Is he a bigamist or is this a n other crazy researcher

[Finley 1]

As you do, when researching a difficult member of the tree Or should I say as I do....
I check out public trees on Genes or Ancestry......

NOW luckily through over 15yrs of research, I never think GREAT this is them, without thoroughly - thoroughly - disecting the information --- if there is any.

Well honestly, I have just had cause to research a gentleman who was missing in the 1871.....

The information I had from the 1861 Francis Wardle born Lullington 1858.  I also had the 1911 with him and his family (my Julia Lavinia/Lavernia) which shows him born in Lullington/Lillington.

Found the 1881 - found the 1901 all showing same place of birth... NO 1871.

So asked for help on here and even together, we couldnt find him -- So popped him in my 'to complete' box.

Then in the middle of the night, when he wouldnt get himself out of my old head... 

I decided to browse the public trees...........

And it seems no one can find him in 1871. 

UNTIL  I came across one particular tree.............................
that was 'Bursting' with Wardles (and I am sorry if you are a roots member) but ooooooooo dear me..

What a pickle... 
They have him down married to two different ladies albiet consecutively .. but with children born from both marriages at very similar times, but he lives in two different areas.  Now they are not too far from each other.   

SO has this researcher discovered he is a bigamist....... or what.

I checked his census rtns and No ... One of his Francis is from one area and the other from another.

So this again, goes to prove, that people who do not READ the census thoroughly and double check - are messing up.
It is such a shame, on this one because he/she has worked so hard on the information on there, and just one error - one census read wrongly has messed it all up.

I did send a note......... to gently ask ? ---- but nothing yet. 

So yet again the future of online information, is nothing but SUSPECT.... and should alllllways be throroughly checked. 

AS we know --- dont we ??

[lizdb]

We do indeed.

Recently I too have had a peep at a few trees, just to see if anyone has had any luck finding some of mine. But it is so depressing ..... tree after tree of copied info one from another all completely wrong!
Which one to send a gentle note to? Cant be bothered with telling them all that a Peter Bradford may have married a Charlotte Boniface and then she died not long after, but it was not definitely not the one who was dtr of John and Elizabeth of Eastergate/Aldingbourne - If you read the Will of John then his daughter Charlotte married a George Field and she is still very much alive when he wrote his will.

My real worry is that people take trees on Ancestry as a reliable source, not as what they are ie the result of peoples "research" which may be thorough and accurate or may be no more than a random guess, and sometimes not even that - more a strick a pin in a list of names!. With these "trees" portrayed alongside original sources such as census returns and BMD records, it is all too easy for newcomers to the hobby to see them all as the same. I worry about the future of Family History Research as a result of this blurring between access to surviving documents and the practice of people sharing their own interperatations.

[carol8353]

I can't be bothered to tell anyone anything anymore 

As you say Liz,people pinch bits of trees and then end up with a right mish mash of incorrect info.

I know that I have certs and facts to back mine up, gleaned over 30 + years,so mine is the real Mccoy,not from some tree nicker online 

Carol

[lizdb]

You're researching the name McCoy? !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Finley 1]

 

agree

no tree nickers round here   

or bloomers!!!  (I hope)

 

xin

[Bee]

Recently found a 'family tree' which included a photo of one of my husband's ancestors, but as the same photo has been used twice we don't know if it's his 4xgt aunt or her daughter, and that's assuming that the photo is genuine. 

Bee
 

[Forfarian]

There are numerous trees online which trace back to William Macdonald Simpson, born illegitimate to Mary Simpson in Dingwall in 1889. Unfortunately all of these trees then go on to claim that Mary was the great-niece of Sir James Young Simpson, and that she was born in 1873 (you can all do that bit of arithmetic and draw your own conclusions) to John Simpson, pharmaceutical chemist and druggist in Edinburgh, and his wife Christina Petrie.

This is just pure, complete and utter fantasy. I have thoroughly researched the mother of William Macdonald Simpson, and I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that she was born in Dingwall in 1863, the daughter of William Simpson, carpenter, and his wife Ann Mackenzie, with no connection whatsoever to the family of Sir James.

All of these trees ultimately refer back to a tree put online by one Naomi Simpson-Beck, a descendant of William Macdonald Simpson, who is soooo proud of her (completely imaginary) connection to Sir James. How she got this idea I simply cannot imagine. I have tried to contact her to ask her to delete this totally unwarranted assertion and replace it with the correct information, but without success.

[iluleah]

It is funny I have just asked a question related to exactly this 
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=680711.msg5252610#msg5252610

[snowyw]

Gosh!  I know about mistakes!
I traced one of my London ancestors through the census back to Northampton.
I was so excited, as that is where I live now!  I went to the local record office and traced right back to the 1600s.  Fantastic!
Then (why ever I didn't do this before) I sent for a marriage certificate.....you know what's coming don't you?     ....wrong family.  My family had never come from Northampton.  They had come no further than Lambeth!!!
That was a couple of months research  IN THE BIN!
It was soooooo easy to go wrong!