Yes, I've noticed the number of profiles imported in that gedcom. It's from 2011, you know. I chip away at pieces of it, when it bumps into something I'm working with. No ambition to fix it all. The pre-1500 stuff in particular I'm giving a wide berth. I'm not much interested in the posh ancestry and I'm not competent with those sources, primary OR secondary.
You will have noticed that it's patched together of families from all over the country, based only upon very crude matches in dates and names. Now, some of it is mere crumbs: single persons, or a few connected persons, sometimes with no dates and gobbledygook placenames - actually, I have recycled a few of those, when they had usable LNABs.
But a lot of it consists of larger chunks of recognizable families, where you can usually find reasonably well-researched family trees published by individual genealogists, OFF the big sites, if there is a place+name combination that is reasonably characteristic. Even if those sites most often don't give the sources away, it's usually possible to source the family members, because the research is correct, as far as can be known. It's easier when you're familiar with the parish, of course. I tend to leave Skåne alone - and I'm not very good with the geography north of Hälsingland, either.
BTW, sometimes I find these errors repeated at other sites, using Wikitree as a source :-( In two of the cases where I have severed faulty links I have found old, un-answered questions in discussion groups to the effect that the parents of so-and-so are said to be so-and-so and so-so-so, can this really be true? Even if I'm not taking the trouble to answer the questions where they were asked, that's an extra incentive to give some sort of explanation of the error here.
