Proving lineage with documented proof.

Question

Please don't take me wrong, but there seems to be no documentation or links to where information concerning family lineage is found on the wikitree pages.  I see the information but where was the information found?  There are no sources or notes. If it is family information, where was it found?  Bible, public records, vitals, obits...what?

Someday, there will be others looking for the same info.  It won't be of any use if there is no documentation to prove it.  I see it happening in ancestry and in rootsweb.

Please add the information by linking or writing the source in.  It sure would help in the long run.

 

Thanks,

M.

Comments

We are not taking you wrong.  You are absolutely right.  I fear we in general are remiss in our use of sources.  A majority of our profiles have sourses.   Often times,  we work through a line in a speedy fashion with good intentions of returning with source material.  Sadly,  we get side tracked with other chores.  Our goal of one profile per person with several people working on it should cure that problem.   In our begining huge GEDCOMs were loaded in without real guide lines.  We are busy merging the duplicates and cleaning those files.  Our current guide lines for GEDCOMs will cure that issue.   We hope you will stick around and help with this task.  We all share your frustration and look for the day it is much better.  Your friend in genealogy,  Al

---

Thank you Alan.  I did not mean to generalize. It was only a suggestion.  I enjoy being with WT and feel it has a lot of potential.

---

I am also getting frustrated with numerous merge requests with only gedcoms and no resources. 

I have had people send me 10-15, or more,  merge requests on a familyline at one time.   These requests often come with mixed up lineages - sons being their fathers - father, or sons being married to their own mother etc.  Or mixed siblings.  Or extra siblings with no confirmation of relationship.

When I ask the requestee - have you checked these for accuracy with your actual sources the answer is often

NO,

or it's not my gedcom, it's my family members data,

or I found it's just  too tedious to enter or verify sources

or I don't have time for that, this is just a casual past time

or -the worst - just   - you do it.  

(Sometimes I get the impression that they think I 'work' here and this is my full-time job!)

When I ask if they will be doing the clean-up after the merge, the answer again is often

"no, you do it.'

For each person there are often parents, spouses, siblings, children - all needing to be checked, compared, verified etc.  So one merge request multiplies exponentially. 

I have finally come up with 'my' answer for requested merges from people who aren't really cooperating in any manner other than a merge request.  It is:

Hello.  I enter data on my family lineages as I have the time, which varies greatly.   I don't always have complete data entered on collateral lines, so I may or may not  have related resources somewhere.  Althought these appear they might be the same person, it's difficult to compare without any  details from your end.   I will mark this person as an unmerged match, and when you have completed verifying the data and entered it, let me know so we can compare them again and then we complete the merge."  

And some people are truly dedicated to merging, verifying, confirming, adding sources - those I go out of my way to complete the merge - even if I have to go find the sources somewhere in the piles of paper! 

Answer 1

Actually, this is pretty near and dear to me.  I would like to see a Library link at the bottom of each page that would make researching and adding links to profiles easier for free (i.e. not the paid database companies) e-books, databases, records, etc.  I have so far, found the following sources scattered all over WikiTree and I would like to see all this consolidated in a Library link at the bottom of each page where it says, "WikiTree ~ About ~ Help ~ Seach ~ LIBRARY ~ Surname." Ideally, Library links would always open in a new tab or window to facilitate copying and pasting from the source to the profile. I will even volunteer to be the librarian if we can have a consolidated, easy to find, library.

These are the links I have found so far on WikiTree:

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Sources_Resources

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Most_Used_Links

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Sources-1

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Genealogy_Help

 

I don't know how the following will look on this message, but on my own profile entries, I use the following links extensively:

[http://services.dar.org/public/dar_research/search_adb/?action=full&p_id=A005596 DAR Ancestor #A005596]  or <a href="http://services.dar.org/public/dar_research/search/?Tab_ID=1">Daughters of the American Revolution Search</a>

[http://patriot.sar.org/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=Grave%20Registry&-loadframes SAR Patriot database #P-188644]  or <a href="http://patriot.sar.org/fmi/iwp/cgi?-db=Grave%20Registry&-loadframes">Sons of the American Revolution Search</a>

[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid= FindAGrave.com memorial #] in name of the cemetery & location.  or <a href="http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gs&">Find A Grave Memorial Number</a>

[http://www.familytreedna.com/public/smithconnections/default.aspx?section=ycolorized FTDNA SmithConnections NE Public Page]<br>

[http://archive.org/stream/historicalsketchcc00dool#page/n3/mode/2up Congregational Church of Belchertown, MA] by Mark Doolittle, p 86<br>

[http://www.archive.org/details/genealogiesofhad00bolt Hadley Genealogies] by Lucius M. Boltwood

[http://archive.org/search.php?query=American%20Ancestry%20Munsell%20Hughes American Ancestry] by Thomas Patrick Hughes & Frank Munsell

Catalogue Of The Name Of [http://www.archive.org/details/catalogueofnames010hinm The First Puritan Settlers Of The Colony Of Connecticut]; With The Time Of Their Arrival In The Colony, And Their Standing In Society, Together With Their Place Of Residence, As Far As Can Be Discovered By The Records. Collected From The State And Town Records, By R. R. HINMAN, 1846

Genealogies Of Some Of The First Families That Settled In Cold Spring, Now Belchertown, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. [http://books.google.com/books?id=HDYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=%22COLD+SPRING,+NOW+BELCHERTOWN,+HAMPSHIRE+COUNTY,+MASSACHUSETTS%22&source=bl&ots=fR0BDUKoqL&sig=qvBU19BHCy0cOsKW-leVj8nOX4s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9fNUUdHHN5PG0gGc1oHIAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22COLD%20SPRING%2C%20NOW%20BELCHERTOWN%2C%20HAMPSHIRE%20COUNTY%2C%20MASSACHUSETTS%22&f=false Appendix A The Smith Family]

<A href="http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi">World Connect Search Engine</A>

<A href="https://www.familysearch.org/search/">Family Search Engine from LDS</A>

<A href="http://www.genealogybooklinks.com/">Genealogy Book Links</A>

<A href="http://www.archive.org/index.php">Archive Book Search</A>

<A href="http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search">Google Book Search</A>

<A href="http://www.obitcentral.com/cemsearch/">Cemetery Search Engine</A>

<A href="http://www.census-online.com/links/">Census Online</A>

<A href="http://www.us-census.org/inventory/inventory.htm">U.S. Census.org</A>

<A href="http://www.worldfamilies.net">WorldFamilies.net DNA Projects</A>

 

Comments

Hi Kitty,

It would be great if you want to work on this area. Anything that would improve the use of sources is a step forward.

You might want to connect with Lianne regarding what she's planning on templates for sources. Maybe there's an intersection there.

Chris

Answer 2

I think that is an unfair generalization. Many of the wikitree entries are sourced to varying degrees of quality. For example you will find sources on my submission here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Burritt-32

Contributors are supposed to provide sources - but you can't force people to do so. If you are asking about sources for a specific individual you could contact the profile manager and ask them.

I know that I am on occasion guilty of creating siblings or children as I work through a census record and forget to document the source for every individual sibling.

Lastly the majority of this problem (in my opinion) is being inherited from ancestry, rootsweb, and familysearch through the upload of Gedcoms by people who are more interested in quantity than quality. The upsaide with wikitree is that the ability to merge profiles  can only continue to improve the sources as profiles are merged and scraps of information from multiple contributors comes together.

Comments

I agree with you Ron:

Lastly the majority of this problem (in my opinion) is being inherited from ancestry, rootsweb, and familysearch through the upload of Gedcoms by people who are more interested in quantity than quality

There seems to be a lot of merging to clean up duplicates but more  editing and sourcing is required. On the plus side there are a great number of talented people keen to make the site better and bit by bit it is!

Answer 3

Hi,

As Rob has commented I think to assume that there are no sources on WT is difficult to agree with - having said that I am sure that it is possible to provide evidence of lack of sources...in my work for starters, but you will also find evidence of documentation, dated sources, books etc etc...

I always bridle when a sweeping generalisation is made - but that's a cross I bare..right - climbs of soap box and wanders back to the part of the forest where Norse Ancestors are cherished and as often as possible sourced!

Answer 4

One of the major issues here is the complaints when someone provides resources that are available on paysites.

For example, I can find many births, marriages and deaths in London, England from Ancestry.co.uk and see the photocopy. But I have to pay for them as would anyone else. But at least if I quote that, then anyone else knows that there is a source there.

But, and we've discussed this before, the real source is not in Amcestry. It is in the London Metropolitan Archives. They are free, but not, of course, accessible to many people.

My solution has been to refer to the source as e.g. parish record, marriage certificate. - Repository LMA. The fact that I may have found it on Ancestry is really neither here not there.

The case is different for Familysearch, since, while their record may be from the original parish record, it is still their transcription and subject to error. This needs to be noted.

However, in general, I do agree with the many people who have said here and elsewhere that anything in the way of sources is better than nothing.

But in the end, genealogy costs, be it in subscriptions or travel :-) No rteserach is free.

Comments

Wendy, Alan ,Rob , Eugene , Martin and ~ Kitty , thanks for listing more free sources. 

Mary , as a greeter , I alway cringe when someone says that they have 10.000 or more to import which makes me so grateful that we do have a set limit.

Also when I look back on some of the new members' profiles (since July 2012) , people are trying in earnest to source, one way or another. I do see improvement among our new members that stick with it.

Like our credo states , we are a mixture of serious genealogists , amateur genealogists who want to do better and the family historians who just want to write what they know about their family. 

Paysites are no better with sourcing. Although it's daunting sometimes, I think WikiTree is going to look incredibly awesome once we get those old profiles cleaned up and fixed.

 

 

 

Answer 5

M, thanks for this!

I have brought up similar concerns. See: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/29609/wikitree-management-considered-suspending-restricting-gedcoms

You are absolutely right. And while some commenters here are correct in saying that not ALL WikiTree profiles are poorly sourced or unsourced (some are wonderfully sourced), a great multitude of them are so. As I and others have said, much of this problem stems from the longstanding, constant upload of junk GEDCOMs that have no (or no legible/coherent) sources whatsoever. These fit the description more of problems than they do of contributions as they impede healthier efforts and inhibit effective matching of profiles. 

I recommended that this site stop, or forcefully restrict, the upload of new GEDCOMs for reasons you, I, and others have mentioned. WikiTree would be MUCH better, and attract more quality researchers, if it actually lived up to its own Honor Code and raised its standards of proof and sourcing. But I suspect that attracting easy traffic, and getting increasing numbers of "profiles," for this site are higher priorities at the moment. 

All work I have done on this site recently is bit-by-bit, adding one profile at a time and sourcing what I add to the best of my means. If I am not convinced that my sources are correct/forthcoming, I don't add that information/material. I am not saying I am always right. In fact, in some instances I may not be. But I try to be scientific and thorough, and eagerly await the times when others can refine what I contribute. 

If everyone, or even most people, acted likewise, WikiTree would be the single most awesome genealogy site on the web. Period. But I find that "other" considerations often get in the way of this. And that's more than a shame - it's lethal to this site's very mission and credibility. 

Comments

I understand and share your frustration with GEDCOM imports. However, the fact is there are a lot of high quality genealogists who just aren't willing to reenter all their data manually on WikiTree, so we'd actually be losing them by eliminating GEDCOM imports.

And yes, getting more traffic to WikiTree is a priority, because it's how we keep the site running. A free site depends on visitors seeing the ads in order to pay for the servers the site is hosted on, as well as its few employees.

---

Well, then, what we have with this site comes down to a serious compromise - an ideal in the Honor Code that we acknowledge but are greatly unable and/or unwilling to uphold.

And I am sorry, I have to echo the comments on this and other discussion threads as well as the concerns of commentators on other websites where WikiTree is reviewed or discussed. 1. What good to this site are "high quality genealogists" (as you put it) if they are not willing to put in quality work to enrich and improve this site? 2. Why should serious genealogists, who are going to contribute the most to this site, put in the time and effort that I have been espousing if they see that their time and effort will be severely diluted and/or poorly repaid by the damage done due to proliferating unsourced information, dubious merges, etc that come with these GEDCOM uploads? Do you want me to link such discussions?

Again, I DO NOT say all this to be adversarial. I really like this site's idea and mission, even now. And I can see that you and the other management are doing what you can in the face of some formidable problems and limitations. But these are tensions that are going to surface ever more largely if WikiTree is going to transition from a neat little site, that sustains and yet pollutes itself through GEDCOM uploads, to a superior resource and tool.

---

Hi Michael,

We do forcefully restrict the upload of new GEDCOMs.

We place lots and lots of impediments in the way of uploaders. We have continously added and improved on these restrictions over the years.

This is an ongoing process, so if you see newly-created profiles that show a pattern of problems, post here.

Chris