How accurate is the FamilySearch family tree

Question

Apparently from the LDS PR department

https://media.familysearch.org/mistakes-and-inaccuracy-how-accurate-is-the-familysearch-family-tree/

(The writer's definition of "confirmation bias" seems different from the usual)

Comments

Family search is only as good as the information that the users upload, and like other comments, I too have found some errors in those trees.

Answer 1

As accurate as Ancestry.  I am being facetious, Have you noticed that people think that whatever  records are there is complete.  If one looked at it with the Johari  principle, and thought what if there are more records that are unknown or not yet collected.  

Point 2 It appears that there are duplicate trees, 

Please note these are my thoughts, I like Wikitree because it aims for one tree.  

Comments

"I like WikiTree because it aims for one tree": so does FamilySearch. FS is easier for non-coders to learn to use, and sources are very easy to attach to it (unlike WT). The aspect where FS is worse than WT is in merging; the initial comparison screen is laughable, and the process puts the steps in the wrong order. (First you decide what to keep, then you tell it whether they're a match.) Some material on FS has legacy data problems, same as WT; some parts of the tree are pure mythology, same as WT; and some parts are well-researched and well-sourced, same as WT.

Answer 2

I have found a few mistakes on familysearch.org while working on my fiancé's family tree.  It appears to me that they have become much like rootsweb.com.  All I will say is that there is much valuable data on the site, just exercise caution.  Pay attention to dates and repeat couples.

Answer 3

The irony is that FamilySearch's very own previous user-contribs, Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File, and the contrib batches in IGI, are the unimpeachable sources for a lot of the junk now going into the single tree.

And there's no way of fixing AF and PRF.  Even the contributors can't take down their own contributions if they decide later that they weren't right.

Answer 4

I never use FamilySearch  Pedegree Resource Files because they have no sourcing.  Same with any tree on Ancestry or any other site without sources.  I have found FamilySearch indexes pretty accurate.  They are sometimes slow to correct errors or omissions in the indexes.  I believe Ancestry uses some of the same indexes that are on Familysearch.  The most accurate sources are the original microfilms.

Answer 5

As with any family tree, including WikiTree, the family files are only as accurate as the sources. Some are excellent and well sourced but others are just plain junk.

Answer 6

Like with any other genealogy site, including Wikitree, its only as good as the research.

The Pedigree Resource site may or not be sourced, I've been lucky to find several that were sourced with other then Ancestry. Just as on Rootsweb's gedcoms, I have found numerous gedcoms that were sourced.

The collaborative trees can be sourced by clicking on the census and other research lists by attaching that data to individuals on the trees.  

Yes, people have made errors. I corrected a James T, Jester at FST twice as to who is father wasn't. FST ID LZ19-QQ6  and here at WT Jester-531. Several trees at Ancestry and originally at FST have him as the son of Levi Jester of Butts County GA. Jester-372. And I know that he is not the the son of this Levi because I have the wills of Levi and his son James.  So YES, I corrected that part of the tree, not just once but twice. And if these people were so insistent that a Levi is father of James T. then why not look for a Levi in Delaware where James was born? There is one and he was born the same year as the other.

There are errors on WT also, because even WT is only as good as the research.