Are we accepting family search online trees as a valid source?

Question

As I understand it, any Online tree is not a valid source which would include Family Search Trees. 

Again, I believe Gedcompare has added to my ancestor's relatives with the only source, a family search online tree.  (Could very well be correct and not a mess like another time).

I believe it is too easy to add an online tree as a source.

As adding sources is free form it is extremely difficult to stop this happening.

If I was a new member, I would think if I am not stopped or reminded when entering a source, therefore it MUST BE OK!

My suggestion is

1. Stop this if at all possible via technical means using keywords to look out for.

2. Ensure a reminder is VERY VISIBLE when sources are added that online sources are not to be used as a source, with a link to the help page.

I believe this particular entry came in via Gedcompare - I am definitely not a fan of the method. I strongly believe that we should enter :

One profile at a time and give each individual the profiles they represent, the respect and attention each and every one deserves.  

Even though I have THOUSANDS of individuals yet to add from my home database.

Answer 1

Yes, here is the Wikitree definition of a source:

On WikiTree we use a very simple definition: a source is the identification of where you obtained information.

Only profiles for pre-1700 people have strict sourcing guidelines.  

As much as many of us dislike unsourced trees, personal knowledge (when the profile is for someone who died long ago), and the "Grandma told me" equivalents, if that's where you got the information then it's a source.

Comments

It's a fine point, perhaps, but what Kathie quotes is the WikiTree definition of a source. NG was speaking about valid sources, which WikiTree refers to as reliable sources.

The same Help page Kathie quotes says this a bit further down:

We do not attempt to enforce any standard of reliability for sources or any method for securing pre-approval except on pre-1700 profiles.

This does not mean that WikiTree members do not need to evaluate the reliability of sources. Evaluating sources and the evidence they contain is part of the science of genealogy. As genealogists, we all need to do it. And as collaborative genealogists, we need to tell each other our sources so that we can work together to evaluate their relative reliability.

The pre-1700 rules imply that WikiTree does not consider family trees on FamilySearch or elsewhere to be reliable sources.

---

I agree with you and Wikitree's pre 1700 rules.  Any family tree on FamilySearch should not be considered a reliable source. If that tree is actually sourced - and few are - then use the sources, not the "tree".  I have had people suggest merges and point me to trees on FamilySearch that are not only not sourced but so wrong, it took me all of 30 minutes to prove them wrong.  The trees on there are no better than the ones on Ancestry.

Answer 2

It is frustrating, I agree. I have found numerous profiles (not pre-1700) that the biography only contains 'Born on  such and such a date, Died on such and such a date', and under sources it only states 'Ancestry.com, Findagrave.com.' It would not take much time to add further info, and at least a link to a viable source that can be researched.