G2G: Who is Edmund West and why is he associated with Source collections at Ancestry?

Question

Interesting query :

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160511230005/http://sanfordfamilymisfit.com/2016/01/is-the-family-data-collection-a-source

Comments

Very enlightening. Thanks for posting this!

---

Wow! Thanks for posting...

---

Link is broken (domain is 'parked').  Can someone provide a new link to the content, or summarize it?

---

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20160511230005/http://sanfordfamilymisfit.com/2016/01/is-the-family-data-collection-a-source

Updated 23 Feb 2021: Content found at https://web.archive.org/web/20160511230005/http://sanfordfamilymisfit.com/2016/01/is-the-family-data-collection-a-source/

---

Thank you Ellen!   (I couldn't find a 'thank you' link)

---

Thanks, Ellen !

---

I think "Way Back" is under reconstruction b/c of privacy issues IE: they captured and posted sites that contained personal identifications before current regulations went into effect.

FT DNA for my "former" Johnson project had a  "Way Back" link posted, and that same Johnson link at Way Back was captured here at wikitree. Both FTDNA and Wikitree, have been advised they need to take down the links to Way Back. Best I can do.

Answer 1

Maggie,

I'd been a "paying" Ancestry.com member from 2002 to 2014 ... until I noticed that *their* database was returning my very own research notes, as VALID KNOW fact.  What gave them away [to me] was, I had created a test (within my own set of profiles) to see if indeed the children could possibly be of another woman by [ age of the Mother at birth]; and I had set my "note" at the ending of every 'Place of Birth' I entered (Boise, Ada County, Idaho, United States   [   Moms age].

I have done my best to remove every note, before my GEDcom, but even now, I come across it in another's set of profiles; and I can't help but wonder how they (Ancestry.com) pulled off, as much as they did.

Ancestry.com offers long time (semi-well versed) members access to *SOURCE IMAGES*, and members (free of charge to Ancestry) transcribe those records into the groups, that are later sent out as hints.  (Yes, we're all human, there are typos, transpositions, & plain omissions in those *hints*)

When I first noticed it, I said something to another Ancestry member who had posted one of my 'hunches' as fact, in her tree;  I was met with outrage that I would even consider the notion Ancestry hadn't done their homework - that's what made me realize that while "Public" trees (at Ancestry) were better for finding others in the family to work with, the 'Private trees' kept everything locked down to avoid others grasping &/or stretching the facts.  It is too bad that you must be a member, to communicate directly with other members (within the program).  Every ancestry link not attributed to their Forum, will not work (if you're not a member).

Which is a minor part of why I don't like links; they assume that the linked site will not change formatting, or disappear completely.  Links use up bandwidth (which is why many sites request that you do not link to them directly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking and http://altlab.com/hotlinking.html  explain why we should bring the data here, posting it either in a profile or free space, & linking from there is always suggested.

I, myself have always preferred to have actual images of Census sheets, because everything on them is often not, on sites that "summarize" the information.  Quite often when Gr Gr Gr Gr had a 1,000 acres, it would get divided among heirs, generation, after generation - resulting in brothers' & cousins'  entire family groups residing in close proximity (and on the same sheet).

Soooo, anytime you see *place of birth  [Moms age]*, just think of me waving at you, reminding that you may want to double check that data.

Debra

Comments

Hi Debra

I think you have misunderstood what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking is saying.  

It says "It is copyright infringement to make copies of a work for which you have no license, but there is no infringement when you provide a simple text link within an HTML document that points to the location of the original image or file (simply called a "link")." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking is a text link.  Links don't use up other sites' bandwidth.  Many websites include a citation with a text link to copy and paste into your work when you are referencing their information as a source.

Hotlinking is when an article on one site may refer to copyrighted images or content on another site via inline linking, avoiding rights and ownership issues that copying the original files might raise, although this practice is generally not accepted due to resulting bandwidth issues.

---

Howdy Maryann,

In my experience, I don't find many that point to actual 'pages', rather they take you either to a transcription, or to a sales page.  Which may not be free advertising, but it's close.

---

I don't think we are on the same page, Debra. You need to be careful about bringing data here and adding to either a profile or free space, as Wikipedia says in that link you provided, "It is copyright infringement to make copies of a work for which you have no license.". 

Here's an example citation from British History Online: "Braly-Bruer." Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714. Ed. Joseph Foster. Oxford: University of Oxford, 1891. 171-200. British History Online. Web. 17 April 2016. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/alumni-oxon/1500-1714/pp171-200.

See how the citation includes where the information originated from:Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714. Ed. Joseph Foster. Oxford: University of Oxford, 1891. 171-200.

Then the citation includes information about where the information was found: British History Online. Web. 17 April 2016. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/alumni-oxon/1500-1714/pp171-200.  This includes a text link (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/alumni-oxon/1500-1714/pp171-200) to the information on the British History Online Website.  This type of link doesn't use British History Online's Bandwidth.  

If you are citing records from Ancestry.com, there is usually a citation for the original source that you can copy into WikiTree profiles. Copying that source citation means that people know where the information originated from and may be able to access via other means than Ancestry.

When you upload images to profiles, WikiTree's instructions are that you add the source, that is where the information was originally published, where you found it and why you think it is in the public domain.  Are you doing this with the pages from the US Census you're uploading? If you found the pages in a box of your Aunt Irene's records and you don't know from where the published material originally came, how can you be sure it's not a copyright infringement to post it on WikiTree?

---

Good Morning MaryAnn,

The Dept of Commerce (ie: Census) is misunderstood by many; while the "1940" is the last Census publically offered, you can request your own * (see "Age Search" on following link.) much earlier.

And the death & birth certificates came from the appropriate State &/or County.  

And even though I posted them on Ancestry, it does NOT mean that they have any copyright on them.

* https://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census_records/census_records_2.html

---

Hi Debra,

Did you know that (most of the time -unless the site has requested they not be saved), you can save the current version of a web page using the Archive.org Wayback Machine? 

Simply place the url in the form at the bottom-right where is says "Save Page Now."  Then you can use the resulting Archive.org link as part of your citation.

---

Debra -- I'm so dismayed you've found your information quoted as verbatim.  Of course, this just means, we have to find actual sources and not derivatives for WikiTree.

---

Someone actually thought Ancestry checked out information they publish? Oh boy. Where's the profit in that?

Answer 2

Today I noticed that Ancestry has a new description of the "Edmund West" data. It's consistent with the information that Maggie found, and there are some caveats (which I highlighted in bold) about its limitations:

Edmund West, comp.. Family Data Collection - Individual Records [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2000.

About Family Data Collection - Individual Records

A unique database containing 5 million genealogical records (20 million names) that were saved from destruction after being rejected from scientific studies. The Family Data Collection records were created while gathering genealogical data for use in the study of human genetics and disease. Compiling data for genetic research does not require the same type of documentation as traditional genealogical research. The genes themselves verify relationships and qualify or disqualify a person from a particular study. Citing the source of every genealogical fact in the electronic gene pool was deemed unnecessary and cost prohibitive by medical researchers. Millions of individual records were created from birth, marriage and death records; obituaries; probate records; books of remembrance; family histories; genealogies; family group sheets; pedigree charts; and other sources. The records collected that did not fit a specific study became the project's "by-products" and were schedule to be discarded. After viewing the quality of the source material used to create the gene pool and despite the absence of cited documentation, the electronic rights to the data were purchased, rather than see it destroyed.

Thousands of families are known to be present in the database, containing 20 million names in 5 million records. This data covers the entire U.S. for a wide expanse of years. At a minimum, each record contains an individual's name, date and place of birth, and the name of his or her father. A complete record will contain the following information for an individual: Name, Date and Place of Birth, Date and Place Married, Date and Place of Death, Name of Spouse, Name of Father, Name of Mother, Use this database as a finding tool, just as you would any other secondary source. When you find the name of an ancestor listed, confirm the facts in original sources, such as birth, marriage, and death records, church records, census enumerations, and probate records for the place where the even took place.

That statement is surprisingly honest. I do have one quibble: It's an exaggeration to call this a "secondary' source. As I see it, it's tertiary at best, since most of its content comes from secondary sources.

Comments

A new error code for Ales to set up for us?

Text contains the phrase "Edmund West (comp.)"

And as long as he's at it:

Text contains the phrase "Millennium File"

---

Before this becomes an error code, I think we need to develop a much better shared understanding among WikiTreers regarding the appropriate treatment of these and other sources obtained from various Internet publishers.

---

Sorry, I was being overly pushy. ;-)

I just hate those "sources" so much that I can't help myself when there's any opportunity to berate them. ;-)

---

Oh, I share your dislike, but I'm also frustrated by the misconceptions that folks harbor regarding these "sources." On one end of the spectrum, we have folks who lovingly preserve every bit of content that arrived as part of every old gedcom important -- and sometimes have even chastised me for removing meaningless clutter (like "User ID: 4820D5B14A43D811B91D0003FFFFFFFE38FC"), so I know I'll catch more grief if I so much as suggest that citations to the Millennium File, Edmund West, etc., might be excess baggage in a profile that cites reasonably good sources. On the other end of the spectrum are the contributors who have taken me to task for citing original records found on Ancestry, because they've heard that Ancestry Family Trees are unreliable, and they assume that everything on Ancestry is a family tree. I don't believe we're ready to flag certain low-quality "sources" as "errors" until there is a widespread understanding of what these different "sources" contain.

---

Here, here, Ellen and Jillaine!  When I see this source and the Ancestry Family Tree source together as the only sources on a profile, I treat them as unsourced.  As Chris Whitten said -- Derivative sources don't count (sorry for paraphrasing, Chris.)

---

I just leave the Edmund West collection citations personally, while adding more primary sources.  That way nobody's feelings are hurt and there is a proper source.  

Only know of one person so far who actually digs in this collection and puts the full source citation down to primary in her profiles.

---

Yep. When I see the first child born in Germany, second in Indonesia and the third back in Germany, I just have to grimace. Oh, btw, these occurred between 1721 and 1723.

---

hmm, nice world travel there, wonder what magic carpet they used.    I've also run across profiles where the place name was only partly right, but instead of having it in Canada, New France, it got shoved over to Haïti somehow.  hmmm. 

Answer 3

It appears to me that the "Family Data Collection" has been removed from Ancestry.com. I can no longer find it in the card catalog. (This probably counts as a *good thing*!)

Comments

  But since it's still cited on numerous WikiTree profiles, we still need to know what it is/was.

---

Oh happy day if its removal is true! Does this pave the way for my long-desired error code? :-)

---

I just clicked a link from Kirby-2313 to confirm "Family Data Collection" still exists; maybe not as a searchable "Collection"; but the data in it exists. 

---

Interesting! If you click on the collection link, you'll see that you get an error. Also if you search for it in the "Card Catalog", you don't find anything.

Given the known unreliability of this source, it would be good if WikiTree could somehow generate a disclaimer on every citation to the dataset.

---

Jim,

I will pursue the possibility of our Data Doctors project being able to generate an error code for any profile that contains this reference, so these can be tracked down and removed.

In the meantime, I've been removing this reference manually at least from pre-1700 profiles and from project co-managed profiles as it does not meet the criteria for a reliable source and should be replaced.