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

Spot on, Lianne.

In my view there is little point in retaining questionable sources if you can replace them with good ones. I'd like to see all references to familysearch and Ancestry replaced with references to the originals. If they don't have originals then they are questionable in the first place.

---

And the Profile Improvement Project has recently been re-activated with two new co-managers-- myself and Tom Bredehoft. We'd welcome your participation.

---

I agree, I would like to see all the FamilySearch and Ancestry references replaced as well. However, the reason most members place those links (in my opinion) is because those source sites are able to have features displayed that WikiTree does not have at the moment. 

For instance, one of the reasons that I display those source files a lot of the time is because I am not allow to post a text/pdf document of the source files (Census, Births, Marriages, etc) if the image files are not accessable.

I have tons of documents that I would love to include in the bio of profiles from my family tree, but I don't want to make the page scrollable for 5 minutes. If we had a way to accept documents and place on the profiles, it would make the bio easier to link to actual source documents instead of outsourcing.

 

---

Matthew,

I don't typically add images of documents-- been more focused on adding source information (not images). Are you saying that the attachment of photos to a given profile page is not sufficient? (I wonder if we should start a new topic, focused on this.)

UPDATE: I was going to start a new question, but I think that there is already a solution; waiting to hear Matthews response first.

---

I think that the attachment of photos is necessary for photos and photo-copied documents such as the census or older documents, but no, I do not think that they are sufficient to present additional information in various other forms, such as:

• PDF documents that are multiple pages in duration that might describe a lease agreement or other such elongated correspondance between multiple parties. These documents would be too long for input into the bio section of their profile.
• Census information or other such documents that has no image or were destroyed.
• Wills

Yes, we could add such information to the bio section, but to me, that would make it too bloated and take away from the "story" that is being told for the individual. It seems that having an option to add documents and stories that are linkable to the individual documents would allow for:

• A better user experience
• Ability to save additional information to the user's computer for storage or addition in their own personal collections, outside of the standard GED.

We could add the information to a "Thing" page, but that would bloat the site with uncessessary pages.

Note: This is simply a continued developing thought. I welcome input for this suggestion.

 

---

Thanks Lillian!

I have a free account at Ancestry - that should allow me to view (part of? some of?) the profiles that are linked - is that not so?

---

With a free Ancestry account, you won't be able to see where most links go. They'll usually lead you to a page asking you to subscribe.

---

That is the very reason that I would like to transition it over to here.

1. I have had to cancel my accounts in the past and were unable to view all the research that I had done.
2. Give access to everyone for the information found on ancestry.com to everyone
3. Who wants to pay for information that was already collected? :)

---

I agree Matthew! People on those sites could (and have) let their subsciption lapse, and forcing everyone to pay for an ancestry.com subscription is a great money-maker for ancestry.com.

I think I read somewhere that people could host longer documents (here I am referring to your earlier discussion on wills, etc) on Google Docs, and link to them via bios. Another thought would be for WikiTree to set up a document-hosting site that would allow for the same functionality.

---

Unfortunately, when you download an image from Ancestry.com, you agree to their terms of use, which prevents you from uploading that same image to another site. So uploading said document here not only puts you in copyright violation, it also puts wikitree.com in violation.

Rememer: While the information in the document is not copyrighted, the IMAGE of it is. 

 

---

Exactly Jillaine. We ought to be grateful to Ancestry. How many people in the US can actually get to the UK and visit record offices? Ancestry gives you access to these. Of course it costs. The photocopies on Ancestry are, I believe in some cases their own, in which case they have the copyright. Nothing wrong with that. Or they are owned by other repositories and are therefore theirs to rule on.

It is totally unrealistic to expect images of original documents to be freely available anywhere. Why is it necessary for them to appear on Wikitree. Put in the information and refer to the proper source.

---

@Jillaine: Thank you, I didn't know that about the terms of use from ancestry.com, I will review again.

@Martin: I don't think that it is unrealistic to expect images of original documents to be freely available anywhere because these are public documents that I am referring to. A census or other such information should be available to anyone BECAUSE it is in the public domain, especially to those who are in a direct line to them.

And it is necessary to be put on WikiTree because sites go down from time to time and information is lost, for example I have been trying to search for the obituary of one of my cousins who only died in 2010 and the information was deleted off the main site and provided for a fee to a third-party source.

And yes, I understand that Ancestry gives us information at a convenience (ie. UK), but should not be restricted to a membership. I believe that the information should be made available to everyone if the user pays for the subscription, gets the information, has it in their family, and wants to share it. Of course this is just my opinion, I am unaware of their policies.

I am not saying do not abide by copyright, I am just referencing that information for a family line should not be restricted from those family members simply because they don't want to pay the fee to access the information month after month after month. If that information was "paid for" by the subscription, it is criminal to hold it in "escrow" until you pay your next months payments. The information OF the family should be allowed to be accessed BY the family at anytime of their choosing without paying for it.

This idealogy would be equated to (in my opinion) that after burying your parents (for a fee) at a plot that in order to remove them from the plot you had to pay the cemetery an additional fee or be charged a month-to month fee to have them there. Is it legal for it to be so? Yes. Is it ethical? No!

Copyright should not be limited to the public domain. For instance, books after 95 years of the death of the author is considered public domain, but images of my grandfather's census records are copyrighted?

I am not a lawyer, nor state that I know the true nature of copyright as I am still researching. I am merely stating my idealogy on the matter.

---

Matthew: I'm sure many would agree with you, but as long as copyright law is what it is, we have to follow it.

And keep in mind, as Jillaine pointed out, that's it the images, not the information, that is copyright. You can take the names, dates, and places from records on Ancestry and put them on WikiTree, so that information is always freely available. The same just can't be done with the images.

---

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.