I agree with this statement. I had two aunts (one on each side) who did
major research in the early part of the 1900's - both before 1960. I
inherited boxes and boxes of letters, lists of "the 17 children of...." on the
back of envelopes, etc. They worked very hard and had many will's and other
valid information and usually said "unsubstantiated" when they weren't sure.
However, I certainly put these lists into my Family Tree Maker software.
They are clues! I always list where I got the information so I know if it was
a Family Bible that no longer exsists or a letter from "aunt Lora", but I
would lose lots of good information if I required substantiation for every
name.
Mary Winn
In a message dated 5/17/2010 8:14:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
I have read (many of) the recent lamentations about incorrect trees posted
on Ancestry.com with interest and concern. I certainly can identify with
the feelings of all those who have found ludicrous errors in posted trees,
or, worse yet, taken as "proven" tree information which later proves to be
false.
However, upon reflection, I have come to the conclusion that most of these
critiques ultimately flow from unrealistic assumptions. These critiques
seem to assume that users of Ancestry.com should only post "completed" or
"completely authenticated" family trees on Ancestry.
This seems unrealistic in the extreme to me; I do not believe that the
users of Ancestry.com intend that the software be used in this limited
fashion. I doubt that most users proceed on this assumption. I certainly agree
that Ancestry users (ultimately) must authenticate every entry if they are
to create for themselves a reliable family history that has a chance of
standing the test of the ages (!), but when they have done so, will they not
then literally "publish" this tree or portions of it (privately or
publicly)? Wouldn't it then be more reasonable to view Ancestry.com as a kind of
collaborative enterprise in which users (ranging from rank beginners to
experienced genealogists) post their working notes (hypotheses, if you will)
for the convenience and consideration of others?
Unlike the aspiring genealogists of earlier decades, who proceeded step by
step from one generation to the previous one only after (?) having proven
all aspects of the first generation studied, I (and probably most other
Ancestry users?) utilize Ancestry.com very differently. Although I own Family
Tree Maker software (recently purchased and largely unutilized), I have
made Ancestry.com my primary research tool during the three years I have been
seriously involved with family history. It is where I take my notes, list
my speculations, check for possibilities, find most of my documentation
(whether census data, military records, vital records from 17th through early
19th century, and so on). I develop many ancestral lines speculatively
and rapidly, drawing on public trees of other users. Ancestry.com has been a
wonderful way for me to rapidly develop an overview of four centuries of
ancestry in North America for all of my and my wife's "major"
ancestral lines, and to get a very good idea of many associated family
lines. Working with Ancestry.com, existing privately held "typescript family
histories" as well as with published and generally accepted family
histories, I have been able to authenticate several of my major lines and to
partially authenticate several others (a total of some 3,500 individuals).
Having dabbled in family history briefly almost thirty years ago (prior to
the advent of computerized tools for record storage and access), I am
aware that traditional methods, admirable as they are, can require a lifetime
or more to visit libraries, request certified documents, and build from
generation to generation. I did not have the time at age 40 to work in that
way. Now nearing "fourscore and ten," I have much less than a lifetime to
work with. Thus I am extremely grateful for the speed with which Ancestry
has allowed me (and tens of thousands of others) to tentatively outline the
basic likely realities of our trees (and prove elements of the tree when and
if possible).
I do have this suggestion to others (including the owners/makers of
Ancestry.com): perhaps thought could be given to adding a "button" for each
"overview" sheet of an individual within a family tree labeled "authenticated"
or "proven" or "documented." And perhaps Ancestry.com would then want to
index only "documented" portions of trees? Could this be done? Would it
improve Ancestry.com or diminish it's effectiveness for the typical user? I
welcome further discussion on these matters.
"Tension is who you think you should be. Relaxation is who you are."
--Chinese Proverb
"The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page."
--Saint Augustine
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
--Soren Kierkegaard
"One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a
brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld
"As I grow to understand life less and less, I learn to live it more and
more."
--Jules Renard
--- On Fri, 5/14/10, Jigsaw Genealogy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Jigsaw Genealogy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] Incorrect data
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:13 AM
I learned my lesson well before I ever had an internet connection. While
volunteering at the Family History Center one evening, I checked out a
couple of my surnames when things were quiet. Within minutes, using the
IGI, I was back into the 12th century. (!) Looking at the actual data,
though, I discovered that I had female ancestors who had given birth in
their 70s and 80s (!!), and some even bore children even after death (!!!).
My, my.
Mary Beth Dalton
Williamsburg VA
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Grogan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Incorrect data
I have one ancestor who was born 1759. Numerous trees have her father as
being born in 1746 and her mother as born in 1730. That would mean the
father
was 13 years of age and his "wife" age 29 when their child was born. This
should certainly raise red flags to those copying the data but it
apparently
didn't as one hundred or more have copied that data and display it proudly
all over Ancestry trees.
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
