Family history is thoroughly corrupted

[mongoose2]

I recently had some corresponence with a fellow off GR. It was quite obvious from the emails that it was the correct family however there was one difference. A marriage back before civil registration for a Jacob Chandler and an Ann.

Mine was Vanes and his was Banes, so I asked him "why the difference?" his reply was that he had been to a genealogical fayre and purchased a one name study and he had trouble reading the tree compilers handwriting!!

I pointed out the marriage on the IGI and he said how did we know they had copied the record accurately. No way of knowing I said I wasnt there. At least now we can share but its true just keep checking

Barry

[Guy Etchells]

Hello Guy & Joe..

I can understand Guy, you don't want to start the mammoth task of thousands of sources   that would take another 50yrs +    
          
                       Any new data, just a name, even 'self' or TBC (to be confirmed) would stop wholesale copying and let people new to our 'addiction' see the justified entry.

Best wishes,
Lesanne.

It is not as simple as that.
My database contains in most cases multiple sources for one item of information.
For example a birth entry may be sourced from a birth certificate plus a baptism register, a school register, various census, family sources etc.
Due to the limitations of the old family history programs many of the sources had to be entered into the notes field rather than into a sources field.
This means that to include those sources online I would have to delete pages of text that form the other notes. On top of this would be more time checking that I had not made a mistake whilst doing that.

It could be done but it would take an immense amount of time which could be devoted to other matters.
Perhaps a future generation will have the free time to convert my databases to a future proof  format, I do not.

In many cases though showing sources would simply make internet users less likely to actually check the particular source as they would take the record at face value as the source had been shown.
Cheers
Guy

[wildtech]

Compared to many on this site I still feel a novice when it comes to family history but here's what I think. 

My tree contains about 1100 individuals.  I started with a fairly small inherited tree with few sources.  I have done my best to verify all the original information and all new dates etc I have tried to confirm from at least two sources.  Because I live about 300 miles from my ancestors historical stamping ground I have had to do virtually all this from the internet.  I can't afford subscriptions to the big sites nor to obtain certificates for every event.  I have therefore used free sites and developed `constructive` index searches of the big sites then taken a couple of free trials and blitzed the records.  When information has come just from the index I say so in the source citation.

I have my tree on the web and am happy for any one to view it.  If someone finds they are related and wish to copy my tree - fine, after all I got 99% of the information for free!  If they then copy people and get it wrong that's their problem.  Would I be upset? possibly - most likely probably - but having chosen to make my tree available to the public that is something I will have to face. 

I have found other trees on the net to which I have connections and have contacted the owners and gained permission to add those individuals.  This I do along with their site as a source AND wherever possible a reference to the original source which I have checked. 

As for the propagation of what has been termed corruption I hope my methods do not contribute to this.

As with all of life their will be a number of people, usually a minority, who will want to get something for nothing or pass off the work of another as their own.  Personally I am happy in the knowledge that what I have done and posted on the net is as factual and correct as I can make it.  If anyone points out a mistake I will respond and correct it.  If someone then plagiarises it and gets it wrong I have the original and can say "that's not what I put" but quite honestly would it be worth the effort? let them live in their ignorance

[Nick29]

Well said.  I don't think any of us would get very far without the work of others, so it's good to give something back.

[Siamese Girl]

I still haven't put any of my ancestors information into a programme - it all just exists on bits of paper stuffed into folders. Honestly - there's too much of it and I can't face all the effort and I'm also banking on paper outliving any computer software.

Mind you, it hasn't stopped me from seeing my research appearing on someone's website. I sent them the information in the days before computers, so it cost time AND money. I didn't get any thanks then and no acknowledgment on their website either ....

Carole

[joboy]

I still haven't put any of my ancestors information into a programme - it all just exists on bits of paper stuffed into folders. Honestly - there's too much of it and I can't face all the effort and I'm also banking on paper outliving any computer software.
Carole

Carole,
you really should make a start by entering at least your direct line of ancestors into a programme.
Quite a number of subscribers to this topic (me included) did exactly as you are doing ... visits to the LDS/FHC and burial grounds and similar with a 'dog eared' note book and badly written notes ........ waiting until a viewer was available only to find that the film you needed was in use by someone else and your time allocation had run out.
Those old 'bits of paper' will eventually die if you dont put them into something reasonably secure.
I look at my old notes occasionally and think about all the time that I spent in those days that could have been spent on other things that were more pressing ... at least they were to my dear wife.
Make a start ... and add the other little bits as you are able.
Joe

[Guy Etchells]

I would advise you to put your research on a computer as quickly as possible, it is at risk.

I totally agree that paper will (if stored correctly) outlast current computers & programs, but digital information can be transferred from system to system.
I first compiled my computer data on a Commodore 64, transferred it to a Commodore Amiga and eventually on to a PC.

The great value of digital data is it can be easily spread to different locations. This spread provides safety in case of disaster.

If you had a fire or flood or other similar event your work could be lost forever.
Digital copies (though not being able to replace the original documents) could provide copies of those documents.

In addition digital copies are easier to search, store and share and all may be taken with you when on research trips.
Digital does not replace paper records but augments them.
Cheers
Guy

[mike175]

Drifting off-topic a little, I think the biggest advantage for me of storing my data in a computer is the discipline it introduces into my work, creating order out of chaos 

It's easy to spot missing people, sources, etc. and also to correct errors that have crept in (mostly from other people's work!) without having to completely re-draw a tree.

BUT . . . I print out hard copy of everything as well because in the longer term it is arguably more permanent. I know you can upgrade data to new formats as they arise, but it might not be so easy to retrieve the family history from that old Sinclair Microdrive tape that you discover in your late uncle Fred's effects. Far easier to read his handwritten or printed work, and you don't even need any special equipment . . . except perhaps the reading glasses 

Mike.

[Siamese Girl]

I think it would take years for me to do    And probably drive me even more mad! 

I also do a lot of family history type research on the life and times of the C18th diarist Parson James Woodforde and all of that is on computer AND backed up - so I'm not a complete troglodyte. I think  in the greater scheme of things, that is much more valuable work than my own family's history.

Carole