Using FamilySearch Link as source [closed]

Question

Lately I have been seeing some profiles using just the FamilySearch link as the sole "source" on the profile.

Is that an acceptable practice on WikiTree now?

Comments

That would be unacceptable in any scholarly work.

Links change and become useless.

---

I agree and am finding it a LOT against my relatives and its errking me something shocking especially when I have to delve into all the unsourced family search links and either fix them or point them out. Its undone a bit of work on our descendancy.

Answer 1

As is pointed out, if your assertion about the person being profiled [such as his birth / death / marriage(s) / land deed / tax roll / census (residence), burial site is a document sited at familysearch which contains documents issued by duly authorized authorities] it is obvious that a link to this document (scan or transcript or index) should responsibly be in Sources, and the link in operating order.

In short if I make an assertion about the person profiled, I need to cite where I found the information (its site) and once there, the viewer should be able to read the supporting document for themselves. 

Never mind that URL are ephemeral. Neither I nor many others have the material resources to obtain a physical copy of the said document, nor do many of us have the mundane space in which to store that physical document.  

IF Familysearch with its documents disappears from the www, how much longer before WT disappears from the www? Both sites are online and therefore "ephemeral". 

I agree that simply stating the source site was "Familysearch database" without providing a hyperlink to the particular documents is "negligent" for a WT PM.  

In science if you cannot recreate the experiment and obtain the same or similar results, then the original experiment is deemed "dubious". It is the same with a Profile, if the viewer cannot follow that paper trail and get the same or similar results, then the Profile is deemed "dubious"

ON THE OTHER HAND: I ran across a PM who wasn't even adding that much in the way of sources so I posted a note as to how perhaps the sources could be more developed and we corresponded -- he's 94 and in poor health and working from notes made by his father (who died when the PM was about 6 or 7) and the notes merely pointed out the source was the Library of Congress.  It was all the correspondent could do to get all these profiles created. I suggested a maybe blanket source which would state his father's name (and dates) as author, that the work was edited by the correspondent's name (and dates), that the work was privately published, and that the original sources were located in the Library of Congress.  Whether he'll use the blanket source AS his source, I don't know. He's doing what he can do in the time he has left with the physical and mental resources remaining to him. 

As has been suggested, or will be suggested, perhaps communication with the current PM, if there is one, can be initiated. Otherwise, the solution may well be to start adding sources to the profile. 

Comments

Terrific input and yes this is whats happening. I will make a suggestion on PM to the person involved.

Answer 2

Use whatever source you want.  If it's a dubious source, then mark it as uncertain.  Use the best sources you can find. It's better than guessing.  Some Family Search profiles are well documented, others are obviously flakey.  Just use caution.

Comments

The link is not a source, though. One would have to actually click on the link, assuming they have a FamilySearch account, and would then see the info on the person, then would have to go to the Sources tab on FamilySearch. So, it is at least 3 steps from being an actual source,

---

And links disappear.

---

Many if not most of us here use Familysearch, it's free to register and use, so that's hardly an argument.

---

my problem is many new connections are being connected to descendancy tree with no sources... many links to names eroneously on family search then connected as child, father or other. Its going to cause me an absolutre headache and a volume of hours to check and disconnect those unsourced or wrong.

---

Yes agreed and thats my problem. I have a new wikitreer putting numerous links to names as connections to years of work as unsourced.  What a headache, I just wanted to check everyines thoughts and agree its not a source without the citation to the actual source.

Answer 3

It is my understanding that if it is only linking to a tree, then it should not be considered a source.  When I come across this, I add any valid sources on the linked FamilySearch profile directly to the WikiTree profile.  (I've seen quite a few G2G posts recommending this approach for linked trees.)

However, I keep in mind that a linked tree can sometimes be useful listed in the "see also" section to provide possible leads for future research.  So I leave the link to the tree in the "see also" section for future researchers.

Answer 4

Since FS provide us with a citation, why not copy-and-paste?
For example:
"England and Wales Census, 1851," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGN1-LF3 : 9 November 2017), John Haywood in household of John Haywood, Bovey Tracey, Devon, England; citing Bovey Tracey, Devon, England, p. 18, from "1851 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO HO 107, The National Archives of the UK, Kew, Surrey.

That is perfectly acceptable.  It takes you directly to John's 1851 transcription, with a link to an image if you have an FMP subscription, and a transcription of the household if you don't. No need to click again.

Comments

Good suggestion. Thankyou.

Answer 5

Are you saying that a profile has a link to a source from Family Search for a Birth, Death, Marriage, Census OR are you saying the profiles have a link to the Family Search Tree?  Those are totally different sources. It should always be the full citation source which would have more information so it could be found later if the 'link' changed.

If it is a link to a Family Search Tree, it is the same as a link to an Ancestry Tree, which is not a valid Primary source.  Following the Tree link may reveal that there are actual sources attached to the person in the tree, Those sources should be added to the wikitree Profile.

Comments

The profiles in my question have just a link to the family search page for the person. Or they have a link to the overall sources page on FS for the person. In any event, the profiles I am asking about do not have any sources either copied from FamilySearch, or entered manually. Only the link to one of the two FS pages.

As is, I agree it creates the same issues that just linking to an Ancestry tree does

---

Agreed, those are unsourced if it shows those pages and nothing more.

---

There are a lot of links being posted to descendants as connections that I am finding are only to the tree, no citatiins and in 50  percent of the cases are dubious. Its worrying me as it is mucking up all my work and others who have worked on our tree, its worrying me daily as I see more and more 'family search ....,/LBN78 or other names used as a source when they're not. Errors and its going to cause me weeks of rectification or deleting connections to sort it all.

---

I'm saying thr link is to a person on Family Search without thr citatiin. Only to the persin so sometimes the person is not even right, or dubious. Its compketely mucking up years of work againgst thr name I am working on and others have worked on for years

Answer 6

I agree with most of the previous posts here that just linking to a person or a tree on FamilySearch is not sufficient. Another caveat to that is those profiles get changed rather easily and that link might not lead to a source where it once did. So, using the citation furnished by FS would be a much more reliable source. I don't think using any internet tree as a source is acceptable. Putting it under the "See Also" , as someone suggested, would be okay. I have seen those links not work either so more reason for caution and thoroughness on sourcing.

Answer 7

A source should be something I could track down offline.  The citation should include enough information that I can find offline without searching through many reels of microfiche.  I should be given the who, what, when and where.

Answer 8

WikiTree guidelines define Source as wherever the profile creator or editor obtained the information that was added to the profile.

If the information was obtained from FamilySearch, then a link to FamilySearch should be included in a properly written Citation.

The issues of a source's reliability, accuracy, and/or quality should be addressed separately from the issue of the presence or absence of a source. But we most likely could not enforce any "higher standard" while remaining true to our goals and without gutting our volunteer work force.

WikiTree is not a scholarly work; it is a welcome-to-all-ability-levels genealogy website on which we are building a collection of do-your-best, one-size-fits-all profiles of our ancestors, contemporaries, and descendants.

That's my interpretation of WikiTree guidelines.

Feel free to agree or disagree!

Answer 9

I have done that before as I was going to come back to it and add sources at a better time. Unfortunately I have found that I forgot to go back through some of them to do that. Let me know if any of the profiles like that you found were worked on by me. I will then do it correctly.