Too Many Sources???

Question

I know that heading sounds like a contradiction of all that Wikitree is based on, but please bear with me because I need your advise.

For research purposes, and using DNA I have my tree on a number of sites as well as Wikitree.  I am getting huge screeds of suggested sources, but some are less specific than ones I already have.  For example, my Mother - I have a copy of her birth certificate. However, ancestry and family-search keep finding record matches to the registers which aren't as specific, in UK cases only supply the quarter of the registration. Do people 'accept' these, as being added confirmation or just 'ignore' them? I can see benefits in both methods but what do other members of the community do?

Answer 1

I don't use Ancestry, but on FamilySearch, I accept the suggestion if it appears pretty likely that it is a match.  I don't very often ignore or mark a non-match unless it is clearly a non-match.

Answer 2

As you say, the UK birth marriage and death indexes are just what they say- indexes. The ancient ones  amongst us remember when these were huge books housed at Somerset House and it's successors. You found the entry that you thought was right. You paid the fee and eagerly awaited the copy of the certificate in the post. Sometimes there was disapointment. It wasn't the right person. When the first Family History magazines started there were long lists offering certificates purchased in error. Just using the indexes is a pragmatic strategy but can lead to errors. This is  especially  true with common names and without other records to back them up. (the  newer GRO birth index on the government website is a vast improvement in that it includes mother's maiden names. This makes it possible to confirm that you have the right details for sets of children but of course there are still no exact dates and registration districts are large).

Your certificates are far better sources than the indexes, in all cases they contain more detail than the index.  I think that a reference to the index is probably superfluous but certainly does no harm.

In the citation, include the fact that it is a certificate in your possession. You could also include  number of the cert and a transcript of the details. Unlike many UK records you can also upload a scan, as long as the certificate doesn't include details of  a living person ( this includes witnessses, informants at a death,  vicar or registrar etc). I also wouldn't put full details from my own certificates on here.

.

Answer 3

If the index gives the source, and the source is exactly the document you already have, then there is absolutely no reason to add the index as an additional source to a profile — that just creates clutter and confusion. However, it could be worthwhile to create a single layered citation on the profile. You provide the citation details for the original document, then put a semicolon and provide the citation details for the index. Then someone who can't access the original might still be able to view the index, at least, and the layered format makes it clear that it is one document and a derivative version of the same record, and not two independent records.

If I don't know what source the index used, then until such time as I do, it would seem possibly an independent source. So then it is worth including on a profile as a possible second, correlating piece of evidence.

Answer 4

I have found value in putting references to any source I can find that is reasonably accessible to the masses. While I know the simple act of creating an account on FamilySearch often prevents some individuals from accessing those records, because it is a Free account, I don't regard this as a significant obstacle. So I try to maintain a primary source record set with any references to FS as possible - even if they are duplicates or a secondary index to the same original. I often find that different indexers see different things in the records they index, and those clues often help me find the next step in the journey.

However, there are certain records that can only be found beyond the magic paywall, so if I can't find a comparable record on this side of the paywall, I will reluctantly put references to those records so that it is clear where the data came from. I don't put duplicate references where a free site citation already exists, even though that might prove helpful in the future. I do have "temporary" access to Ancestry for now (for example - there are numerous other pay sites), but I would venture to say I'll lose it in the future and those links will become inaccessible to me. So it will only help me in the future if I link to as many non-pay site sources as possible and not duplicate them with additional pay site matches.

But that's just my approach - I'm sure it's different for many others. I've often seen the approach of only putting one citation per original source, which is fine. I've also seen some who will only put Census information. That's helpful, but it only documents certain key historical pieces of data, and things like exact birth or death get missed in the process. Often I'm just glad there's at least One citation on the source list, but I suppose that's now delving off-topic and I'll stop now.

Answer 5

https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp gives mother's maiden name.

Answer 6

I have an ancestor who was a judge in the Supreme court. The number of times he is mentioned in the papers, is far too unrealistic for including every time he is mentioned. Guess, I just have to pick through the things most relevant to him.