Why are so many people using FamilySearch family trees as documentation and nothing is being done about it?

Question

This is the ONLY documentation some people are using.

I appreciate what I've learned about my family on here, but it is disturbing that falsehoods are being repeated over and over to the point people think it is fact.

Comments

I've given up worrying about what other people do and just try to do my own well-sourced and well-written biographical profiles. I admit, though, that many of my profiles are at various stages of completion. If the only "source" I have for a piece of information is a family tree, I mention that the "fact" needs a better quality source.

---

Deborah, I just looked at some of the profiles you created and the sources are " Family Bible" , "unsourced family tree handed down". How can someone find a primary source?

---

I have updated your grandmother's profile.  I added the marriage date, changed the death date to match the sources, multiple census, etc.  All sources came from Family Search, except for a Birth source that was found on ancestry site. She had multiple Family Search Profiles which have now been merged together.  The profiles had some sources and it now has more sources. 

Answer 1

Do you have any examples of falsehoods being used in WikiTree?  Let's see some profile IDs

Comments

Finding a single or a few mistakes is not the point. The FamilySearch tree is produced by many people and is in constant flux. I've had to go in and change where people keep adding one particular person as my G.Grandfather that is incorrect. I've had to correct other mistakes in my part of the ONE family tree over there. It's like using Wikitree as documentation. People just pick up what they see and it's repeated over and over. It's not a primary source. When I siged up, we were told is was a secondary source, not primary. This makes sense. 

---

WikiTree is not responsible for what people do on Family Search, Family Search does have primary sources when they reference a document such as a birth certificate, marriage certificate, death certificate, census records, military records... To say they are not a primary sources is just wrong.  As with all public web sites you need to use with caution.

---

I'm not the person who said FamilySearch was not a primary on here. It is in the sign-up materials.

You have a good day.

---

Deborah, I have not tried to check the sign-up materials to verify what they say about FamilySearch, however I expect that they specify that records can be found at FamilySearch and these are valid sources.  I would hope that they make a distinction between records and (mostly) unsourced family trees, which can also be found at familysearch.

Primary and secondary sources are a whole different matter, though.  A primary source is one that is accepted as proof of a fact, while a secondary source is accepted as evidence, but less than absolute proof, of a fact.  For example, a death record is a primary source for the date and place of a person's death.  Death records often have additional information, such as date of birth, but are considered only secondary sources of this information.  Unofficial records, such as a family tree compiled based on family stories, are neither primary nor secondary sources, although they can be good hints that help direct you toward finding actual sources.

In addition to records, familysearch has family trees and we need to make a clear distinction about this.  The records are excellent sources but the family trees are not, although they sometimes do have records attached, which makes it easier for you to find the records, but you should be citing the records (not the family trees) as your sources.

As to your initial question, you are absolutely correct that many WikiTree profiles unfortunately have only a family tree ... or worse, a statement like "grandma said so" or even nothing ... as their source.  These are not acceptable as sources for pre-1700 profiles, although WikiTree relaxes the source requirements for later profiles, but we are strongly encouraged to make the effort to find better sources.  As Chase pointed out so well, there are more profiles with bad or no sources being added every day than there are members who are willing to put in the time and effort to get the ones already here correctly sourced.  We just do the best we can ... and keep hoping that more people who care (like you do) join and help the rest of us who try to fix as much as we can.

---

The "sign-up materials" referred to are WikiTree Help pages. Let's look at what they actually say.

The answer is that WikiTree does allow family tree profiles on FamilySearch to be cited as sources for profiles of people born in 1700 or later.

Whether it should allow this is a controversial question which has been the subject of much discussion over the years, but the fact is that it does allow it. Information from such tree profiles is supposed to be marked uncertain.

See:

• Why are unreliable sources allowed for post-1700 profiles?
• Pre-1700 Profiles: Cite reliable sources
• What are examples of sources that provide uncertain information?

---

Could you not levy same charge at WikiTree? I certainly could if I were inclined to, which I certainly am not.

---

One can go to Family Search and find the tree and check the sources used there. If they found a family through the 1860 census, that is a primary source. A birth certificate or marriage certificate is a primary source. People are using the tree. That is what is bothering me. How can one follow the research if they just put up a tree that has no documentation?

---

Kevin, the *sources* used at the FamilySearch-profile are the sources of the profile. The FamilySearch profile itself is no source. There's no problem going into the sources section of the FamilySearch-profile to cite the sources.

---

Family search does not have primary sources. They are at best secondary. The primary sources are the actual records, usually at an archive. UK censuses, for example, are at the National Archives at Kew. Family search gives a transcription, which is not usually complete and often contains errors. So poor secondary sources.

---

Hmmmm.... Pictures of the original passenger lists are "poor secondary sources"? Or scans of vaccination lists in towns (which are not indexed yet, but available through the "images" link at FamilySearch) are secondary sources? I found many of my relatives in these lists.

I think you have that opinion alone, that these are only secondary sources.

---

Joe,

That's actually a bit of a misunderstanding as to what is available at FamilySearch. While technically anything but the original physical record with correct, verifiable provenance is a secondary record, the vast amount of scanned images of original documents that are available at FamilySearch serve functionality as primary records. This is understood and incorporated into the best practices of genealogical research today.

I live in those records, not in the indexes and the like to which you refer. Perhaps you should explore FamilySearch a little closer. My personal habit involves searching the catalog for a county or parish of my research location and going through everything available,  the vast majority of which isn't indexed at all. Anyway I suggest it's worth looking at as it sounds like you're not familiar with those resources.

---

Kevin: Outright falsehoods on WT as opposed to making mistakes or assumptions, I don't know.

But I have had profiles changed and family members added or removed by WikiTreers who are convinced that could only be one person of any particular name or similar age or birthplace at any one time.

Even when the sources don't support the different added   family.

---

I'm not the one who said there were falsehoods, I was responding to the original question looking for what she was referring to.

Answer 2

Profiles initially have familysearch tree links as sources due to lake of sophistication about proper sourcing or lack of effort.

Re nothing is done about it - WikiTree is a big place. A profile gets upgraded only by someone who knows what they are doing taking the time and effort to do it. Stats show that the overall quality of the WT profiles is gradually improving over time, but it's massive job and there are a lot more profiles of people on WT than there are good genealogists working on them.

Answer 3

I use familysearch as my primary source.  I've added about 25,000 profiles to Wikitree.  However, I do know how to get accurate date from familysearch and put a great deal of effort into it.  My contributions to familysearch are of similar magnitude as my Wikitree contributions.

In general, familysearch is easier to verify its validity than say Ancestry or FindAGrave.

Comments

You should be using those sources of the "accurate" data as your sources on Wiki. How can others follow if they don't know the route you took?  I understand going to FamilySearch to find trails to follow, but to use as the primary source is not a good idea.

---

Deborah, I think the comparisons in this thread are apples and oranges. There is a difference in just saying "Family Bible" or "FamilySearch tree" and actually creating a source citation explaining what that Family Bible says. Or, posting a census citation from Family Search on a WikiTree profile where anyone can click on it and go directly to the source to see what it says. Big difference. The sources on FamilySearch, Ancestry, FindMyPast and many others are far different than just posting the name of the internet tree or a family source such as "my grandmother told me". There needs to be a source citation to clarify exactly what the quote from that source says. This information does not just come from me but from the foremost genealogists worldwide.

Answer 4

I always source profiles that I create here on WikiTree - and then go back and try to add more sources. The majority of those sources come from FamilySearch - but, they are actual sources, not just "FamilySearch Tree".

While researching here on WikiTree, I often find profiles that are not properly sourced. When possible, I find sources for those profiles even when they are not in my family line. There are many here who do that on a daily basis. WikiTree may not be "perfect" but it is not  for a lack of members working to make it so!

Answer 5

WikiTree doesn't differentiate between primary and secondary sources. It shouldn't, either, as most people aren't really familiar enough to properly categorize sources.

Rather WikiTree allows sources to be attached, and each source should be evaluated by the person referring to the profile. This includes FamilySearch and other such sources, almost all of which are secondary.

Having contributed some 80,000 or so edits over at FamilySearch, I have a large number of profiles that I follow closely because I have gone to a great deal of effort to properly document them. Thus I have lots of examples of profiles on WikiTree that I've used FamilySearch profiles to start. This isn't against WikiTree policy, and I do so with great care.

I suggest you ask yourself why you have prejudice against a particular source instead of evaluating each source as presented for its own worth.

Comments

I do not appreciate you last sentence since you don't seem to understand what I am/was saying. Thank you for your participation and have a good evening.

---

Like Greg I have put more effort into FamilySearch profiles than Wikitree ones, and often provide a link to a profile I am happy with.  People are more than capable of following a link and deciding for themselves how reliable the profile is for themselves.

---

Let me try saying this another way: FamilySearch is a perfectly valid source to use on WikiTree. I'm not sure why the poster thinks something should be done about people using this perfectly valid source. As with any source, the information contained within the source should be analyzed by whoever is looking at the profile.

---

Greg, to your last remark/question. When I lecture on research methodology and writing the answer is simple: only add the source.Which means you should add the sources that were used to create a profile.

This is to prevent unsourced profiles being turned into trustworthy sources.

---

Michel,

You're talking about best practices and the ideal. That's quite different than the current state of WikiTree (or FamilySearch). Since I use both, I also like the convenience of linking the two profiles so that when one gets improved it's easy to also edit the other.

I look forward to the day when we are refining things on both platforms to the degree to which you refer. When writing one constantly edits. I see WikiTreeing no differently. Indeed I often use the metaphor of gardening to talk about my genealogical interests, amateur though they may be.

Answer 6

Sometimes it's the only documentation because it's just a starting point. 

Any crowd-sourced project is going to be in a state of Continuous Improvement. As such, there are going to be profiles that are going to be on a spectrum: more complete in terms of sourcing, others mid-way way through, some just starting out, and others that have no sourcing whatsoever and the barest bones of hints. Some may even be just outright wrong.

Falsehoods can be found everywhere. Ancestry, Find A Grave, FamilySearch, WikiTree, etc. The only way to get past it is to do the required genealogy work with sources and evidence to show what is true from what is fiction.

If no one else is working on your family, then it may, or may not, get fixed. If you're working on getting it fixed, then great! I wish you all the success in the world. We are all doing our own parts too.

Answer 7

I look at it as a starting point. A source is exactly where you got the information. If you have sources that prove a fact wrong, it can be updated. But it is better to have a clue than no ideal at all. Also, family bible, first-hand source, second-hand source are all acceptable sources. But it is a good ideal to give detail on where it is coming from, such as who has the Bible, who told you this, etc. So later, if another Bible record surfaces from another family member or another family member, and a different story passed down, future generations can try to resolve them. To do this, they need to know where you got the information.

Comments

Exactly!

Evidence Explained has examples of how to document everything including family bibles, interviews, personal knowledge, and just about anything else.

A source that no one else can find/follow goes against all genealogy standards.

Answer 8

I am turning the bulk of a comment by Jim Richardson into this Answer to give it greater prominence. Thank you, Jim. The same answer applies to trees elsewhere on the web, eg on Ancestry.

"The answer is that WikiTree does allow family tree profiles on FamilySearch to be cited as sources for profiles of people born in 1700 or later.

"Whether it should allow this is a controversial question which has been the subject of much discussion over the years, but the fact is that it does allow it. Information from such tree profiles is supposed to be marked uncertain.

"See:

• Why are unreliable sources allowed for post-1700 profiles?
• Pre-1700 Profiles: Cite reliable sources
• What are examples of sources that provide uncertain information? "

Comments

I would like to add that while it is allowed to cite only a family tree on post-1700 profiles, it is not a recommended WikiTree practice to create many profiles this way. As a general rule, members should do genealogy research before creating and editing WikiTree profiles.  (See Help: Research Before Editing).

Answer 9

Good question Deborah. And you can read the answers: it is a very touchy subject. I personally gave up discussing this after several months trying to explain how things should be done. And I am glad if a profile even has one source on it.

Remember most here are doing a great job and nearly everyone is here with the best intentions.But other trees are allowed as the only source here... nothing we can do about it.

Answer 10

Using a family tree as a "source" for a profile is not a constructive practice. When I say "source" in quotes I mean something that is good evidence of the vital information. Even if the tree itself  - Ancestry, Family Tree, doesn't matter - has sources, those sources need to be evaluated. If acceptable, the sources should be cited properly on the Wikitree profile. Simply linking to a family tree adds an extra layer of murkiness. I'll side with the people who say this should be avoided.

If one can take the time to cite a family tree, why can't one take the time to instead cite a better source? Even one good source! If the tree has sources, evaluate and use them. If it does not, find records and sources.

If there are no sources in the "cited" family tree, it's about as useful as nothing. I consider these profiles "Unsourced" and will often tag them as such.

Family trees change, and in the case of Ancestry links have become broken when the user no longer has an account. I can't count the number of times I've tried to fix an unsourced, poorly sourced or GEDCOM junk profile, only to find the family tree links/URLs  do not work.

Citing a profile using only a family tree as a source creates significant work for someone else who cleans up and sources profiles.

I would suggest that If one is using the family tree as simply informational, or a quick way to get to that tree on another site, place the information in the research notes.

Answer 11

I think one thing a lot of people don't know is that familysearch can (and often does) remove sources from a profile. The times I've seen it and talked to them about it they told me it was done by a bot they have. That's why I always link to the source in familysearch rather than the profile.

Another annoying quirk is that they will not delete a profile no matter how obviously fake it is. I've reported a few, but they just sent me newspaper articles written 100 years later about a different person with a similar name as proof that fake person was real. Lately I've started adding "fake person" to their name in familysearch because it's all you can do. That place is a mess.

But yea.. it is a bit better than someone using an unsourced gedcom or ancestry.com as a source.

Comments

Family Search can be an incredible mess and without intending to be nasty, some of it comes or came from FS itself.

I have many large families from the 17th to 19th centuries,

For each birth/baptism record another profile is created. So we get 7 sets of husband and wife/parents named Simon and Theresa Hannay, they all lived in the same small place, and they all had children and only 1 child is given for each set of same name parents.

Sooner or later someone or several someones comes along and adds the other kids to all of the same sets of parents, then there are 7 duplicated families.

Because they don't look for a duplicate when creating new profiles.

Regarding deleting profiles on FS, it is sometimes possible to merge them, and remove the erroneous information and then they do disappear!

Once I changed the name of a child to "Never existed last name " and then merged them away.

Though it was in my direct family line.

Answer 12

In my personal opinion Family Search Trees, or Ancestry Trees or any of the other online trees are not by themselves sources.

It is the sources that are attached to those trees that are that are the 'real' sources.

If the trees are unsourced, that is no records are attached to them, then they should not be given as any kind of source.

If you look for a record on Family Search for Michael David Thompson born X date in X place, son of Thomas Thompson and find a record, it is often but not always attached to a 'profile'.

In that case if you have verified that the record is correct for Michael David Thompson and there are other records attached to that profile after verifying that the other records are correct for Michael David Thompson, you can indeed use those other records as sources.

You don't have to go back and look for a census record, marriage, death record if the person who has found those records has done their homework and found the correct records.

But as has said many times it is not the tree that is the source, it is the records.

There are problems on FS, because just the same as on Ancestry people do not verify that the records are correct for the profile.

However on Ancestry it doesn't mess up a collaborative tree, people just copy the mistakes.

On Family Search it is possible for people to add incorrect relatives, and incorrect records.

The real answer is family historians need to do the work themselves and not copy blindly.  

And to quote others in this conversation "Whether it should allow this is a controversial question which has been the subject of much discussion over the years, but the fact is that it does allow it. Information from such tree profiles is supposed to be marked uncertain."