Home› Welcome to the FamilySearch Community!› FamilySearch Help› Family Tree

NDWhisenant

mikehalligan1
mikehalligan1 ✭
October 27, 2021 in Family Tree

My name is Mike Halligan from Liverpool in the UK. I am new to this site, which is superb, but had been working on ancestry since 2010.

The above idiot (he or she) keeps deleting data from my tree which relates to verified historical facts. He or she appears to be reliant on Wikipedia for source material and bases information solely on that.

Does anyone know how this can be stopped, if indeed it can. They are starting to become tiresome.

Suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks

Mike Halligan

Tagged:
  • preventing inaccurate changes
1

Best Answer

  • Brett .
    Brett . ✭✭✭✭✭
    October 28, 2021 Answer ✓

    @mikehalligan1

    Mile

    Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.

    I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...

    You are not alone ...

    MANY; Many; many, of us, ... have been there ... done that ... still do ...

    Many of us have had 'wayward' "Changes" made to our "Ancestral" Lines ...

    It is often a matter of the MOST "Persistent" ...

    Never give in ... Never give up ...

    Hopefully, the other User/Patron will eventually 'tire'; and, give up ...

    Unfortunately, there are NO winners ...

    Short Answer: 'No', Unfortunately, there is NO way to STOP, Others Users/Patrons, from doing so.

    Technically, there is NO way, to STOP, another User/Patron, working along the SAME 'Ancestral" Lines.

    Unfortunately, such CANNOT be prevented.

    As, basically, we are all related.

    Your "Ancestral" Lines, are most likely ALSO another User's/Patron's "Ancestral" Lines, in fact, probably, that of quite a few other Users/Patrons.

    Now ...

    That Said ...

    Please let me explain ...

    [ And, please bear with me; as, I am VERY 'Verbose' ... that is my 'style' ... ]

    Basically, we DO NOT have, a "Tree", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', than is common misconception.

    And, OTHER Users/Patrons, DO NOT need/require, our (ie. one's) "Permission", to "Change" the information/details of "Deceased" individuals/persons, in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'.

    Here an old 'standby' of mine, that I have previously proffered on occasion ...

    ------------------

    Most new (and, some old) Users/Patrons DO NOT understand the basic 'nature' and 'premise' of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', when they join in.

    Please let me explain ...

    We do not have our OWN "Tree" in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.

    We ONLY have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" lines), that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.

    "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is NOT like 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).

    We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees' in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' like other 'On-Line' "Websites"; and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes.

    We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/persons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.

    And, most importantly ...

    We DO NOT even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, Our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors/Family/Relatives in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.

    "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any registered User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'. 

    I hope that this gives you some, insight; and, perspective.

    ------------------

    In other words ... "Collaboration" ...

    Of course ... often ... easier said, than done ...

    [ Sometimes, no matter how hard one tries, "Collaboration", does not work ... such is life ... ]

    Plus ...

    We ALL make MISTAKES ...

    NONE of US are PREFECT ...

    Unfortunately, some People ...'look at life, through rose coloured glasses' ...

    ▬ They ONLY 'see', what THEY want to 'see' ...

    ▬ IF, they DO NOT like, what THEY 'see' ... they simply ... 'Dismiss' it ...

    .... [ ie. WHATEVER, "Sources" (ie. Records); or, Other "Details", are provided as "Support"/Proof"/"Evidence" ]

    Such is life ...

    You CANNOT 'Whitewash' HISTORY, it is what is was ...

    [ But, some People, try very hard ... ]

    None of us want to have our "Ancestral" Lines 'messed up'; but, unfortunately, it happens.

    Therefore ...

    FIRSTLY ...

    That is exactly why, many Users/Patrons, ALSO maintain their own PRIVATE "Database(s)" (ie. Copies) of their "Ancestral" Lines , on 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).

    And ...

    SECONDLY ...

    Unfortunately, some people like to ... 'look at life through rose coloured glasses'.

    Some people, 'see' ONLY what they WANT to 'see', regardless of ALL the supporting evidence (ie. proof) that is provided/supplied/attached.

    Honestly, we can ALL be 'one-eyed' like that ... at times ...

    Truly ...

    It is a matter of "Watching" (oops, sorry, 'old school', "Following") our MOST important Ancestors.

    Just to keep on top of any 'wayward' changes.

    One can "Follow", up to a Maximum of x4000 individuals/persons, at any given time.

    'FamilySearch', sends one, a 'Weekly' NOTIFICATION, of ANY "Changes", that are made to those individuals/persons one "Follows".

    Better still, I DO NOT 'Wait' for that 'Weekly' NOTIFICATION ...

    I check, the "Changes", to those that I "Follow", on a "Daily" Basis; so that, I can keep on top of things.

    More often that not, nothing needs to be done; but, at least, I have the opportunity, to be abreast of things; almost as, they happen/transpire/unfold.

    Such is not the best; but, certainly better than nothing ...

    FINALLY ...

    MANY; Many; many, Users/Patrons, just do not 'play well', in the "Shared" SINGLE "One" World "Tree" concept.

    MANY; Many; many, Users/Patrons, just want THEIR "Record" (ie. the "Details"/"Relationship" that they add), to appear, in THEIR "Tree", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', despite the fact, that they DO NOT have a "Tree", in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch'; as, they ONLY have have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" lines), that are interconnected.

    Such is one of the DRAWBACKS of participating in a "Shared" SINGLE "One" World "Tree" concept.

    That being:

    ▬ You are NOT in "Control"; and,

    ▬ You have NO "Control"; and,

    ▬ You are at the mercy of others ... just like others at your mercy.

    .

    I know that this does not help; but, I hope that this gives you some, insight; and, perspective.

    Just my thoughts.

    Good Luck.

    Brett

    0

Answers

  • NidaFL
    NidaFL ✭✭✭
    October 27, 2021

    We truly understand the challenged of using a Universal genealogical tree. What is the purpose of FamilySearch and Family Tree?

    Our goal is to have the best sourced, most correct genealogical site on the web. Unfortunately not every one adheres to that goal.

    How can I prevent other people from making inaccurate changes to Family Tree?

    Collaboration is the best option, and is wonderful when it works. But please feel free the make the necessary corrections, adding source when possible to give validity to your changes

    0
  • RaniM
    RaniM ✭✭
    October 28, 2021

    Hi Mike, welcome to FamilySearch!

    I totally understand the frustration of your situation, it is exasperating and time consuming, and perhaps the only downside to an otherwise generally excellent model of a universal genealogical tree (ie ‘your tree’ isn’t actually your tree but actually a shared branch of single public tree linking everyone together... in theory anyway).

    Unfortunately there’s no outright way to stop it, but there are steps you can take to mitigate it.

    The first and best thing to do is add as many sources as possible to each individual’s profile to show your research is verifiable. People tend to be less inclined towards multiple major adjustments when a profile is well filled out and corroborated with sources.

    You can also add pertinent information as to why the details you are adding are correct and substantiated in the “Reason This Information Is Correct” box under each vital entry. It sounds like you’ve done the research already via Ancestry, so it’s just a matter of finding those records/sources here and adding them (or adding external sources where they don’t exist on FS). If you’ve filled out the details of a profile record hints can be very useful in doing a lot of the heavy lifting of record finding/matching for you.

    If you’ve already done all that and this other patron is still making erroneous changes, I suggest reaching out to them directly via message to explain the situation. Sometimes the issue can be as simple as ignorant enthusiasm. I find something along the lines of the following can have good results:

    “thank you for the work you are contributing towards making this profile/family as complete as possible. Collaboration is a welcome and valuable aspect of FS. However, I noticed you are basing your information on Wikipedia which, unfortunately, is not always historically or genealogically accurate. I’ve been researching this family for some years and am currently in the process of attaching primary sources which corroborate my research. In light of this I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make changes based on unsubstantiated secondary sources like Wikipedia. Of course if you have some compelling primary sources to add, they would be a welcome addition and I’d be interested to see your research.”

    Of course, not everyone is open to collaborative communication and sometimes it comes down to a battle of wills, sadly. This can be particularly true of historically ‘known’ personalities where the power of myth and legend can overshadow actual facts. Some very “interesting” parental claims crop up in this regard, particularly wishful thinking in connecting to nobility/royalty.

    3
  • mikehalligan1
    mikehalligan1 ✭
    October 29, 2021

    Thanks for the answers, all of which were helpful in helping me to understand the concept of a shared tree.

    Source material is always the best corroborative evidence, but the further back in time you go the less available this becomes.

    But once again, thanks for the superb answers provided which have been of great help.

    Regards

    Mike Halligan

    2
Clear
No Groups Found

Categories

  • 22.4K All Categories
  • 338 1950 US Census
  • 45.8K FamilySearch Help
  • 86 Get Involved
  • 2.3K General Questions
  • 323 Family History Centers
  • 317 FamilySearch Account
  • 3.1K Family Tree
  • 2.5K Search
  • 3.6K Indexing
  • 425 Memories
  • 4.2K Temple
  • 249 Other Languages
  • 28 Community News
  • 5.3K Suggest an Idea
  • Groups