Ahh, someone after my own heart. I do not worry about other's mistakes or assumptions. I only try
to prove the information I have. Primary records can be incorrect also, because they were produced
by people.
I too have found Ancestry.com extremely useful and "documentation" so much easier. God bless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carolyn M. Getting
Web Site Steward
Triumphant Love Lutheran Church
My Home Phone #512-331-7399
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Research and writing about Virginia genealogy and family history.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marvin and Judith Reed
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 6:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Incorrect data
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
|
