Why so much controversy over using Ancestry vs Family Search?

Question

I joined WIKI due to the concept of collaboration of many researchers coming together to share their knowledge on each ancestor profile. It was a totally different concept than other free sites or paid sites that allow many different people to create their own individual research tree of each ancestor. If I had known that there is a bias toward using Paid sites over the Free sites I might not have joined.  To replace a citation from Ancestry with another one from Family Search or vice versa just because a free site is preferred is shocking. Replacing empty GED com data with actual sources is a good thing regardless of the site being used.

Comments

People should really not be removing sources that are accurate. There is nothing wrong with having more than one source for the same information.

---

This is particularly a problem when the Ancestry source has an actual image of the record and the FamilySearch version is simply a transcript, such as in the case of the England and Wales censuses. Many of the them have transcription errors, are indexed to the incorrect place, or are lacking crucial information.

---

Agreed. Thank you.

---

Totally agree. Leave the links to Ancestry Trees alone. It is just another place that a researcher can go to see what information they have in the Gallery Section or other sources. Links to Ancestry Trees in themselves are not a "source" and I think everyone knows that.

Answer 1

This discussion does come up regularly, and I personally have changed my opinion over time, from reading some of the responses.

My initial objections were the cost, but the fact of the matter is, that most governments providing BDM sources, are charging you for them, and at a higher rate than if you signed up to Ancestry (which I haven't). From there, it feels wrong to go to Ancestry for sources, only to "steal" them and use them on competeing sites. But fact is, most of the sources they have been given, have been given to them to freely distribute on behalf of the places who actually hold the sources. What you are paying for, is probably covering costs and providing a small profit. Once again, cheaper than what the people holding the sources, charge for them. So long as you only copy sources off Ancestry, which aren't copyright, which most of them aren't, it shouldn't be a problem. As will be mentioned though, the only real problem after that, is people listing in sources on Wikitree, that Ancestry is the source, and not listing the actual details of the source, including where it came from, i.e. a local archive somewhere.

As for FS, my only personal objection to it, is the beliefs of the Mormon church, which I have a theological problem with, and therefore I don't want to give my personal details to them. Otherwise, it sounds like a fantastic place to have on your source goto list, because it is free. But, once again, if you list them in a profile, make sure you are actually sharing the details that they provided, rather than just saying that that is where you found the details.

Comments

You don't have to actually give Family Search your personal details. You need to create an account, but they have no idea whether you're using your real name or not. The same applies to a free email account. You can create it for any name that you wish.

I only receive emails from them because I sometimes visit my local family history centre, and I've given the centre my email address. Those emails are very rare, and only to notify me when the centre will be closed, e.g. over Christmas/New Year, closed at short notice due to unforeseen circumstances, or open post-Covid.

The church has a policy that its members cannot discuss religion in its family history centres, so they won't try to convert you.

---

Thank you Leandra. I have been thinking about signing up anonymously.

It doesn't surprise me that they have a policy of not discussing beliefs. My understanding however, is that they have a theological position of practising baptism for the dead, which is why they are so interested in tracing genealogy. So to that regard, I wouldn't want to give any details to them, because I don't wish to provide encouragement to that particular belief. I understand that this wouldn't be a second thought for most people, just a position that I know people of my belief have a problem with. At some stage I will probably make an anonymous account.

---

Hi Ben, I understand and share your position on the LDS Church. I signed up for a FamilySearch account years ago using my normal email address, for the purpose of accessing the records. No problems with them whatsoever. I get a rare email regarding FamilySearch, usually about some new feature or collection. It really is a treasure trove of information despite their reasons for collecting it. I would rather do that than pay for Ancestry, because at least FamilySearch is offering it as a free resource to the world.

Answer 2

Hi Mary.  I don't think it's really a controversy, it's just a preference on the part of many members to cite a source that all readers would be able to see, if one is available.  There's no rule against using an Ancestry source, if that's what you have.  (And no rule against using a book from the library, or a record from your county courthouse, or a family bible, or anything else not in the public domain, if that's what is available.)  In a lot of cases you can counter any anti-Ancestry bias by using their free-to-view image link for the actual source document:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/792811/creating-a-free-to-view-image-link-from-ancestry-com

Answer 3

I don't find the anti-Ancestry bias that extreme. There are a very few people who are very opposed to companies making money off of records which are in the public domain. Some of the other complaints come from when someone uses a GEDCOM they downloaded from Ancestry to create profiles here and the source citations to Ancestry are a total mess and many of them are links to trees. Others want only the source from a free site to be used instead of the one from Ancestry, so they will sometimes remove/replace the Ancestry source citation instead of leaving it in place and just adding the source from the free site and that removal creates some conflict.

What I do is first find all I can on the free site (FamilySearch) and cite from there. Then I go to Ancestry to see if there is anything else to add. For example, today I am working on a fellow. I was able to find all the census records for him on FamilySearch and his death certificate, so I cited them from FamilySearch. Once that was done I went over to Ancestry to see what else was there. An image of his marriage record and an image of his WWII Draft Registration Card are there. Neither of those was available on FamilySearch. So I will transcribe the info from each to include in the biography and create a source citation for each to include in this fellow's biography. My source citations will include both a link to the image for Ancestry subscribers and the "sharing" link which Ancestry provides. I don't think anyone should be upset with me for sharing what I paid for that they don't want to or can't pay for.

Comments

Thank you Nelda. I have gone back over profiles and found the link to my Ancestry Tree has been deleted numerous times.

---

I want to make sure I have this correct...you are adding a link to your own Ancestry tree to WikiTree profiles you manage and other WikiTreers are removing it? I believe it is your prerogative to include such a link. I do not believe it should be removed by other WikiTreers.

The only place on WikiTree I have referenced my own Ancestry Tree is on my personal profile page. I do not cite my own Ancestry Tree on any other profiles, though I have occasionally referenced/mentioned other people's Ancestry trees in research notes, such as when several other Ancestry members may have a child or spouse I don't have and haven't found records for but which I cannot disprove either. I only cite Ancestry indexed or imaged records when I cannot find the same record on a freely accessible site such as FamilySearch. I always include a link to the Ancestry image, if there is one. Whenever it is available, I include the sharing link to an imaged record. (Indexed records usually do not have sharing links.) I always try to include transcribed information from the indexed or imaged record in the biography. I have never had anyone ever remove any of my Ancestry source citations I placed on any WikiTree profile and I have included many.

---

Yes, I do add my personal Ancestry Tree link to the bottom of profiles that I manage and others that I have done extensive research on and have much good information in the Gallery section of my Tree. (The link always connects to the individual ancestor's page not my home page) This gives other researchers some details that they may not have found in other sources. I have found the links to my Ancestry Tree deleted. The only reason to delete a source that anyone puts on WIKI is that it is a dead link.

---

Okay, I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. I do have a suggestion, though, which might prevent others from thinking its "just a link to an Ancestry Tree" which is of no value to anyone. Put a note there by the link in your source citation explaining why you have the link there and perhaps exactly what it is you have there that others may find of interest in your gallery. For example, if you have images of Bible pages, a Will, a newspaper clipping, a photograph, say so in your citation. I think if you add more explanation, it might help the situation.

---

It really should not matter.  If there are other sources on a profile, nobody should be deleting a link to an ancestry tree.

Even if it is the only "source", it should be left alone and the unsourced template added, because - as Mary explains- the person doing the deleting has no idea what may, or may not be ON that tree.

---

I agree, Melanie, that the link Mary is adding to the profiles she manages should be left alone and not deleted. I wish all WikiTreers would act accordingly. Alas, they don't...

---

Hmm.  That's interesting.  I usually hesitate to delete anything, but just this morning I deleted a bunch of Ancestry links from a profile because the links didn't work.  One did work, but it didn't go to the person being profiled.  You're not arguing for keeping useless links, are you?  In any other case, I would probably argue for keeping non-working links (to various sources) as a trail, and in the hope that someone could restore them.  But in the case of Ancestry, any subscriber can go to the website and do their own search, and people who don't subscribe can't use the links anyway.

---

Nelda, that is a good idea. Not everyone understands why a link to an Ancestry Tree is added to the profile. Thanks, Mary

---

I so agree. We should never delete a link of any kind unless it is a dead one and even then, those may be able to reconstructed by the knowledgeable. Thanks, Mary

---

Julie, Maybe we should refrain from deleting any links on WIKI to other genealogy sites regardless, because there are people savy enough to be able to reconstruct them.

Thanks,

Mary

---

Mary, I think I'm as savvy as the next person when it comes to using Ancestry.  Some WT profiles have ten Ancestry links that go nowhere.  They obscure more useful information, and even if they were reconstructed, they would most likely lead to some undocumented profile.  You can often tell from the link description what it led to, which is sometimes no more than "Ancestry trees contributed by various members," "The Millennium File," etc.  And as I said, any Ancestry subscriber can do their own search.

---

Hi Julie,

If somone clicks on the Ancestry link in sources on WIKI and it sends them over to that person's main Ancestry home page then it is useless in my opinion. Those Ancestry links are only useful if they direct you to the individual Ancestry profile page that it is attached to on WIKI or a citation of some sort.

Again, the reason for attaching an Ancestry link is to provide an added place to look for clues that may be attached to that page or located in the Gallery Section.

An Ancestry Link back to a generic home page is not a source of any kind and I think that is accepted by now.

Thanks,

Mary

Answer 4

I routinely attempt to add freely available sources to profiles created with paywall sources.  A family member added a huge number of Ancestry sourced profiles.  As a result, I have added free sources to critical profiles.  I don't remove ancestry sources, I simply duplicate them, with accessible sources.

Comments

By the way, I often quote print sources, that aren't in the public domain.  I look to the Internet Archive for freely available sources, but, as an old fashioned person, I still read print books, and regard them as wonderful sources of information.

Answer 5

For me it is a matter of cost. I cannot afford a monthly subscription to Ancestry and so I prefer to use Family Search.

I don't mind if there are Ancestry sources on a profile. However I am often unable to access them, so I will also add Family Search sources if there are none currently on the profile.