How should I react ?

Question

In all the years that I have been a member of Wikitree, I have not once had any help. Indeed, I am confronted by those that have the sole purpose in life to deny my family history, in spite of all that talk about collaboration.

So, when I get a message to the effect that, "Fred Smith wrote a book in which he claimed their 27th great grandfather, twice removed, may have gone to school with Joe Bloggs". I honestly don't know how I am expected to respond. Sorry, but unless I have personally viewed the original documentary evidence, I cannot accept that information.

I am not being awkward, not trying to upset anybody, not wishing to cause arguments, but simply following the modus operandi of others. Perhaps I could study Fred Smith's sources, but what were their sources, and the sources before them ? It all quickly becomes lost in a tangle of assumption and speculation. If we are only dealing with hard facts, then what reason do I have to believe one author over another, anybody can get it wrong.

Comments

I understand your frustration. I have experienced similar exchanges, but also many very helpful and useful input.

You have received some very helpful advice in the responses here.

I always thank them, and ask if they can provide me with more details and their sources, so I can update the profile - I rarely hear anything further!

My conclusion is that they really don't care about accuracy, or indeed that profile.

Thanks for sharing

Answer 1

You appear to be referring to two separate issues here, one being the use of a derived source rather than an original source, and the other being a source to which you personally have no access.

One of the purposes of collaboration is so that someone who has incomplete or derived sources can collaborate with others who may have more reliable sources. So initially a record may have a derived source, and later when the fact is verified, the source is replaced with an original record. When confronted with conflicting information, we weigh up the various sources and their likelihood for accuracy.

There are many reliable records containing primary information that are not available online. If someone says they have examined the original record and you refuse to include it on the profile because you live halfway across the world and haven't seen it with your own eyes, it's rather insulting to those who are able to perform the research that you can't. What right do you have to control everyone else's participation in working on their ancestor's profile due to your lack of access to legitimate, reliable records?

I'm working on this profile for my g-grandfather at the moment. Here I've included some conflicting sources and discussed my attempts to verify them. If I refrained from writing anything until I only had original records in front of me, it wouldn't be apparent to any cousins reading it that I'm missing some information that I want to find, and perhaps they have some more information that would help to answer the question.
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Engstr%C3%B6m-508

We lose the greatest benefit of collaboration when we refuse to document anything for others to critically examine unless we can see an original record.

Comments

Leandra, What a wonderful biography and explanation of your research. It is a great example to follow

---

Firstly, I make it clear that I am only researching my family within the UK and Europe. That in itself involves far more than enough work to undertake. As it is, my life expectancy is such that it is doubtful if I will ever complete it.

Secondly, much of the primary data is within the public domain in the UK, and therefore readily available. I purchase photocopies of original records from the relevant offices, and never resort to dubious online sources.

Your comments apply both ways, folk overseas may not see the original data, and rely upon third party transcripts that often have errors. It is greatly frustrating to be told by someone who cannot, or have not bothered, to see the original documents that I have incorrect data.

I do not inhibit the research of others, do not prevent them from doing their own research, but if I cannot see the original how can I verify the information ? I have seen far too many examples of invention and deliberately false information posted on the internet. There is much more misinformation than fact there.

You say that you weigh up conflicting data and decide which is most reliable, but that is at best only an opinion, it is not by any means a proven fact, yet upon the strength of that opinion, information that you do not agree with is discounted as incorrect. Just because a group of people happen to think something is right, does not make it true or factual.

---

It doesn't matter where you are researching, the principles are the same regardless. Other people may come forward with information you don't have. You personally don't have to verify everything. This is a collaborative effort. Sources are added to information and it may be verified or disputed by others. At some point you have to trust that others can research and verify. If the information is appropriately cited, then others are able to make an informed decision on the reliability of that information.

I manage profiles where others have contributed, not cited their sources adequately and I cannot verify the information when I have reviewed and cleaned up the profile. I have research notes explaining that the information cannot be verified, so it serves as a warning that it may not be correct, but it isn't removed from the profile until it can be established that it is incorrect. My job as a profile manager is to manage, not control. Perhaps someday the person who contributed it will read the profile and provide that information. Perhaps someone else will. If they don't, the research notes make it clear that it still needs to be verified.

---

Thank you, Jean.

---

I agree with Jean, Leandra.  Beautiful work!

---

I have received a private email telling me that I don't understand what it is like working with people who want to use information that cannot be verified by the PM. In posting here, I'm setting the record straight on that false perception. I'm also providing an example of how to work with sources that cannot be verified (yet).

I work with profiles of Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. They don't have a written history, it's an oral one. So gathering enough information to create a profile can be challenging, and we have to rely on a lot of secondary sources.

For example, in this profile I have research notes to indicate inconsistencies and sources that cannot be verified. I didn't create this profile, but I did adopt it to improve the sourcing and provide further information. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Corner-688.

If we adopt the position that we won't create a profile for anyone without BDM records that we witness with our own eyes, a profile for this amazing woman would not exist. There are 27 sources on her profile, and not one of them is a BDM record. There will be at least 2, hopefully 3, BDM records for Sadie, but none are yet in the public domain due to privacy requirements. Hopefully one day someone will be able to add those sources to the profile. Hopefully one day someone will be able to resolve those other issues included in the research notes.

A research note on a profile, indicating that in a book there's an unsourced claim that your ancestor went to school with someone else, is not unreasonable. It alerts other researchers to information that needs to verified. If it is disproven in the future, it can be removed. If it is verified, then you have some more information on your ancestor. This is collaboration and creating an inclusive environment.

As an aside, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people read these threads in G2G, where people refuse to accept anything but an original written record that they have seen for themselves, or a primary record, they are made to feel rejected and insignificant. They are real flesh and blood people who are just as worthy of acknowledgement with a Wikitree profile as anyone else. I would ask that other genealogists be mindful of cultivating an inclusive environment. It's quite reasonable to stop someone creating false connections to a famous person 15 generations away. The example used in the original post is rather harmless. 

---

Another piece of beautiful work, Leandra.  Thank you for your comments.

---

Thank you, Julie.

---

Firstly, I wish to make it clear that I have not called into question the sterling work of Leandra on behalf of Aboriginal Heritage. Indeed, I did not even mention it once.

Secondly, I do not expect everyone to agree with me, contrary to comments privately sent, But I would call upon members to question the validity of some decisions made. If some feel threatened by such scrutiny, then perhaps there is good reason.

My gripe was about inaccurate information gathered from inferiour internet sources, and then quoted as if it were proven fact.

Answer 2

How about, "Thank you for the information. When I find primary sources to corroborate the information in the Fred Smith book, I will add it to the profile of .... In the meantime, if you find primary sources corroborating this, I would appreciate you letting me know and sending me the link to those sources so I can review them." Hopefully your correspondent will get the hint that you prefer primary sources or, at least, sources which you can corroborate.

Answer 3

In support of what Nelda Stated...

I would just use an old saying that sometimes applies to these types of situations...

"Kill them with Kindness!"

If I were in this situation, all I could do is either disregard or thank the individual for their feedback/opinion and also mention that unless a dependable source is provided to verify (and such) that information can only be considered as a possibility/probability as it cannot be verified via a reliable source.

Somewhere along those lines. LOL! :-))

I may get a bit frustrated at times, but I never take such things (like that) personally.

~Brian Kerr

Comments

Frank Gill, and Brian Kerr, there have been several theories about the source of the name, one being that they produced the drink, Perry. I do know that there are several places in the South West of England that bear that name, vis Perry, Perry Barr, Perry Park. I have also seen claims that it is an anglicised version of a name from Normandy, and even possibly of Viking origin. I would point out that none of those theories have been verified, and so of little value.