REQUIRE source for changes to Family Tree
Just a simple suggestion: every change to vital information (birth, marriage, death) should require source documentation of that change. This would go beyond a simple statement to the effect that "everything matches." The change I suggest would require a source to be linked against the change so that it would be simple to go from the change to the source that justifies the change. It would also be simple to so from the source to all the changes that cite the source. If a source were deleted, the changes would be invalidated.
Comments
-
Absolutely! Thank you, Kenneth W. Rees
1 -
There are some locations in the world where written sources do not exist. The only information is passed on verbally. It is unlikely that in these regions sources will ever be available. Thus it would be impossible for FamilySearch to require an external source to be attached for every change.
4 -
Gasmodels
just as "family knowledge" is an accepted source (see "Evidence Explained" by Elizabeth Shown Mills) , a brief description of generational history, such as that of our Native Americans, is accepted documentation in many cases.
one thing that must be considered is the changing or removing of an individual from the FS tree without evidence of relationship of the replacement. Many good and careful researchers, who have spent much time contributing to the FS tree, have simply stopped contributing after pursuing a resolution with FS and finding none.
FS has an opportunity here to educate contributors as to what is and is not a source. In doing so, The FS tree would hold a place as a more accurate and reliable ancestral tree.
0 -
I just don't see how Family Tree could be "programmed" to do this. In any case, the replacement source might relate to another individual of similar identity, so how would any programming differentiate between a (new) source with evidence or one for which there is none? Providing a reason statement? Possibly - but then I could just add a single punctuation mark to make it seem that requirement had been met.
Unfortunately - as found by many other users - careless users will make changes to suit their ideas regardless of any amount of sources, Collaboration items (frank response to me from one user: "I never look at the Collaboration section...") or reason statements.
For years I've been reading worthy suggestions (on this and its predecessor forum) on the "best way" to stop incorrect changes / merges being made on Family Tree, but the only practicable suggestions would involve a complete turnaround of the open-edit concept of Family Tree.
1 -
Hi Paul.
yes, it’s definitely a project....that said there already is a very good documentation tool in the SOURCE section for EACH individual. That form guides one through the elements of citing a source with a help link for every element.
regarding "careless users" : shouldn’t these people be required to cite a reason when what they do eliminates the work of someone else?
Sources relate to a person; a source is primary (recorded at time of event by principle or those involved, such as a minister; secondary (such as recorded after the event by someone not present at the event); or derivative (indexes, compilations, books, etc).
when I taught documentation in Basic Genealogy classes to beginners, I started with the concept of WHAT is the source, WHERE did you find it, and WHO does the source refer to and where in source is this reference found? This so researcher or other could find the source for one thing!
0 -
Note that I have no problem with any of a variety of sources - but I feel that they need to be made available so that other researchers can help us with information analysis.
For instance, if I assert that the birth date and place for great great great grandmother Beatrice (a "fact") came to me from my Aunt Mary who had it from her grandmother Florence at the end of Florence's life (a "source"), I should be able to put that into a word document, detailing the evidentiary path (names, dates, places, type of transmission, other circumstances) that brings that information to FamilySearch.
I am really asking that we make all "sources" visible, that when we add or change a "fact" we also add a "source", and when a "source" is removed that every "fact" that source informed is marked as invalid (or less valid?).
Yes, we need education of everyone who uses FamilySearch. If someone wants to generate bogus sources, that is certainly possible to do. If someone wants to bypass the checks that might be built into FamilySearch, that will be possible. But I feel we also need policy changes and we need support for those changes in changes to the tools we use in FamilySearch.
Dad used to say that locks kept honest people honest. I am asking for locks to help keep careful researchers careful.
0 -
I think I understand...are you saying that any fact must be accompanied with a reason, ie source, for including the info? If that is what you are saying...yep, I agree with the caveat that we provide some info about what is a source and what is not.
Your example is perfectly acceptable...it could be categorized as "family knowledge" or perhaps a conversation, communication.
What is most certainly is not a source is "Ancestry Tree" or Gedcom. A source relates to an individual or maybe an event. An Ancestry Tree or Gedcom contains detail about many people, at different times and places, and may or may not contain documentation on anyone in particular. This is just an example of what I've seen in FS tree. sometimes there is no reason given on the "Details page."
Locks would be good, Kenneth!
0 -
I don’t agree with needing a source for every change. I absolutely agree that some kind of descriptive notation is needed. I do most of my research in Danish records. Gothic hand is terrible about not being indexed correctly. Hence a date may change, a name spelling may change from what was originally indexed and brought into the original profile set up by adding that person and in and on. I also do tons of edits in my reason statements. It is not that the real source information changed. The source never changed. What changed was the interpretation of how a source was indexed. Like Hans to Jens because a person indexing could not see the difference or 16 vs 10 in a date because of the smudge, etc. It would be totally redundant to have to add the same source over and over.
0 -
I agree in the instance of you own changes. Although adding, "clarification of my former entry" might eliminate confusion.
however, when one removes someone or changes a "fact" on an existing entry, explanation should be required giving the source of the new data.
thanks for the info on Danish records .... interesting!
0
