Should "First-hand information as remembered by" be flagged as a db_error for early ancestors?

Question

Now that we have moved away from the default source text of
"First-hand information as remembered by ", I wonder if this might be a useful db_errors error in the 800 Biography category?  We could flag profiles that have this text and died before a certain date, say 100 years ago, or were born before a certain date such as 200 years ago, before which no WikiTree member would have first-hand knowledge of the ancestor's life events.

The recommended correction could be as follows:

• If other sources are present, remove this source text.
• If no other sources are present, remove the source text and add the Unsourced template with the relevant locations. Example {{Unsourced | Scotland | Virginia}} for a Scottish immigrant to Virginia or just {{Unsourced}} if no locations are provided. This would help us find these unsourced profiles so that they can be improved.
• Best of all, remove the source text and add a real source to the profile. Maybe even track your progress in the Sourcererers Challenge! 

Note: It looks like Magnus made this same suggestion in this post, but I don't see that we acted on it.

Comments

Oh, ok, from reading the notes it sounded like you wanted to remove or flag all first hand accounts.  I would have a real problem with that because some information in families only comes from first hand accounts of people who knew those people.  An example in my own tree.  The official birth record for my grandfather and his twin sister is dead wrong.  The midwife who gave the info to the city clerk in 1894 gave the names as Josephine and Anthony.  Now the family has always known them as Joseph and Anne Marie.  My Grandfather discovered the mistake when he went to get a copy of his birth certificate to go to Canada when he was in his 60s.  So for over 60 years the so called official record was wrong.  He had to convince the clerk he was who he was which even 30 years ago we were not as obsessed with certification as we are now.  He was able to convince him and there is an amendment now in the record but if someone had researched the family it never would have linked up with reality.

---

I scanned Bio for this text and it appears in 816134 profiles. mainly it appears in profiles 7000000(Dec 2013)-10000000(May 2015).

206691 profiles with this line were born before 1.1.1817

410051 profiles with this line were born before 1.1.1867

686149 profiles with this line were born before 1.1.1917

---

Wow! If we could review these to see how many need the {{Unsourced}} template, that would definitely keep the Sourcerers busy for a while! I would start with those born before 1817, as no WikiTree user is likely to have been present at any of their life events.

---

I checked and only 6000 profiles have Unsourced template. So the numbers wouldn't change much.

---

Aleš, I don't understand. Wouldn't we be adding the Unsourced template (or better, some sources) to the other 200,000 profiles? That would be a big change in the number of profiles flagged for improvement.

---

I am not saying this shouldn't be done. But it is a lot of errors, and if you would just add {{unsourced}} to the profiles and removing this text, profiles would still be as bad as it was. There is 700K profiles already in unsourced category, so there is plenty of work to do.

I am preparing something like profile score where I would evaluate all data in profile and sources in biography. There you could easily find profiles to work on. Text "First-hand information as remembered by" isn't the only text indicating there was no editing on the profile. I have some other ways to do it more efficiently. But this till become public in a few months after we establish some sources recognition within the Bio.

---

I agree also.  I have come across some that are un sourced in my own managed profiles.  Trying to correct that at present.

---

Aleš, thanks! It sounds like you have something bigger and better planned, so I'll look forward to hearing more as that project progresses.

---

As others have noted, a date is irrelevant. My personal family tree was begun in the 1930s by my great grandmothers. They wrote down the dates reported to them by their elders.  I have lots of information I cannot document by sources other than their copious notes.  Lots of children remembered, but no idea what ever happened to them (though family photos exist with their names written on them. Mid 1800s)

There must be someway to just isolate those profiles where this was added perfunctorarilly.

---

I think there are two different issues here.

1.  A standard blurb was added to all profiles for a while saying something about first hand knowledge.  I think that is what the db error would target

2.  Cases where someone has true personal information of the person as they lived at the same time and know them.  Or have personal memorabilia from them.   Those should be noted in a way that does not mirror the standard blurb.   Like scans of bibles, letters, photos, etc. Or urls to taped interviews or documented interviews saying where, when, who.

Answer 1

If this can be added as an error, I will be happy to help add the Unsourced template to the flagged profiles.  I think this is a great idea, Karen!

Comments

Even without the error category we can do Google searches for this string, but it includes all ancestors so first-hand knowledge could be a valid source for many of them.

site:wikitree.com/wiki "First-hand knowledge"

Answer 2

If I encounter an  impossible "first hand information... "!  I delete "first hand". It is still a valid source, if unreliable.

Answer 3

Just starting to run into this issue in my family tree. There is an entire branch starting in the 1700s that has duplicate people but with different relationships but it appears there is an error somewhere there. There are no sources except someone put "first-hand" information.

Obviously unless they lady is 300-500 years old, it isn't first-hand. How do I deal with this person?

Comments

One thing I do is add the Unsourced template to lure in the Sourcerors. Also start G2G discussion posts asking for help.

Answer 4

You must consider that for First Nations peoples of Canada, Native American people of the US and countless other indigenous folks in other places the tradition was an oral history passed down from generation to generation -

In light of this I ask for them that they be exempted from this "error" as they only became the subject of documentation as we know it after the survivors of the near genocide were recognized as people and had to be dealt with in some way by the governments of the land that was once theirs

Comments

Although my family is not from the populations you mention, there is a strong oral tradition going back at least seven generations.  Literally, thousands of stories on individuals, which recently read letters, diaries, photos and other such source materials support.  I would hate to loose all of this information.  Not all of it has been sourced by family archive documentation, but enough to support there are almost no errors in the oral history.  The errors are not difficult to spot.  Where a "scandal" may have occurred, there are contradictory stories.  When I add any of this information to a profile, I usually preface it with something like: "family oral history . . ."

---

These oral histories add tremendously to a profile. That makes it even more important to cite them properly. The "as remembered by" boilerplate reference that is under discussion does not give enough information! If it's clearly not just the boilerplate I would mark it 'false error' and suggest the PM add to the citation by telling them what is needed and/or a link to how to cite such info.

---

Yes! Many peoples have oral traditions spanning multiple generations. The issue here is that WikiTree once defaulted to adding the text "First-hand information as remembered by <member name>" when we entered profiles. This is s red flag now - it signifies that a source was never entered.

We have source formats for documenting information passed on through oral tradition. This boilerplate text served a different purpose at one time, and now equates to our Unsourced template - it means a real source (whether written or oral) is still needed.

Answer 5

As ;long as the "memory section" is available too the PM,then your suggestion seems too be a correct and accurate one Karen. Because the memory section is for the PM'S first hand knowledge,not the biography section. XD

Comments

I disagree - the biography section is a fine place for me to record many details of my family members' lives which I witnessed firsthand. Examples include the death of my parents, the fact that my father was a steelworker, the burial locations of my grandparents... There may be other records documenting these facts, and they can supplement my firsthand account.

---

well yeah. I'm not talking family members you knew or met....only the ones you have too track down. If the relative is within 150 years of your birth date and your a PM,you can use the "memoir box",which is what it is for. XD

Answer 6

I know when I run across this text as the only source I don't truly view that as a legitimate source. However, I don't remove it while adding the unsourced tag also.

Every time we do data doctors I try to put relevant templates on the spreadsheet. The unsourced template is ALWAYS on the top.

I even brought this up multiple times during the C-A-T. If it is unsourced, ADD THE TEMPLATE.

If people would do this then we would get the template on many of these sources and it would cover the correct area with humans doing it. Otherwise they will all be generic.

Sometimes people fall into this rut of "can't the bot do it?" where I believe "can't we get the humans to do it?"

Answer 7

Absolutely!  Now, having used that word, let me address some key points:

1) db_errors are not necessarily errors rather SUGGESTIONS

2) Some persons are confused by terming the  'records of first-hand accounts' as 'first hand accounts'.  If I document someone else's first hand account, it is second hand at best.

3) Documented first-hand accounts, even if technically second-hand, can still be valuable.  The content should dictate whether it is in the biography and documents a fact or in the research notes as a hint.

4) If a random sample of profiles containing that phrase can be reviewed to determine how many of these are 'first hand' meaning the now living editor vs 'first hand' meaning the living editor recording the first-hand knowledge of someone alive at the time of the event, then we would have a sense for the percentage of the one vs the other.  The former being in need of some remediation.  It should be noted, though, that even those of the latter category - legitimate recordings of first hand experiences - might do well to have some textual alteration to clarify who the first-hand observer was and that they were alive to witness the event.

Long story short, I would say that both legitimate and illegitimate cases would benefit from being flagged.

Answer 8

It would be interesting to know how many of the "first-hand information" profiles are Orphan profiles. I think that would be the place to start with adding the {{Unsourced}} template.

Comments

haha yeah In genealogy it needs to be backed up with documentation everything you say with records past 100 years from the present. personal memories can go in the memoir box up too 150 years from the present.

Because your parents can tell you stories about they're parents and grandparents,but really the goal of genealogy is "who?,what?,where?,when?" with solid proof past the family members you can ask when were born,where they were born,what they're occupation is or was,and sometimes the names of they're predecessor.

Haha my dad didn't know what his fathers first and middle name was,nor did he know his mom's maiden name since she got married twice while he was young.XD

Answer 9

If the record was made as a diary or written down by an ancestor atthe time it would be a first hand record , however it shouldn’t state as remembered by me but as diarised by their name.  I’ve used the source Grandma’s birthday book [unpublished] as a source for this type of source because my grandma wrote Births marriages etc into a dates book as they occurred.  I then cite the book as Crane, LMV “Grandma’s birthdays book [unpublished], 1979.  The year she died is the date because no more entries went into the book after that date.  That way it can be recognised as an original source rather than a secondary source.