RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: rodc on Saturday 21 March 15 06:55 GMT (UK)
-
Hey All,
would anybody care to comment on the legal ramifications arising from a family tree - that having reached its earliest known ancestor - who has no known origins past or future - simply disappearing- but leaves a spouse and 4 children - is foisted onto another tree in an attempt to create a continuous lineage stretching back to the earliest BMD registrations in England which is 1598 as I recall presently.
Be most interested to read ALL comments on this
Rodc >:( >:(
-
I would doubt if there are any at all, as family trees are mainly supposition based on information which may not be accurate.
Regards
Malky
-
None unless there is very very recent history involved. Where my family tree crosses over into others I have found glaringly huge errors if I didn't have certified paperwork I would wonder if I had gone all wrong! There should be a little symbol for (I'm not sure) on loads of trees.
-
Depends what the fabricated tree is used for. If to substantiate a claim to property, money, title or whatever then I guess there could be legal ramifications depending on the legal jurisdiction involved. If, on the other hand, such a tree just gives the originator pleasure then I don't see a legal issue. If it's made available to the wide public in some way and someone takes it all at face value then that's their problem.
Imber
-
thanks for those answers & just to expand the issue a tad: the occurance of this is very recent and quite deliberate. Indeed one of the culprits claims considerable experience at research and wot-not and is I suspect a vested member of a well established society - not this one or any connected with it - the other individual appears to have 'bought' the scam and thus is actively involved.
A simple cease and desist order will not suffice, I'm guessing - so any thoughts on possible remedies will be thoughtfully contemplated...
rodc
-
Hey All,
would anybody care to comment on the legal ramifications arising from a family tree - that having reached its earliest known ancestor - who has no known origins past or future - simply disappearing- but leaves a spouse and 4 children - is foisted onto another tree in an attempt to create a continuous lineage stretching back to the earliest BMD registrations in England which is 1598 as I recall presently.
Be most interested to read ALL comments on this
Rodc >:( >:(
The more I read this post the less I understand this post.
Are you asking what the legal ramifications of adding one family tree to another family tree are?
If so the answer is unless the person doing that was commissioned to research the family history, libels another or was using the combined tree to gain some for of advantage there would be no legal ramifications.
Works of fiction are works of fiction.
On the other hand you mention “simply disappearing- but leaves a spouse and 4 children” if he has deserted his partner and children there could be maintenance issues outstanding with all the legal ramifications involved.
As a final note your mention of “earliest BMD registrations in England” is confusing.
Do you mean for that particular family?
Or do you mean the first BMDs in England were recorded in 1598, if this is what you mean there were many Births, Marriages and Deaths recorded in England centuries before 1598 and may be registered in Heralds Visitations and in Monastic Cartularies.
Cheers
Guy
-
孔夫子
xin
-
If there is attempt to knowingly defraud then there could be ramifications but i agree with the other comments. Sometimes people put some on their tree when they think so an so is the son of but have no concrete proof.
-
I agree wholeheartedly with Xinia.
John.
-
I agree wholeheartedly with Xinia.
John.
;D ;D ;D
-
I might as well if I understood "gobbiltee gook".
Regards
Malky
-
Make I please ask what you mean when you use the words 'fabricated family trees' ....
If, for example, you mean that someone uploads information about a person "Jane Doe" and that person's parents, and grandparents, and generation after generation ... generations back, then whether the information presented accurately reflects those parents and ancestors or not, is really neither here nor there, as it is simply one person's theory as to who "Jane Doe" descends from. Whether it is well researched or simply based on someone else's published research does not alter the fact that it is based on theory, assumptions and official records. So for example while my own research validates my own oral history as to who were my Grandparents, all four as deceased, deceased long before DNA sampling became an option. Yes, I have their 19th Century NSW Australia birth certs, and the 8 NSW birth certs for their parents too.... But no matter how accurately I present my own research, it is afterall, just that ..... it is only research.
I simply cannot fathom what you are referring to when you write " that having reached its earliest known ancestor - who has no known origins past or future - simply disappearing- but leaves a spouse and 4 children - is foisted onto another tree in an attempt to create a continuous lineage stretching back to the earliest BMD registrations in England"
Does this mean you have the name of someone on a tree, say "Joe Blow" who is married to "Jane Doe" and they have 4 children ..... and you can only find the marriage for Joe and Jane, but no evidence of a birth or a death for "Joe Blow"
AND
you can find someone else's research where they have this same "Joe Blow" and they have ancestors for "Joe" right back to 1598 in England?
AND
you suspect that someone else has 'nicked' without permission, the information about Joe Blow's marriage and four children of that marriage and simply added it to their "Joe Blow"
If so, it seems to me that when you publish your research online, then by default it is open to be 'nicked', 're-hashed', 'mis-mashed' or otherwise misunderstood/mis-read and mis-interpreted to your expectations.
As to the legalities .... well, I am fairly certain that at least in Australia (I am in New South Wales, one of the nine jurisdictions that operate in Australia) that deceased persons cannot sue for defamation.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/longtitle.html
I am sure there's RChatters who can provide details about defamation laws in other jurisdictions, as to me defamation is a tort.
Cheers, JM
-
From Mr Google
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/preparing-for-trial/defamation-trials.htm
Defamation .... a civil wrong ....
Cheers, JM
-
I agree wholeheartedly with Xinia.
John.
;D ;D ;D
Hi Xin, I am still waving the flag...... And of course, I agree whole heartedly with John.... even if I cannot find my specs to read your post.
Cheers, JM
-
I agree with Guy . . . . .
"The more I read this post the less I understand this post."
"I am always reading of how bad alcohol is for you, so I stopped"
"Reading that is"
-
As has been mentioned, if the tree is being used for a legal purpose (in order to obtain material gain), then you probably have a case.
Its almost like ancient identity theft.
Good luck.
-
Many family trees are fabricated! Some deliberately; some inadvertently.
Just checking family trees on Ancestry will show you what I mean!
And, in earlier times, just have a look at Burke's Peerage which contains many works of fiction.
Just wish I knew exactly what your problem is! :-\
-
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2179750 The Sydney Gazette 16 Sept 1820.
The King some years ago having purchased a horse, the dealer put into his hands a large sheet of paper completely written over.
" What's this?" said the King.
"The pedigree of the horse which your Majesty has just bought," was the answer.
" Take it back - take it back," said the King, laughing; " it will do just as well for the next horse you sell."
Cheers, JM
-
孔夫子
xin
copy and paste the symbols into google and you will find - it basically means :
Confuscious... ;D ;D ;D a common saying in this house is
'confuscious reigns'
xin
-
thanks for those answers & just to expand the issue a tad: the occurance of this is very recent and quite deliberate. Indeed one of the culprits claims considerable experience at research and wot-not and is I suspect a vested member of a well established society - not this one or any connected with it - the other individual appears to have 'bought' the scam and thus is actively involved.
A simple cease and desist order will not suffice, I'm guessing - so any thoughts on possible remedies will be thoughtfully contemplated...
rodc
Like others, I'm struggling to work out exactly what the problem is, though it may be that rodc's answers to earlier questions may help with this.
My understanding so far is that by his/her own account, rodc has very little information about the person who has been "foisted" on to another tree, but is concerned about someone who claims to know more than rodc does.
Surely one of the first things to do is to query the source of the information. If the researcher can substantiate the connection he/she has made, then it may well break down one of rodc's brickwalls. If they can't, then the course of action may depend on what they intend to do with the information. If it's just a vanity project, like so many online trees, you may have to let it go, but if it's in order to claim an inheritance or similar, there might be a cause for greater concern. The best you can say, though, is that the connection they claim is "supposed" or "unproven"; with your own lack of information, can you actually disprove it?
The possible link to a society may be worth bearing in mind: if it can be demonstrated that the researcher has falsified his/her results, then any society in whose name he claims to act may be interested to hear about it; or, if appropriate, a relevant professional body such as AGRA - The Association of Genealogists and Researchers in Archives. However, as above, it may come down to what can and can't be proved.
Might it actually turn out to be the case that the researcher produced something appropriately cautious, with the alleged connection as one of a range of possibilities, which the other person (only) has then seized upon and treated as absolute truth? Again, this would point to the necessity of finding out exactly what the researcher said, and why.
Arthur
-
I know someone who extended back from my tree to another family which links into stuart and tudor kings etc and back up the line by using trees on the net which can be found by trailing through names and pedigrees. The link hinged around a john being a son of another john and no baptism etc found.I've also had updates since of which i have to say, laughed at. Pointed out that there is illegitimacy in some of the lines. Also the person has linked into the present day royal family into his and a well known genealogist was the latest addition! Unfortunately this person who has done this work of fiction does link into my tree as well. I had to mention my concerns on this to a third party as i did n't want it going into a particular database. Also it would have been portryed as the person own work and those connections would be taken as legit by a lot of people.
-
My wifes, under her maiden name is one of the Seys. I wonder if "Confuscious" was a direct or indirect relation?
Regards
Malky
-
Of course, our OP could provide the names of this disappearing chap, and the era, and we could strive to help advance the research ....
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=677544.0
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=716243.0
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=678266.0
Cheers, JM
-
Let me get this straight , and I don't wish to confuse the matter further, but I am sure I will. The basis of the matter seems to be the following:
If I pay SOG* member Joe Bloggs* ( from SOG*) $800 to trace my paternal line back as far as he can go , and he hands me a wonderfully produced manuscript with bells and whistles , apart from certs, that say categorically I am related to Jesus Christ ( see IGI ::) ) and I start getting a bit sceptical , and do some of my own checking and find out it was actually Jeshua Christo , and he copied and pasted Mary Margagdalenes tree onto mine , can I legally sue to reclaim my $800 ?
I would hope so
*SOG and Joe Bloggs are attached no dishonest practices
-
Having read the attached posts showing more details of the search I can throw a bit more light on what sometimes happens. My husband's father was born to his mother at the age of 16. She left home and moved to another country (England). She married Mr X five years later and her son was brought up with the same surname as his half brothers and sisters. He never knew of any other surname until the morning of his own marriage when his mother enlightened him of his true surname and circumstances of his birth.
The surname X continues to be used and as far as I am concerned I am Mrs X. There would be no legal claim on any estate from Mr X family past as we are not related and as we don't know the name of the postman who did the dirty deed the rest as they say is history!!!
Family history has many twists and turns and it's all gets mixed up over the years. I have a line with all the children born in a marriage with the Middle name being that of the lodge who she later marries when her husband dies.
Regards panda
-
Reading the rules of inheritance, I would question what you have written. I do not think that it's that easily described, as certain circumstances will influence the status and outcome.
Regards
Malky
-
Let me get this straight , and I don't wish to confuse the matter further, but I am sure I will. The basis of the matter seems to be the following:
If I pay SOG* member Joe Bloggs* ( from SOG*) $800 to trace my paternal line back as far as he can go , and he hands me a wonderfully produced manuscript with bells and whistles , apart from certs, that say categorically I am related to Jesus Christ ( see IGI ::) ) and I start getting a bit sceptical , and do some of my own checking and find out it was actually Jeshua Christo , and he copied and pasted Mary Margagdalenes tree onto mine , can I legally sue to reclaim my $800 ?
I would hope so
*SOG and Joe Bloggs are attached no dishonest practices
That would depend on your contract with the researcher.
If you contract was to pay for the time he spent on research probably not.
If your contract was to produce an accurate tree as far back as he could probably yes.
Cheers
Guy
-
I was about to post a question that relates to this one but thought I would tack it on this here, hope that's ok?
We all know to take nothing from other trees without doing our own research. Although I didn't realize that when I started this! Now here is my question, would it be bad form to ask a tree owner where they got their information. I got very confused with a grandfather. I know 100% who he married, where he was from and children. On several trees grandfather and wife are incorrect but children are ok. Maybe they have taken from other trees. I looked for these bogus grandparents on ancestry and other sites- nothing found. So where did they come from?
I must admit to having a few self doubts, even though I have proof. What if there were 2 different families all sharing same names and date of birth. Nah-that's stretching it a bit, isn't it ???
-
Now here is my question, would it be bad form to ask a tree owner where they got their information.
I would ask, however, don't be surprised if you don't get a reply, as you say a lot of people have just taken information from other trees because the name is correct. If you are 100% sure of your information, either because you knew your grandfather, or because you have original certificates, I wouldn't worry what other people have on their trees. You know that you are right. Some people might appreciate being told, but majority will just ignore you.
-
Yes I am 100% sure. Think I will let sleeping dogs lie (is that right spelling?)
I have just spent 30 minutes looking again just for fun, nothing! I can't understand people just adding names to their trees without research what is the point? For me it's the thrill of the chase and the detective work and the pleasure it gives me when I break down or nibble away at brick walls.
-
I must admit to having a few self doubts, even though I have proof. What if there were 2 different families all sharing same names and date of birth. Nah-that's stretching it a bit, isn't it ???
No, it is not stretching it a bit. Even in New South Wales, Australia, back when the population of the colony of NSW was about 70,000 (so about 1856) there were 'duplicated/triplicated' names of husband/wife and children. So, of that 69,173 people in NSW, ONLY 26,087 were born in Australasia (so born New Zealand, Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia or New South Wales including what became Queensland). There were how many :) :) :) John and Mary Smith couples, with children named John, Mary, James, Jane, ..... well .... there were plenty... And same with John and Mary Brown and their 4 children, and Mr & Mrs Jones and their four children .....
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=660501.0
So even with such a small population base as NSW in 1850s in the middle of a gold rush, there were families with same names and sharing same dates of birth .....
To me, it is not at all un-expected that there will be possibilities of finding families with same dates of birth, same names etc....
Surely it is part of the challenge when enjoying family history research to strive to find ALL the possibilities and then using those same techniques to strive to eliminate as many as possible. All the while remembering that this is simply research, theory, and a non life threatening hobby.
Cheers, JM
-
Surely it is part of the challenge when enjoying family history research to strive to find ALL the possibilities and then using those same techniques to strive to eliminate as many as possible. All the while remembering that this is simply research, theory, and a non life threatening hobby.
Cheers, JM
Thanks for link I will look at it in depth tomorrow.
Yes I am looking at all the possibilities and yes only a hobby but I want to get it right, nothing goes on my tree that can't be proved. I have a few possibles I am working on at the moment they look good but.....
It's a wonderful hobby, frustrating and fun, only been doing it few years.
Jane :)
-
That would depend on your contract with the researcher.
If you contract was to pay for the time he spent on research probably not.
If your contract was to produce an accurate tree as far back as he could probably yes.
Surely, if someone pays someone to research their "family tree" & the researcher produces a "tree" which does not correspond with what was asked for then surely.........regardless of "time spent on research", he has not produced the goods asked for as in the person's "family tree" ???
Annie
-
That would depend on your contract with the researcher.
If you contract was to pay for the time he spent on research probably not.
If your contract was to produce an accurate tree as far back as he could probably yes.
Surely, if someone pays someone to research their "family tree" & the researcher produces a "tree" which does not correspond with what was asked for then surely.........regardless of "time spent on research", he has not produced the goods asked for as in the person's "family tree" ???
Annie
How does the customer become aware that the researcher has not produced the goods/services asked for, and what compensation does the customer have the right to expect?
I would expect the Goods/Service Provider has a "get out of jail" card in the print of the contract.
https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Hiring_a_Professional_Researcher
Cheers, JM
-
[quote author=majm link=topic=716241.msg5600454#msg5600454 date=1427081
How does the customer become aware that the researcher has not produced the goods/services asked for, and what compensation does the customer have the right to expect?
I would expect the Goods/Service Provider has a "get out of jail" card in the print of the contract.
https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Hiring_a_Professional_Researcher
Cheers, JM
[/quote]
How can we ever know the answers we get are correct? I have found the further back I go the less records are available. Which also takes me back to the earlier comment about names. In my Redman family the same names were used from generation to generation until 1940`s. Add to that the other Redmans also using the same names and living in the same parish. In 1600's I have 3 Edwards who fit the bill, fathers and sons were Edward all from same place! Even spouses names the same.
All I can be sure of is back to 1800 from documents kept in family and what my father and grandfather have told me. I think I have it worked out-or have I. ???
Jane
-
I looked for these bogus grandparents on ancestry and other sites- nothing found. So where did they come from?
Let's not forget that not all information is online.
Yes, if someone found something offline, you'd like them to provide a citation, but i/ the method for doing so on Ancestry is a bit of a PITA and ii/ not everybody uses their Ancestry tree as their final output, it could be a perfectly citationed source on their home computer
Another vote for "Might as well ask them" :)
-
Let's not forget that not all information is online.
Another vote for "Might as well ask them" :)
-
Sorry Stevie, pressed send too soon ???
I agree and I had not thought of that. I think I will ask. Even though I know my information is correct.
Jane
-
I agree and I had not thought of that. I think I will ask. Even though I know my information is correct.
I think when you ask for information such as resources, you do need to be careful how you word the request. Don't start by telling them that you know you are correct, as they are just as likely to think that they are correct. Just say you think there may be a connection through xxxxxx and ask if they can tell you where their information came from. Once you have seen that, then you are in more of a position to argue why you think they are wrong.
-
I think when you ask for information such as resources, you do need to be careful how you word the request.
Having had my fingers burnt for being too blunt I have learnt to be tactful. I will not say my info is correct yours isn't. Nor will I enter into any discussion as to why they are wrong. Nor will I share my information with them if they are reluctant to believe me.
That may sound harsh and may not be how others would do things but please don't judge me.
Through ancestry and looking at trees I contacted some people in the UK who were researching my family. I heard back from 2. One was doing it on behalf of her sister and she gave me her e-mail, I mailed and have heard nothing back as yet. The other replied but was obviously not interested. I apologised for bothering her and left it at that. Throughout it all I was very polite and gave the minimum information, just enough to let them know I was a relative!
All this can sometimes be a bit of a minefield for me, all I can say is I am learning all the time.
-
Must admit I'm not actually bothered about identifying / contacting living relatives.
I've encountered information on trees where people / events I know ARE mine haver been adopted or modified to others.
As (I hope) I check things out quite carefully myself, usually finding all possible people, drawing out a large chart and entering in all of them, over several decades (censuses etc.) to help eliminate them, I've three times found situations where people have "adopted" someone of mine, despite having to twist wives and children ( or simply not noticing /checking that names of wives and children were not in the censuses they quote, the same!) and high-tailed them off to their tree, providing them with entirely different descendants!
This doesn't especially worry me, I know where I've got proof, and I'm pretty certain that they haven't been as meticulous, or they wouldn't have ended up where they were, but it is a minor irritation, and evidence often of sloppy research ("Oh, here's a Thomas C of about the right age, says he came from Ireland .... doesn't matter he's got a different set of children, living in a quite different area of the country, with a different wife, in the previous and the next census - I'll have him!"). But it'll always happen.
I would imagine that any "professional" researcher may not actually be as thorough as many amateurs, as they will have to limit hours spent, even though they may have some access to richer resources than many of us have, and I would also imagine if they have sense there will be some caveat that they are making a "best guess"/" best fit" from the original information provided from the person employing the professional.
I would also imagine that there will be less satisfaction in being presented with a tree that is all done and dusted, than knowing that you have unearthed everything yourself, or of course, with guidance from like-minded enthusiasts on here, diligently.
I was once provided with a copy of a "Researcher"'s tree by a relative, and almost immediately spotted two errors, which allocated a wrong set of parents to each of two ancestors... which means the whole thing was a bit ridiculous further back, but someone, in all good faith, had paid for that! It took me a while to decide if I should point this out, I did, under the "an alternative line which I think is more likely" , to be told "but I paid for that, so it must be right"!!! At which point I gave up. It wasn't me wasting my money.
-
I have very little of my ancestry "online" as it's too time consuming but have it all on my home comp.
Having the knowledge I have now, I would be very reluctant to place my "sources" along with my info. anyway. I have learned that some people will use any free info. but give nothing in return.
A lot of my info. has taken many years searching in many different places & cost me many £'s ::)
I therefore have now learned to be careful of what I divulge.
I think if someone asked me where I had sourced my info. I would simply ask them to send me what they have to see where the descrepancy lay 1st & take it from there. I think the wording of such a request would be enough to tell me if this was a serious researcher or someone looking to gain free facts ???
At the end of the day.............we are answerable to no-one in that respect although I would be keen to know if I had possibly made an error or missed out something ::)
Annie
-
Yorky,
I can agree with everything you say. This has happened to me. I don't really know why I want to contact these other tree owners maybe its just curiosity. I am certainly not looking to find any long lost cousins. ;D
So as long as I know I have researched everyone myself and have all the proof I need why should care that others have it wrong?
Jane
-
I have very little of my ancestry "online" as it's too time consuming but have it all on my home comp.
Having the knowledge I have now, I would be very reluctant to place my "sources" along with my info. anyway. I have learned that some people will use any free info. but give nothing in return.
A lot of my info. has taken many years searching in many different places & cost me many £'s ::)
I therefore have now learned to be careful of what I divulge.
I think if someone asked me where I had sourced my info. I would simply ask them to send me what they have to see where the descrepancy lay 1st & take it from there. I think the wording of such a request would be enough to tell me if this was a serious researcher or someone looking to gain free facts ???
At the end of the day.............we are answerable to no-one in that respect although I would be keen to know if I had possibly made an error or missed out something ::)
Annie
-
Did it again Annie, pressed post too soon!!
Was going to say like you I have no trees online and I agree with people using my information I have paid good money for. In fact all of what you said makes sense to me.
I was once very stupid and sent some precious document copies and photos to someone, I deeply regret that now and will never do this again.
Jane
-
Me again Annie, read post sounds wrong. I don't agree with people using my information. Jane ::)
-
I have very little of my ancestry "online" as it's too time consuming but have it all on my home comp.
Having the knowledge I have now, I would be very reluctant to place my "sources" along with my info. anyway. I have learned that some people will use any free info. but give nothing in return.
A lot of my info. has taken many years searching in many different places & cost me many £'s ::)
I therefore have now learned to be careful of what I divulge.
I think if someone asked me where I had sourced my info. I would simply ask them to send me what they have to see where the descrepancy lay 1st & take it from there. I think the wording of such a request would be enough to tell me if this was a serious researcher or someone looking to gain free facts ???
At the end of the day.............we are answerable to no-one in that respect although I would be keen to know if I had possibly made an error or missed out something ::)
Annie
I cannot understand this stance.
Genealogy has always been about sharing.
I share with B, B shares with C, C shares with D until eventually someone shares with me.
However since the advent of free sharing (the internet) some people do not share and the genealogical world is poorer for that.
They seem to think that sharing somehow cheapens the resources they have accumulated over the years and miss out on the joy of helping.
Thankfully they are in the minority.
Cheers
Guy
-
I agree Guy, this hobby is about sharing - resources, knowledge and time. If you are not willing to share, I can't see why you are looking at on line trees, as by doing so you are "sharing" the work of other people.
Once I have established that a person is genuinely related, I am quite willing to share what I have and in return accept what they have. In that way I gained a photo of my great grandfather, that I would never have had, and I was able to give them two certificates that solved a long standing question about his second marriage.
I think we have to remember that our ancestors are not exclusively ours, but also belong to the rest of the extended family. For instance my great grandfather has at least 30 great grandchildren and all have equal claim. A generation further back and there are probably at least twice as many.
-
I have very little of my ancestry "online" as it's too time consuming but have it all on my home comp.
Having the knowledge I have now, I would be very reluctant to place my "sources" along with my info. anyway. I have learned that some people will use any free info. but give nothing in return.
A lot of my info. has taken many years searching in many different places & cost me many £'s ::)
I therefore have now learned to be careful of what I divulge.
I think if someone asked me where I had sourced my info. I would simply ask them to send me what they have to see where the descrepancy lay 1st & take it from there. I think the wording of such a request would be enough to tell me if this was a serious researcher or someone looking to gain free facts ???
At the end of the day.............we are answerable to no-one in that respect although I would be keen to know if I had possibly made an error or missed out something ::)
Annie
I fully understand this attitude having been bitten on a number of occasions.
I recently gave someone a lot of family tree information only to see it appear online soon after without a word of where or how they got it. Oh well these things happen but it is sad as it makes people more reluctant to share :(
(That said I use to have a tree online before but took it of after no one contacted me to ask where the information came from or enquire about aspects of it.)
-
I fully understand this attitude having been bitten on a number of occasions.
I recently gave someone a lot of family tree information only to see it appear online soon after without a word of where or how they got it. Oh well these things happen but it is sad as it makes people more reluctant to share :(
Happened to me too David! Hence my earlier comments. It OK to share but when the recipient tells you you are wrong when you know you are not its time to part company! I am not completely averse to sharing. But think I am with Annie on this one. Just my feeling on the matter and it doesn't make me a bad person - at least I hope not!
-
Putting information online may not be for everyone, and there are some sites and ways of doing it that I would never use, but it is one way of allowing others to check how good your research is. We all make mistakes, and where evidence is poor or contradictory there may always be differing interpretations; sometimes it just isn't possible to reach a definitive answer.
Like all evidence, online information, whether our own or other people's, needs to be checked out carefully rather than simply accepted. It's not just a case of "lots of people say this so it must be true". Ideas spread round the internet like wildfire, but if they are based on a mistake, the fact that dozens of people are saying them doesn't make them true. Equally, the situation mentioned by Guy can have its dangers:
I share with B, B shares with C, C shares with D until eventually someone shares with me.
Sometimes, when you track back through the route a piece of information has taken, you find that you were actually the source of it in the first place. So rather than being a confirmation of your own research, it's a circular argument that proves nothing. As always, care is needed.
But interesting though this is, I'm not sure how helpful it is to Rodc, and I wonder if his/her silence over the past couple of days might be because we've drifted away from the original query.
Arthur
-
[quote author=arthurk link=topic=716241.msg5600995#msg5600995 date=142713
Sometimes, when you track back through the route a piece of information has taken, you find that you were actually the source of it in the first place. So rather than being a confirmation of your own research, it's a circular argument that proves nothing. As always, care is needed.
But interesting though this is, I'm not sure how helpful it is to Rodc, and I wonder if his/her silence over the past couple of days might be because we've drifted away from the original query.
Arthur
[/quote]
Good point Arthur, yes care is needed.
I am afraid it is my fault that we have gone off on a tangent, sorry Rodc.
It wasn't my intention to usurp you. Once again I fear I have done wrong!
I just get a bit carried away, I should never have added my own post to your thread. I will be quiet now! It won't be easy! Have enjoyed this thread.
Jane
-
Hey All,
would anybody care to comment on the legal ramifications arising from a family tree - that having reached its earliest known ancestor - who has no known origins past or future - simply disappearing- but leaves a spouse and 4 children - is foisted onto another tree in an attempt to create a continuous lineage stretching back to the earliest BMD registrations in England which is 1598 as I recall presently.
Be most interested to read ALL comments on this
Rodc >:( >:(
I missed the opening post but my thought is that there are no legal ramifications as family trees are proof of nothing per se, what is proof are the sources that can be fully verified and checked and if the are no sources or verification then they can be viewed as "opinions" rather than "facts"
As Oscar Wilde observed
"You should study the Peerage, Gerald. It is the one book a young man about town should
know thoroughly, and it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done’
Lord Illingworth speaking to his son Gerald Arbuthnot in A Woman of No Importance"
-
[quote author=davidft link=topic=716241.msg5601088#msg5601088 d
I missed the opening post but my thought is that there are no legal ramifications as family trees are proof of nothing per se, what is proof are the sources that can be fully verified and checked and if the are no sources or verification then they can be viewed as "opinions" rather than "facts"
As Oscar Wilde observed
"You should study the Peerage, Gerald. It is the one book a young man about town should
know thoroughly, and it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done’
Lord Illingworth speaking to his son Gerald Arbuthnot in A Woman of No Importance"
[/quote]
Hi David,
Once again I find myself agreeing.
Love the Oscar Wilde quote. How true. Brilliant-love him!
Jane
-
snip... Equally, the situation mentioned by Guy can have its dangers:
I share with B, B shares with C, C shares with D until eventually someone shares with me.
Sometimes, when you track back through the route a piece of information has taken, you find that you were actually the source of it in the first place. So rather than being a confirmation of your own research, it's a circular argument that proves nothing. As always, care is needed.
But interesting though this is, I'm not sure how helpful it is to Rodc, and I wonder if his/her silence over the past couple of days might be because we've drifted away from the original query.
Arthur
That was not the situation I was thinking about, by sharing I do not necessarily mean sharing a lineage or even a fact like a baptism date or a death date (though it could do), but things as wide as where to find specific manorial records or inquests post mortem to enable one to find records.
Or someone may share a copy of a will, a photo of a tombstone or even an early map of a village, etc.
For instance someone recently shared with me some information that the parents of my second cousin once removed built a church in Twickenham. I had known all my life they had built a church in Shirley as I inherited a silver trowel used to lay the memorial stone of Shirley Baptist Memorial Church but I never imagined they may have built another.
Once I knew about the Twickenham church the reason was apparent, the daughter was living in Twickenham when she died so it was an appropriate place to have a memorial to her.
Each researcher has to draw his or her conclusions from the available information rather than copy another’s tree, sharing may help that conclusion.
Cheers
Guy
-
[/quote]I must admit to having a few self doubts, even though I have proof. What if there were 2 different families all sharing same names and date of birth. Nah-that's stretching it a bit, isn't it ???
To me, it is not at all un-expected that there will be possibilities of finding families with same dates of birth, same names etc....
Cheers, JM
Hi JM,
Following on from my comment above and your reply. I may be in process of proving myself wrong and you right! This is turning into a nightmare of epic proportions if I am tracing the wrong family! All is not lost yet I am waiting for answers from people. At the moment no one can provide me with proof that the wrong couple actually existed, whereas I have proof mine did. I have looked on every site I can think of - nothing! The four children in question have the same names but some different dob. I also have a few extra children. Can only find record of them belonging to my couple.
It is a "Beam me up Scottie" situation. I am trying to get to the bottom of it all but it is hard when I am waiting for replies.
Jane :(
-
Following on from my comment above and your reply. I may be in process of proving myself wrong and you right! This is turning into a nightmare of epic proportions if I am tracing the wrong family! All is not lost yet I am waiting for answers from people. At the moment no one can provide me with proof that the wrong couple actually existed, whereas I have proof mine did. I have looked on every site I can think of - nothing! The four children in question have the same names but some different dob. I also have a few extra children. Can only find record of them belonging to my couple.
It is a "Beam me up Scottie" situation. I am trying to get to the bottom of it all but it is hard when I am waiting for replies.
Patience is a virtue, and I am happy to be right or wrong on any item of research, so long as I am not on the pad waiting to be beamed up to Scottie just yet. There's a huge team of RChatters who can help at least with a shoulder to lean on, and often with the offline resources to solve a long held confusion or so.
I remain confuddled by our OPs concerns and apparent lack of interest in many responses since their own reply.
Cheers, JM
-
Hey All,
would anybody care to comment on the legal ramifications arising from a family tree - that having reached its earliest known ancestor - who has no known origins past or future - simply disappearing- but leaves a spouse and 4 children - is foisted onto another tree in an attempt to create a continuous lineage stretching back to the earliest BMD registrations in England which is 1598 as I recall presently.
Be most interested to read ALL comments on this
Rodc >:( >:(
and
thanks for those answers & just to expand the issue a tad: the occurance of this is very recent and quite deliberate. Indeed one of the culprits claims considerable experience at research and wot-not and is I suspect a vested member of a well established society - not this one or any connected with it - the other individual appears to have 'bought' the scam and thus is actively involved.
A simple cease and desist order will not suffice, I'm guessing - so any thoughts on possible remedies will be thoughtfully contemplated...
rodc
Probably rodc is thoughtfully contemplating
Cheers, JM