What Can Be Done About Poor Quality Sources?

Question

This is more of a comment than a questions.  I lament the frequency of poor quality sources, i.e. Ancestry, FamilySearch and Find a Grave.  These are most often unsourced and amount to one persons opinion, without any basis for that opinion.  If these are sourced, then the source should be directly referenced In Wikitree.  Preferably the source should be available without a fee on FamilySearch or other online service. 

Answer 1

I agree that this is a concern David. In effect these are other websites with information put together by volunteers. What happens on the internet when similar websites treat each other as sources is that you get circular referencing, and problems build up. Big parts of the internet are "echo chambers" where all websites seem to agree, but only because they all copied each other. It can be very misleading.

The only way to break this circle is to make sure that we avoid copy-pasting from similar websites. If genealogists do not explain where their information came from, or if we have no way to cross check, then our default action should be to ignore it, or perhaps note it in a research section so that you or someone else can give it a better check in the future.

Just for clarification: ancestry and familysearch also have collections of primary records. I presume we are not worried about those. We are only talking about websites which contain information placed there by our fellow amateur researchers.

Answer 2

First, let me say that I research Smiths, so I try to make my research as easy on me as possible while providing the sources where I find information.  I have no trouble with citing FamilySearch and FindAGrave as sources.  

For instance, on this profile https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Smith-101991 , I entered the FamilySearch.org sources page as my source for any information I added to the WikiTree profile.  I did not look at every one of the 17 sources listed, so I think it is appropriate to link to the sources list that adds the actual researcher's database name.  Also, I find it much easier to add any new sources I find to the FamilySearch profile and then link the WikiTree profile to the FamilySearch sources list.  Often times, there are new sources that can be quickly and easily updated on the FamilySearch profile because the sources are right there in the database.  When the FamilySearch sources list is updated, the WikiTree link shows the new sources just added as well as the older sources.  

As far as FindAGrave, I often find multiple family members in the same cemetery, but not listed as related on FindAGrave.  I think FindAGrave is a valuable resource.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_FAQ#When_should_the_Unsourced_Research_Note_Box_be_used.3F

Here are examples of source citations that don't meet the minimum specificity needed to identify a particular source:

• "Find-A-Grave"
• "FamilySearch"
• "Personal records"
• "Family Bible"

Here are examples of source citations that would be sufficiently specific:

• "Find-A-Grave Memorial #1234"
• "FamilySearch profile ABCD-123"
• "Unsourced family tree handed down to X"
• "Family Bible owned by X currently in the possession of Y"

Comments

I agree 100% with Kitty's answer. I would love it if all profiles could be perfectly sourced, but we have members of all different skill levels and sourcing is something many newer members struggle with. The fact is that many of the websites they have previously worked with often don't require sources at all, so proper sourcing (or sourcing at all) can be very new to them.

I would also add that I would much rather have a weak but clearly written source than a poorly written source or no source at all. A source like "personal knowledge" of an event that happened in 1870 does me little good. But a citation such as "unsourced family tree handed down from the profile subject's 2nd cousin, Joe Smith, (c.1940)," while not necessarily a strong source, is a solid clue which could help direct me to the proof I require, saving me hours of unnecessary research.

I realize that the criteria for pre-1700 profiles is much more stringent, and that makes sense. But for more recent profiles, I say tell me what you know, be very clear as to where you got your information, then let me decide how much credibility I want to give it.

Answer 3

150–200-year-old firsthand and secondhand knowledge should be the brightest red flag

Answer 4

I created the BioCheck app to help us find profiles that need better sources. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:BioCheckHelp  If we can find them, we can improve them. That's the power of WikiTree collaboration.

Answer 5

I think many members should review Help Page for Sources occasionally to remind themselves what is considered a proper source citation.

Fundamentally, a good source citation enables others to:

• judge the accuracy of the information found on the profile, and
• independently verify the information by finding the source themselves.

You can't judge the accuracy of the information if there are only links to other pages, whether it is a website, family tree on ancestry, family search, geni, my heritage or any other similar site. No one should have to go to other sites just to see what the source has in it. Enough information from the source should be in the source citation. 

To Verify the information, members can go to the sources and find other Reliable Sources with same information. 

A source citation is NOT a link to a website page with no other information, such as website name, information being used, etc. If you think a website link is valid, review the 250,000 Suggestions for 965 link not Found and an additional 240,000 Suggestions for  966 link errors! If there is no further information for those links, there is no source and many are difficult to know where a site might have moved to or what information was included. Those numbers are increasing every week because Ales has not finished reviewing all profiles and links because of the volume of bad links on Wikitree.

Sources included on family search pages, Ancestry tree pages or wikitree profile pages can change at any time, so a link ONLY to the sources or details on any of those pages on one day could be completely different in an hour.  The Sources found on those pages should be added to the wikitree profile so others don't have to go to another site to 'possibly' see what you thought was a source. 

Comments

When my source is FamilySearch or FindAGrave, I think it is appropriate to use the link. All of my research is from on-line sources now, so I will continue to use links imbedded in my sources.  Example: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Smith-101991 In this example, the profile creator entered her source as “personal records”.  I entered the FamilySearch and FindAGrave sources to remove the unsourced flag.  

---

You should at least use the template. This will protect the profile from a broken URL when the URL changes. Well, it will protect somewhat, but not if the family search profile is merged away. Here is the Help for the template: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Links_to_FamilySearch

---

Thanks, Kay.  I didn't know about this template.  Is there a way the template can point to the Sources page on a FamilySearch profile?  https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LJJ8-ZBT