What to do about bios?

Question

Hi All

I am a new member here (as of today) and have been reading and researching the four generations of Packers that lived at Groombridge Place. There are many duplicates within this family tree, and I have been merging and correcting all day. I have come to adopt several profiles, and have an issue with the bios. Once the duplicates are merged, I end up with a long bio that lists the three people who uploaded duplicate profiles with ineffectual links to ancestors.com or some other site.

The thing is, I actually have biographical info on some of these people, with sources, some of which is pretty interesting. So, is there any part of the bio that I should absolultely keep? For instance: "No REPO record found with id R-2104710170."?

 

Comments

Sheila, your initial question got hijacked by another topic-- copyrighted images. Do you feel that your first question has been sufficiently answered?

---

Oh yes, I got what I was seeking, and more! I am really diving into the WikiTree, so it's great to see the discussion swirling about.

Cheers!

Answer 1

Welcome to WikiTree, Sheila!

First of all, absolutely do add your biographical info and sources!! :)

As for what can easily be deleted:

• Lines like "No REPO record found with id R-2104710170."
• Lines like "User ID: A6BCFA90-922A-4C0D-8A8B-E8798E089411"
• "Data Changed" sections

When there are lots of good sources, links to Ancestry member trees can generally be deleted. If you don't have an Ancestry subscription, sometimes it helps to get someone who does to check the links and see if there's anything worth keeping.

Beyond that, there's not much we all agree on! The Profile Improvement Project is working on that. Our discussions on G2G are tagged profiles.

Comments

So how do we access the original document and be allowed to use it? If it is my family's census, birth record, etc, do I not have a legal right to obain the original or copy of such document without being charged to "access" the image?

---

"If it is my family's census, birth record, etc, do I not have a legal right to obain the original or copy of such document without being charged to "access" the image?"

No, I don't think such a right exists.

---

---

---

Hmmm.. I'll have to ask a lawyer. I thought that your family, birth records, etc, is public domain and is freely available via the freedom of information act.

I guess I need to do some research on that because I definately don't like the idea that they are able to hold my family information and charge people to give them the information. If this is the case I need to make copies of every document and backup, backup, backup.

---

I'm guessing you mean the US Freedom of Information Act? I'm not really familiar with US law.

But something being in the public domain doesn't mean people can't charge for it. Most records can be viewed for free if you are willing to travel to wherever the original records are held. But Ancestry is perfectly free to make copies and conveniently transcribe them, and then charge us for that.

---

Good point @Lianne. I never thought of it in that term. Thank you for sharing :)

---

Sorry, Matthew, you missed my point. These documents are indeed in the public domain and you may consult the originals. What I think is unreasonable is to expect them to be photocopied or transcribed and then issued free of charge. Even the records offices are going to charge for a photocopy.

Ancestry et al provide a service, which many people appreciate because it is far cheaper than the travel necessary to consult the originals or the cost of getting a professional to do it for you.

So, yes, it would be nice if all official bodies holding records made copies freely available, but I don't think we can expect it.

---

Hi Matthew

This thread might be useful to you. 

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/39681/anyone-up-to-speed-on-copyright-laws

---

Thank you Shelia! :)

---

Deleted because I was just repeating myself.

---

hi Liane About 4 years ago Family search.org had one version of it where a person could access family death records.  I was able to download many death records of family members.  It seems to me there was a date cutoff.  Such as if you or I died, it is too recent.   Then it switched to a person had to log in to part of their site to see it/download it.  After that the log in wouldn't work.  So I gave up.   I assume they ceased to make the records accessible as they were going to start charging.

I do not find  death certificates in general on ancestry.com unless a member has uploaded one.  But then everyone has the record.  

I do have a subscription to ancestry.com as my trees are there, if anyone wants me to look data up  for them to see if it is usuable for WikiTree biograpies

Answer 2

There have been comments here about replacing all familysearch resources in the profiles. Though I agree with replacing all Ancestry links, and the familysearch links to personal family trees, there is a wealth of information on familysearch beyond the old family trees.  I would be annoyed if my links to census data and vital records that I found and linked to on familysearch were deleted or removed simply because they came from familysearch.  These are good, FREE, double checked transcriptions of the actual records, and should remain on the profiles where they have been painstakingly linked.  Please don't delete data just because it comes from a familysearch.com URL.  Thank you.

Comments

Agreed. Same thing with Ancestry. Links to Ancestry member trees are pretty much useless, but not links to actual record images/transcriptions on Ancestry!

---

Kitty, I hope that your links to such sources (which are great, by the way) clearly distinguish what kind of record they are. The bulk of familysearch.org links I've come across are to IGI or Ancestral Files that have no source documentation.

Thanks for adding the kinds of sources you are adding.

---

I think it's usually pretty easy when you click on a FamilySearch link to tell if it's an actual record or a user-submitted tree, isn't it? I actually rarely see the latter. But a page like this is really obviously a source: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FMNK-57S

---

Hi Kitty

Thanks for your response.

I am not talking about indiscriminate deletion of urls here. As a newbie it is hard to understand what is pertinent *for this system*. Actual links to real records are great.

All the profiles I have adopted basically have the info stating that the profile was created by a GEDCOM upload by X person, sometimes including a useless link (I have  an account at Ancestry.com) . My sense was that this does not add any information of interest or note. In addition, all of the subsequent uploaders clearly did not check for duplicate profiles, so unsure they deserve any mention at all!

USER ID and NO REPO notes are incomprehensible to me, but I did not know if they were necessary for the system.

---

"In addition, all of the subsequent uploaders clearly did not check for duplicate profiles, so unsure they deserve any mention at all!"

Hear, hear! We don't need to give credit to someone who just created a duplicate profile and didn't add anything of substance. So the GEDCOM lines in those cases can be deleted.

---

---

---

I agree that they should be kept, but they should not be the only source of verification. To me the only TRUE verification is a photo of the document because typos and errors can always be caused by computers or written.

However we can give a high probablility to assume that the information is correct if it references documents such as the census or birth records.

---

Ancestry almost always includes an image of the document, and FamilySearch sometimes does as well.

Also keep in mind that many of these images are under copyright (unfortunately) so they shouldn't be uploaded to WikiTree.

---

However on Ancestry, you have to be on a paid account in order to view the document. That it is why it is vital that the information is being presented on this site and not simply linked to another.

If all we do is link to other sources instead of creating verifyable sources accessable from WikiTree, then if those sites change their policies or deadlink, then we will still have the information to provide to our community.

---

I understand what you're saying, Matthew, but my point is that images from Ancestry simply can't be copied to WikiTree. That would violate copyright law.

The best solution is to link to the source on Ancestry or wherever it's available, and give a full source citation so that even if links change, the source can always be looked up again.

---

I think this is getting confused. Sorry, I'm not being rude to individuals. Basically the discussion seems to be going in different directions.

My priority in using sources is to record the original source. That is never familysearch or Ancestry. They do not hold original sources. They either hold transcriptions or photocopies. Thus familysearch has transcriptions of UK censuses, but Ancestry has photocopies. The IGI does in fact have source documentation for original parish records.

The problem with transcriptions is that they are second-hand and often incomplete. I have found much more informatiuon when consulting the originals than when looking at a familysearch transcription of the same.

Photocopies of originals, on the other hand, are reliable, providing you can read them. Sometimes the originals are easier.

Anyway, if my source is familysearch, I say it is a transcription and refer to where the original is held. An example might be a parish record for somewhere where it isn't practicable to get to see the original. With photocopies, I refer to them as I would to the originals and say where they are held. London marriages on Ancestry might be a good example, held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

Other people's family trees are only valid as sources if they show the original sources themselves.

My personal view on Wikitree profiles is that they should not be a place to display original material in general. There may be a point in showing a transcription of a will because it says something about the testator, but why a census entry or a marriage certificate? The information from those should be there but no need for a photo of the original.

The crucial thing is that anyone reading a Wikitree profile should have confidence in the information given and should know where the original material is to be found..

---

@Martin - Those a great points. While doing research, I have found that the propietary sites often host images that are available elsewhere, and though I may keep them for my own records, a source citation really ought to suffice for the WikiTree.

@ Lillian - you make a good point about copy-right material - unfortunately there are no markings on them.  I have scanned and printed images of many documents, but since they are copies of the original documents, I have no record of the secondary source. Generally speaking non-primary sources are not acknowledged, even if they are instrumental in the research. Oh how the Interweb has changed things!

---

Copyrights are why I rely on links to sources, resources, photos and documents.  It is much easier to link to the item with an appropriate identification on a profile than to find out if the item is still under copyright somewhere on the internet.  It also saves storage space to create a link rather than another copy.