With many thanks to Elizabeth, Bill and others; I believe there may be mistakes in any sort of record we try to use, and as Elizabeth said before, we need to find as many primary sources as possible. I discovered at almost age 70! that my father's father was not the man I thought and had known from childhood. What a shock! And some of us have no opportunity to do a helpful DNA test (have done the National Geog. test/Dr. Spencer Wells--good for very deep ancestry). The only male source I have is on my mother's side--totally Scandinavian ancestry. I wish new genealogy researchers would understand that Family Search, Ancestry, World Family Tree, etc. are good for CLUES, but please back it up with research.. J. Watkins --- On Mon, 3/14/11, Elizabeth Shown Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Elizabeth Shown Mills <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] Virginia Citations To: [log in to unmask] Date: Monday, March 14, 2011, 8:37 PM > Using family trees that may not be correct ... is only a starting point. The records on Ancestry are great & I wish there were more. The family trees on Family Search aren't always correct either. The records on Family Search are great too. This observation makes an immensely important distinction. Many genealogists loosely refer to sites such as Ancestry.com or FamilySearch in a generic way, as though everything at either site was of the same type and quality. As the above quote implies, however, there is a critical difference between actual records (which both sites offer) and family trees (which both sites offer). Even within these two broad categories---records and family trees---there are fundamental differences in reliability that need to be noted. Both sites apply the term "records" to several types of materials that careful genealogists distinguish between: (a) image copies of documents; (b) abstracts or extracts; and (c) indexes or database entries. Similarly, the trees at both sites represent an infinite range of reliability. Some individuals, as Steve describes for himself, seriously try to provide evidence for each assertion they make on the trees they post. At the other extreme (and the more-common one, unfortunately), others naively copy anything and everything they find anywhere and repost it as though it were gospel. It helps to advance the cause of reliability, IMO, when our discussions of quality focus upon the distinctions between classes of material rather than making generic indictments of providers. Certainly, television commercials and shows such as WDYTYA "oversimplify" the research that accurate genealogy requires. On the other hand, how many of us would have embarked upon our genealogical studies if we had understood how many complications and frustrations would thwart our discoveries? When providers such as Ancestry and FamilySearch expand public interest in personal history, that expansion makes it possible to provide even more actual records for all us to use. Neither we as individuals nor our societies or archives have the resources or the PR skills to generate that public interest. However, we do have the skills to educate those who are attracted to genealogy through television or the Internet. When our online discussions routinely include distinctions between the reliability of various types of materials---in a matter-of-fact way that explains without condemning---we make that education happen. Elizabeth ---------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG Tennessee 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