Do you trust Familysearch or the Findmypast websites.

Question

A couple of day's ago, I was alerted to a photo on Familysearch of one of my relatives. When I investigated, it turned out to be her. I know this for a fact, because only my cousin and myself have a copy of it, now it is on Familysearch and god knows where else. I havn't searched Geni or any other Genealogy site. The picture was originally posted here on Wikitree.!! My cousin posted it here.

This Wikitree family member (of ours) has an usual name, both in 1st, 2nd and 3rd forenames. Her surname is also rather unique. The odd part about Familysearch was the details. One member there, had her listed as living / dying, in the USA and married with 5 children, (never heard of any of them) with my photo attached.!! She has never lived in the USA. Another member had her listed as living in New Zealand with 4 children also, but a different husband, with the same attached photo.!! That last profile part was correct, the downside is, the manager of that profile, lives in the USA.

Now skip to Findmypast, this same family member from my Wikitree, is now added there. Only this time, no photo, her mothers photo has been added instead. She has 4 children, but again, no names, that I recognize. The findmypast profile, states she lives in New Zealand, that part is correct, but not in the correct island. There's 3 of them.!!

Which led me to think, if Familysearch can portray a false profile and Findmypast is not much better, how much information has been taken from these sites and added here on Wikitree. Im sure there are a few members here, also from there, who have downloded Gedcoms, believing them to be correct, when they are in reality, false.!!

Awhile ago, a profile on my watchlist was changed and new parents added, which I knew to be incorrect. But when there's a keyboard expert at work, you dont question them. The person doing the changing, mentioned that blah blah was this and that, because thats what Familysearch said.!! Based on what has just happened, I now know this to be incorrect. I also took screenshots and emailed them to Familysearch and Findmypast. Familysearch was the only one to reply, with an apology, they also removed the offending material.

I wont go into specifics of other sites, but apart from those two, the peerage is another one. Guess everyones swapping info, from other sites, thinking it's correct. I have previously sent info to the peerage, when I have checked, it has been entered incorrectly.

So, who can you trust as a source, well, based on my events over the last week, no one, except those govt sites with legible documentation.!!

Comments

Now you understand why Wikitree demands sources. Of course there's a lot of correct content on other sites but it should never be copied unthinkingly.

Answer 1

These are user uploaded trees? It happens when family are desperate to make connections and don’t bother to actually find the sources.

What Wikitree has emphasised to me is try to get more than one source to substantiate entries.

If you have the sources I suggest you unlink the wrong uns and leave a message (under Research Notes) on all the affected sites, as to why you did it.and asking them to not change it back without varifiable sources (not user uploaded trees).

Answer 2

I use familysearch all the time, BUT I do not use their "profiles" or trees. I use the records database and even then I use it with care. I help index records on that site and do know that sometimes mistakes can be made anywhere but for the most part if the indexed record has an image then you can decide for yourself.

Comments

I agree, Dale, it really is necessary to check the actual records if possible. Transcribers do the best they can, but if the original was not accurate or the  writing difficult to read - well mistakes happen.

Answer 3

Sources are the key to good profiles.   That is what brought  me to Wikitree.   Even with sources things can be misinterpreted sometimes and need correction.  That is what research notes are to help with.  I am currently trying to figure out two cousins who have exactly the same name, are on the same page of the 1860 Census and only  3 years different in age.  I think we just have to accept that sometimes others are not so careful.   As for the photos,  I have begun putting text identifying them directly on thr photo to keep it correctly identified.   If it is on the internet it will be copied.   I  thought long and hard about that before posting things.  I decided it is important to have the information there for future relatives to find and use.

Answer 4

User contributed family trees, which as you have realised  are often copied are only as trustworthy as their references (or lack of them). However, both FMP and FS are repositories for images of original documents which are the building blocks of family history.  Unfortunately, many  images of  British records (I rarely consult those from elsewhere)are only visible online through paid membership of FMP and or other subscription sites.(many parish records, all UK censuses.)These are trustworthy copies of the originals.

 Both sites also have indexes for, and sometimes fuller transcriptions of original records.These vary in their 'trustworthiness'. It is dependent upon the skills of the transcriber and/or the amount they were asked to include in the index.FMP has some transcripts from Local  Family History societies which, I think, are liable to be of better quality than those created by people with less local knowledge. (some transcriptions have some very odd transcriptions of place names and family names)  It is, in my opinion, always best to view the original or an image but sometimes they are the only option .

The Peerage is the work of an individual. It is surely important when using it to check the source referenced. (does it actually say what is said, is the source itself a good source ie a primary source or a well referenced secondary one?)

Comments

I have communicated with Darryl at ThePeerage.com on several occasions, and he has incorporated some changes that I have sent to him, although it often takes him a few days to get to them, so I assume that he has a Real Life, too. As I understand it, he's still working through whichever edition of Burke's Peerage it is that he's transcribing, so the job isn't complete by any stretch.

Answer 5

Just as an FYI. Familysearch also admitted, they use algorithms, to match documents to names, added by members.

As they said, "There was no guarantee, that the document being matched with the name, was correct, because of two points. The first being, the original document being transcribed, by a person/s and the second, the name being changed by the profile owner, to match the document".

To prove a point, I entered a relatives name, DOB and DOD, in the search area and recieved 15,000 "possible" matches. I then entered his wifes name, DOB and DOD, this narrowed it down to 12,000 matches for him and 1500 matches for her. Only 70 had what could be classed "maybe the correct children, with a few errors". 30 lived in the wrong country, so they were eliminated. Which left 40 and even they could still be wrong.??

The documentation on these sites is still no guarantee, you are getting the correct document for your family.

Answer 6

Even on My Heritage, the user trees have some wrong details and photos.

I have one persistant user that keeps asking to be added to my tree but I refuse every time, because they have some wrong details with no sources.

I cannot ask them to check their information because these requests are done by bots that just match the names.

I am trying to keep MY tree as accurate as possible on My Heritage.

As for who I trust the most - that would have to be the records on Family Search. I NEVER use the user trees as a source. On Family Search,  they are often really really bad.

Answer 7

I have found numerous errors in the families submitted to the Mormons for baptism.  I think God understands, but the work is not very careful.

Like Find-a-Grave, Family Search has some great benefits.  It is easier to know that you have the right person when you find husband and children buried close by an can look at their gravestone.  Family Search has lots of data . . . transcribed by volunteers (some good/some not so careful).  But at least you can look at the sources and figure out what went wrong.

Genealogy is history.  Not everyone has an understanding of what it takes to do historical research.  Bless them for trying.

Answer 8

The primary uses of both familysearch and findmypast is transcribed copies of records.   There are more problems with the pedigrees and family trees as they could be unsourced or have tangled branches.