Is a ged.com an acceptable source for profiles?

Question

Is a ged.com acceptable as a source for a profile? On profiles I've adopted, even where there are other sources, I've moved the ged.com "source" to the end of the profile under a new heading, Acknowledgement. The URL for this question is one example.

In my view, using a ged.com as the source for a profile is like trying to prove a court case with hearsay. Granted, family trees in many ged.coms originally had real sources, but I don't see that that comes through when profiles are created from a ged.com.  How can one tell the difference between a well-sourced ged.com and one with bad or no sources?

Bottom line, I believe listing a ged.com as a source, particularly if there are no real sources, runs the risk of lending credibility to "data" that is just flat out wrong.  Think I'll also post this with a suggestion under the category WikiTree Tech.

Comments

The GEDCOM itself is not a source document; it is the accumulation of one's research. Only citations for the actual source documents and other resources that contained/provided the information that was used to create the GEDCOM should be listed under the Sources heading. That's my view, anyway!

As you have done, I place the GEDCOM name under an Acknowledgments heading. In my Acknowledgments, I include the related profile's WikiTreeID, the WikiTreeID for the member who uploaded the GEDCOM, the name of the GEDCOM, and the date.

I use Acknowledgments for manually created profiles, too (related profile's WikiTreeID, the WikiTreeID for the member who created the profile, and the date created).

---

Thank you Lindy.

Answer 1

see this very recent G2G question about this subject:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/553109/because-grandpa-considered-valid-useful-source-1500-profiles

Comments

Thank you Jeanie.