This "educational" tool would not only add to the accuracy of the tree, but informs as well.
Thanks
Comments
-
I’m about to give up! I’m an experienced genealogy researcher and in fact, have taught research techniques including sources and proof standard. I spent time recently entering and documenting a family in the tree - went in today to add a new finding only to find additions ....some using "Ancestry tree" or "gedcom" or a 1830 census to verify children .... by name. WHY doesn’t FS give some guidance about documentation....what is and is not a valid source, even a way for users to indicate "possible" evidence. IF THE OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE A WORLD TREE, ACCURACY IS IMPORTANT. I think many, many people would appreciate guidance and info regarding building a an accurate (as possible) family tree.
2 -
@bonniesamuel1 great post - sources are so vital!
0 -
Thanks, Cindy -- so much!
There are more and more "genealogy" sites out there, all commercial, and do NOT promote accepted research methods.
It seems to me that this provides an opening for FS to lead, educate and foster the building of an accurate tree. When I taught "basic genealogical process" many students, who had been creating a family tree for some time, embraced documentation. Why? Once they learned what sources were, where to find them, how to cite, they also discovered that one source leads to another! Brick walls fell, real ancestors appeared.
FS is considered a reliable source for finding original evidence...their WIKI a phenomenal resource too. I'm a fan for sure and for that reason, I feel the accuracy of tree entries can be much improved by providing educational prompts and more.
Bonnie
1 -
FRUSTRATING...
I am so very frustrated. Why can contributors CHANGE vital records, when they are NOT a direct relative? And when sources are added but the information is incorrect, example misspelled family names and locations, Why is there NOT a way to contest the entry?
When I attempt to contact the contributor and to leave a message for them, in several years of trying to reach out to multiple sources, there is never a response.
My Father is an only child, so is his mother -my grandmother, so our family search information in backed with birth, death, burial certificates and the family bible entries.
When I got on today, there had been 5 individuals make changes to our work. Some have even added another wife to a grandfather, and taken a child, aka grandmother and moved her to another family of similar names.
Where is the integrity of accuracy. This is NOT a game. I want to protect my research and entries so only those with a vested interest in the family line can submit or make changes. If a well meaning individual thinks they find links that relate, they should be able to make a suggestion that a family member can verify. Example..possible link to find a grave, or possible link to census. NO vital changes should be made without a connection to the family line or strong cross referencing for accuracy.
Martha Bradshaw
0 -
Martha
Many, many users will share your exasperation over the ease at which changes can be made relating to thoroughly well-researched, and accurate, inputs.
However, I am afraid I cannot agree with your suggestion here. Like it or not, Family Tree is an open-edit project, which is very unlikely to be changed to meet your suggested criteria required for other users to make changes. I especially disagree with your idea that only those with a connection to a family branch should be allowed to make changes. Unfortunately, many close family members have entered their details based on hearsay, or because it has been written in the "Family Bible".
I have not hesitated in detaching impossible relationships, or dates and places, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. However, I do write a message to the individual who has made the incorrect contribution and invite them to consider the reason statements / notes I have added relating to my changes.
Unfortunately, some family members just cannot accept the evidence of a stranger, however much detail and reasoning is provided. On other occasions, even close family members cannot agree among themselves on the "facts"!
As an example, three members of my close family even had different suggestions as to where my grandfather (and their father!) was born. One insisted it was in the English county of Essex (where he was brought up), but his birth certificate clearly shows the exact place in Yorkshire where he was born. Imagine if these three siblings had held Family Tree accounts!
I am not saying I do not empathise with your feelings, but FamilySearch has shown it does not consider such behaviour (say, even where perfectly correct inputs have been removed and replaced by ones that are ludicrous) be regarded as "abuse" and does not assign employees to monitor the program for anything much beyond the adding of items like cartoon characters - although there are still some fictional characters still on Family Tree, I'm afraid.
Naturally, I hope your experience of such behaviour will diminish, as I believe there is little more you can do, otherwise.
0 -
Martha, I do know how discouraging and even disheartening it is to go to records and find someone has replaced or added erroneous information or a fact with no valid reason....and then will not reply to one's query.
This problem could be elevated greatly or even eliminated if FS would require that that the contributor defend his/her addition to the tree with a valid evidentiary reason. FS should make clear what is and is not "proof."
I am no longer adding to tree branches of my lines. Fortunately, I have excellent software for recording the information, documentation and analysis, which then becomes compiled into a printed genealogy for family or submitted to genealogical collections at archives and libraries.
FS offers superb research materials from all over the world, and a wide array of how-to and tutorials on where to find evidence of family events and ties. It's absolutely an invaluable resource in teaching about the genealogical process....but! does not apply any of their own stated standard to their Family Tree!
Yes, Paul W, the FS tree is open to anyone, but if the objective is create a world tree, that reflects real people and families, there is absolutely no reason to not set some genealogical procedures for contributors...i.e. education. The current tree is mostly, well, full of inaccuracies.
I know Martha and many, many others have spent a great deal of time carefully adding information to the FS tree, with documentation, adding pictures and evidence in the source and memories section. Then someone comes along and removes something or adds some random person with no explanation of who and how connected. Its more than frustrating, Martha!
Bonnie
0
