Don't believe all you read in other people's trees

[Joan of Archives]

Moggie I agree it's a bit difficult to know what to do. I think I shall leave it as it is. It is my direct relative she has got wrong so tough I reckon I would rather keep my great granddad safe out of her way lol!
:D

The other concern I have is now that the births are easily traceable on Ancestry up to 2005, how long before some nitwit sticks my name in their tree? That I would be very cross about, because I feel it is my prerogative to remain "anonymous" or "known" if I wish; I quite like a degree of privacy & much as I can accept some don't mind having their name plastered all over the internet that's not what I started this hobby to achieve :(

[zoejg]

I don't see what's wrong with putting people in your tree and THEN checking via certificates etc. that they are the right person. I really enjoy researching my family tree, but the money is not always available for me to send off for certificates straight away. I find that the easiest way to keep track of people pending confirmation is to put them into my tree. I only actually consider them 'true' relatives once I've got the certificates (unless they're alive and I've met them or, for example, they were close relatives of a person who is alive - such as my grandmother's siblings), and I wouldn't pass them off as gospel to another researcher either.
My tree is not on Ancestry, but I am in contact with a few other people researching my family and am more than happy to exchange information with them in both directions. If I'm wrong about someone, of course I want to know

[AYAREM]

Pays to check all details not once,twice or three times, but until you have done all your research leave no stone unturned! if it don't sound or look right leave it out of your tree until you can verify it I say. I got most of my information from family rellos, but I still checked it out, some times they may have records, unfortunately mine didnt so I had to rely on their recall.

[AYAREM]

me again, don't worry that someone has you in their tree with the wrong info, if you know your info is correct in your tree why worry about it? no big deal, it worrys me not.

[MarionH]

The trouble is it's a bit like Chinese Whispers, before you know it people have taken something on a website as a fact, not checking sources, and before you know it there are trees showing all sorts of wrong links - we get excited thinking there is a new connection and spend wasted hours trying to work out what on earth has happened.

There are people out there who treat this as a collector's hobby - the more names the better and the more they can boast about their "tree".
Personally I regard this as a step into my family's history - not just a collection of possible names to add to a list.

When I was at school (long, long ago) I was taught that copying someone's else's work was cheating, so I take other people's information purely as a "clue". Firstly I am suspicious if there is no source information, then if I can't substantiate something they have on their tree, then I will look at a second item. If that doesn't check out either I ignore their tree and carry on as before!!

I am quite willing to share information with anyone - but they have to prove to be genuine! As has been said by so many others, a few emails back and forth with a few questions usually sorts this out. I recently had a contact who told me they had just started to investigate a part of my family as they had found out they were adopted and could I open my tree for them. I explained that the tree was extremely basic (for good reasons) but was happy to help them in any way I could. I passed two emails with information on my g g grandfather and his siblings and the line I came from, second email I gave a little more information and asked a couple of questions. Haven't heard a thing since!!!!

When I first started in genealogy I was fortunate enough to find a "mentor" who taught me so much - providing I asked the right questions he would give me (most) of the answers and then I would have to try and find the rest for myself - if he thought I wasn't looking things up for myself he would tell me so. His motto "Never Accept - Check it our for yourself"!

Sorry - I'll get off my soapbox now!!:o

[WendyPusey]

Firstly I am suspicious if there is no source information, then if I can't substantiate something they have on their tree, then I will look at a second item. If that doesn't check out either I ignore their tree and carry on as before!!

My tree on the internet has no sources attatched. Doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I don't see why any Tom Dick or Harry can take all my hard earned research and add it to their tree. If anyone asks them where the source of the information is they won't know!!!!

I had my tree open to all on the internet once, but after finding all my research on Ancestry as someone elses work, without even contacting me, it is now locked and I only give out as much info as I think fit.

[MarionH]

My tree on the internet has no sources attatched. Doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I don't see why any Tom Dick or Harry can take all my hard earned research and add it to their tree. If anyone asks them where the source of the information is they won't know!!!!

I had my tree open to all on the internet once, but after finding all my research on Ancestry as someone elses work, without even contacting me, it is now locked and I only give out as much info as I think fit.
[/COLOR]

My tree on GR had at least one source for each person - not every source involved but just enough to say that I had done research. I think that was in the days when I was naive and thought everyone was "genuine".

The trees (OH and mine) are not on Ancestry - after the experiences with GR I decided that was enough - I can still be accessed and asked questions - and as you say - give out what you think fit.

[Penelope]

Penelope

[SIZE=3][COLOR=blue]

Have you never had your husbands family tagged onto a very distant relative of your great great great grandfather?

Well I have.

I have no clue - I don't chase round after any I have opened my tree to, to check up on what they've done with my info! Once they have it, it's their call and if they want to add my entire tree for the most spurious reasons - it's not hurting me! I honestly don't have the time to go and even open their trees a day, week or month later and couldn't tell you if a single one of the many contacts I've had, has tacked my info on, or not! Life is way too short.

As for drip feeding them via email - TBH maybe I'm lazy but that's far harder work than just opening the lot. As I say, I'm researching around 30 random people from an 1830's parish - so if someone asks me a convoluted question it may be something I did a few years back, and can;t even recall so faster to just open the tree, if it's on my tree (which it usually is thanks to the inbredness of the locals round here - in that random incident I'm related to several people directly, and very many more via marriages/step family, etc. If I was drip feeding info via email messages I'd have to fiddle around too much!

There's published info out there by non locals (live local but not born and bred) and they can be full of really huge inaccuracies then ignore everything they find boring, and/or have only gone to the most obvious source the two writers before them went to - so I originally got my info together online to counter that. So I don't exactly love inaccuracies!

But I'd rather open my tree and leave them to it - I can't get upset what they do with my info. But then I write for a living it's what I do, so maybe I've got hardened to spewing info out there and pretty indifferent what happens to it once I've clicked 'send'!

I feel the issue is partly people feel they 'own' info that really they don't. However long it took to find at the end of the day it's in the public domain. I've done a couple of smart thigns in my time and unearthed sources I know for a fact no-one else has - and for me part of the thrill is sharing that - lock, stock and barrel not with-holding bits or using it as a weapon in a power struggle.

[Janet]

"As for drip feeding them via email - TBH maybe I'm lazy but that's far harder work than just opening the lot"

I don't think that Family History/Genealogy is anything else but sheer hard work, even with the internet, and for most people I am sure that that is the fascination of this or any hobby. Make it too easy and what is the point?? Or am I missing a point here?? The Banks tried to make everything easy, by being lazy, giving people inaccuarate information which did not add up and look what happened to them!!

Ok, so Family History is not the Banking System but if a person has spent many years building up their family history which they wish to publish for whatever reason, for family interest or as part of their livliehood in writing history books, I am not at all sure that I would take very kindly to a person sweeping all my hard earned material from under my feet and getting their oar in first by publishing my material and therefore taking my livelihood away, or is the failure of the banking system a part of a deeper selfish malaise that taking other people's family history does not matter any more??

The public records may be in the public domain, but some people spend years looking for these public records and I am talking here about records pre 1837 which are not online.

I have a responsibility to make sure that my records are not only accurate but that they do not malign my ancestors by falling into the g hands of people who have no relation to me and that should be the responsibility of every single person who calls themselves a Family Historian.

Janet

[Olde Crone Holden]

I am far too old and exhausted to indulge in power struggles!

Drip feeding the info sorts out the sheep from the goats, for me. Nine times out of ten I never hear another thing. The tenth time, I get a thankyou and a polite reuest for more, which I will give them.

If the person they are interested in is on my hobby tree, then I will open that tree to them and they can do what they like with the info. If the person is on my own personal family tree, then what they get is relevant only to where they are on my tree. A first cousin would get a lot of information, a fifth cousin once removed will get the information relevant to their connection.

If they chose to extend that information by their own research, I cannot stop them and I wouldn't want to, either. I would probably even warn them about tricky moves.

No one but me sees my personal tree. I can never understand the obsession with trees as being the supposed pivotal point of all research - a tree is just a diagram and in my case certainly, a very complicated one which needs explaining in more words than are currently available on most FH programmes.

OC

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I remember looking at the trees on Ancestry a few years back and noticing someone had one of my distant cousins married to the wrong woman (right first name). Now there's a whole lot of trees all with the same wrong woman but now they all have the date and place of the marriage, so why do they still all have the wrong name for her??!!! wierd!

[Joan of Archives]

Some kind person gave this thread 4 stars thank you!

To reiterate this is not about me jealously guarding my many years of hard work; I do open my tree to people who I know to be genuine. This thread is really to remind & to warn those who think that "Wow J Bloggs has done that part of my tree, great that's that side done now then" because J Bloggs might think that they have got it all right from copying it from someone else, or just using the IGI to slap a few more names to their tree, whereas the people descended from some of those in their tree know better from finding out the true facts, spending money on certificates & hours in Records Offices just because they want to know that their tree contains as much accurate information as possible.

I appreciate lots of us realise this but there are lots that have only just started this hobby that may not just yet until they learn the hard way.

Successful research does not happen overnight. Good luck to everyone ;)

[Guy]

I look at the subject of open access in a different way.
To me it is a matter of either helping or being selfish.

Take for instance the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to me the LDS has a christian and unselfish approach to sharing but the Catholic Church has an unchristian and selfish approach to sharing.

We as family historians use records gathered by other people and organisations for their own purposes. If they did not share their collections we would be unable to do any research.
I feel therefore it is only right and proper that we take the unselfish attitude and share our own research.

Unlike earlier years when it cost family historians time and money to share research (transcribing time or photocopy costs postage etc.) these days it costs nothing to share what we have discovered.
Cheers
Guy

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Guy, I think most of us do share our reseach, just that we don't do it completely randomly. In the last week I have send details of several hundred relatives to three different people. (one of which has even said thankyou!!)

Over the years I have probably send info to hundreds of people. I can count on the fingers of one hand (well, actually, I can only remember one person!) questioning something in my research which was a delight as it meant they hadn't just copied it but had thought about it too. Pity not many seem to do that.

[maggie_4_7]

I feel the issue is partly people feel they 'own' info that really they don't. However long it took to find at the end of the day it's in the public domain. I've done a couple of smart thigns in my time and unearthed sources I know for a fact no-one else has - and for me part of the thrill is sharing that - lock, stock and barrel not with-holding bits or using it as a weapon in a power struggle.

Not everything that one uses for family history is in the Public Domain. In fact most of the really interesting stuff is held within families and definitely not in the Public Domain. Of course if so much information is in the Public Domain then why haven't these very interested people who want all the trees opened gone and got it themselves its easy - as you say.

And if it is personal and private family information or photographs then yes they do own that information and unless they want to give it to someone then they don't have to.

If building and researching a family tree or it's history just consisted of census, and certificates etc or that information that is in the Public Domain then I'm sure we'd all have finished by now.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I agree, not everything is in the public domain.

A lady contacted me via GR about her g-g-grandparents who are on my tree. I was able to give her lots of info, plus a copy of a photo of their wedding in 1894, and if she had been nicer to me I would have sent her a lock of her g-g-grandfather's hair, cut when he was 24 hours old in 1862. However, she wasn't and I didn't send it. I am not proud of that, but it's part of the stuff I have inherited from my 3xg-grandmother (a hoarder!) and it's my line who have managed to keep it without losing it (attached to a piece of paper measuring under an inch square)!

The guilt didn't last very long!!

[maggie_4_7]

Thats what I call family treasures and no amounting of sifting through public records or surfing the internet will turn that sort of thing up.

Just like any other family heirloom, photos, personal letters, cards, postcards, memories, toys, baby handprints the list is endless. But they certainly won't be in the Public Domain unless of course you want them to be.



And if the Tom, Dick, Harrys and the whojamaflips think they can just plunder it without a by your leave they are sadly mistaken. Some courtesy conversations and interest in the actual family and their life wouldn't go amiss.

Of course if they just want dates, names, places. It's all in the Public Domain so its easy - would be nice if they got those right though. ;)

[Olde Crone Holden]

If it's so easy and all available in the public domain then why can I not find and identify my 2 x GGF's first marriage! (After 30 + years of looking).

OC

[maggie_4_7]

If it's so easy and all available in the public domain then why can I not find and identify my 2 x GGF's first marriage! (After 30 + years of looking).

OC

Exactly. :p

Or you're just not trying hard enough OC.

Get that keyboard going. ;)

[Janet]

No, not everything is in the Public Domain and I should have remembered the photograph of my Great Grandfather that I have shared with family members who have sought information from me. I appear to have the ONLY original photograph. I have other original photos that I have shared and others have shared with me. I also have a wonderful collection of old postcards, many written by the family of yesteryear. o I have had to search out information in Trinity College Dublin about some Irish ancestors and this is not in the public domain either as you have to seek special permission to search. and that means that you have to know what you are searching for!! No good asking to search for Michael O'Neill born Ireland!

And, Yes I really feel passionately about my ancestors, They are not just a few bare twigs on a tree. They are real live and kicking. These are not just a few statistics that one may pick up casually online through the Census/Free BMD, but people who have lived in hamlets/villages/towns/cities, had jobs, went to school or not. I have found Census images that I have followed up because one was at an army school and this led to a Genealogical goldmine of school reports and letters written by my Great G father. I have done other things to collect other information on other family members and it has taken me time to collect and amass all this information. I will share it with the right people, BUT that does mean that people will have to be bothered to reply to my E mails proving who they are otherwise they will get nothing.

Guy

I am trying to get this sharing into perspective. I have always shared from the moment I started Family History more than 30 years ago BUT (and yes there is a BUt) I do not see how I am helping anybody by sharing information about my family with people who are not related to me in any way?

I do think that the LDS is very different in that it is big business for them. They are interested in binding souls after death and sometimes long after death. Now if that is what they wish to believe that is fine by me as they have the freedom to believe whatever they think is right for them, but I have always understood that the "free will element" cannot come into operation within a few hours of death, when the soul has left the body. My family history is much simpler than that, and is not a big business making any claims on other people.

I am not sure why you say that the RC Church has a selfish way of sharing records? Yes, I think Ireland could be more forthcoming in their records and maybe there is an argument here for selfishness, though I would say that the Irish lack of records to date is more about greed, money and an American market prepared to pay anything for their Irish Ancestry, though that market is less lucrative these days. There is a Catholic Record Society which costs £25 per annum to belong. You may have to pay a little more for initial joining. This Record Society is one of the best Societies I know. They give out expensive books each year detailing many topics such as recusants going back centuries, books about all sorts of topics relating to Catholics and their family histories, lists of nuns in various convents etc and they run a Conference every year. In short I do not think you could ask for more from any Society and this one is excellent, if rather pricey to join. They do share what they have. Try this website for further information:

Catholic Record Society Home Page

Janet