Barriers To Genealogy In The Future

[Rosinish]

A bit naughty, but wouldn't it be fun to create an absolutely fictitious tree on a certain public platform!  A tree with a huge diversity of people, unusual happenings, good and bad, and loads of photos and misinformation!  Then sit back and wait for the comments and enquiries, and keep up the fiction unreservedly!

   Yes Jaybel,

It could be fun but...........the reason all these trees are like "monkey trees" is because there is no real interaction/communication/comparing notes etc. & that's the problem.

So, your fictitious tree would soon appear elsewhere by those people who take the info. & run.

I doubt you would get any enquiries as these people don't make/want to make time to check things out as it's all there on the plate & no need for a knife & fork to cut the truth from the untruth as it all looks well presented & inviting for the taking 

I think you know what I mean 

Annie

[pinefamily]

I have to say that would be even more fun (in a devilish sort of way), to see a deliberately fictitious tree copied and adopted.

[jaybelnz]

My thoughts too!  I'd even create myself a different user name, and abuse them for stealing stuff from my tree without checking, then give them more false nonsense info! 😄  Serve them right!

[3sillydogs]

The family Bible has been, I am sure, a source of valuable information that we would not have about our early settler forefathers.  It was possibly the only way they had to record BMD's until formal methods were introduced as towns grew, and when they decided to move on to regions unkown across the plains for what ever reasons they had, it was the only way to keep records.  These books were often beautifully bound in leather.  I have seen some wonderful examples donated to museums.

These days we merely trot along to the local registry office, register what we have to and it's done. 
Perhaps we will all end up with micro chips inserted at birth (like the pet identi chips we have now)

I for one thank those forefathers or I might still be looking for some of mine and hubby's ancestors

[ScouseBoy]

How will future family historians trace our "professional" welfare recipients, with multiple children from multiple fathers? Names on birth certificates may not be the same as those used in life.
This is not intended as a jibe or judgement, simply an observation. 

What does this mean, please?

[Guy Etchells]

The biggest barriers to genealogy in the future are people including genealogists who think basic facts like names, dates of birth or dates of marriage are private.

Even on forums we have people who hide behind pseudonyms rather that use their real name, few have a good reason for not using their real name, but that is their choice.

Illegitimacy was never a problem before the Victorian hypocrisy made it so, the problem before was not children being illegitimate but the parents or rather the father not providing for his children.

Countries like Australia are so paranoid about their ex-convict population that they destroy all information gathered as soon as they have gleaned numerical statistics from the information. The irony is their indigenous population have an oral heritage that goes back centuries and even that is being destroyed by the immigrants’ privacy ideals.

Many countries claim to be free but in reality they can never be free until people see the futility in privacy, secrecy destroys life and destroys history, whether that is the history of the country, the family or the individual.

Cheers
Guy

[pinefamily]

Well said, Guy.
ScouseBoy, I was trying to be as polite and PC as I could. Single mothers having children with different fathers, and names used in life not matching their birth certificates; eg the father's surname used on the birth certificate, but the child then goes to school using either the mother's surname, or her current boyfriend's. Trust me, this happens.

[andycand]

Countries like Australia are so paranoid about their ex-convict population that they destroy all information gathered as soon as they have gleaned numerical statistics from the information. The irony is their indigenous population have an oral heritage that goes back centuries and even that is being destroyed by the immigrants’ privacy ideals.

Cheers
Guy

Rubbish, the Privacy/Data Protection laws in Australia generally only relate to the living and generally mean that if you are required to give information to an entity such as a Government Dept, a business large or small. or an organisation then that entity cannot pass your information to a third party without your permission.
If I fill in a form which states it is Confidential or Private then I expect that to be the case. I don't expect the information to be released to some distant relative or Genealogist just because they need it for their research.
The first Australian census was in 1911, prior to that there were a number of State censuses a few of which have survived and are publicly available. Australian census forms were destroyed up until 1996 but since then people have been asked about retention of information for release after 99 years. For those that said yes their forms were filmed. In 2001 some 54% said yes, it was a bit higher in 2006 and I haven't seen a figure for 2011. As far as I'm aware Australia is the only country that actually asks people if it is okay to release there census information in the future.
As far as the past is concerned you will find that there is a lot of information publicly available, the National and various State Achives are full of publicly available records, in fact many Australians are proud of their convict ancestors and have researched them in detail.

Andy

[Guy Etchells]

Rubbish, the Privacy/Data Protection laws in Australia generally only relate to the living and generally mean that if you are required to give information to an entity such as a Government Dept, a business large or small. or an organisation then that entity cannot pass your information to a third party without your permission.
If I fill in a form which states it is Confidential or Private then I expect that to be the case. I don't expect the information to be released to some distant relative or Genealogist just because they need it for their research.
The first Australian census was in 1911, prior to that there were a number of State censuses a few of which have survived and are publicly available. Australian census forms were destroyed up until 1996 but since then people have been asked about retention of information for release after 99 years. For those that said yes their forms were filmed. In 2001 some 54% said yes, it was a bit higher in 2006 and I haven't seen a figure for 2011. As far as I'm aware Australia is the only country that actually asks people if it is okay to release there census information in the future.
As far as the past is concerned you will find that there is a lot of information publicly available, the National and various State Achives are full of publicly available records, in fact many Australians are proud of their convict ancestors and have researched them in detail.

Andy


[/quote]

Yes I should have said were rather than are.

However if you look at the history of acknowledgement of convict ancestors in Australia you will find it was not until the mid to late 1980s that people started ackowledging or coming to terms with their convict ancestors.
That in terms of legislation is virtually yesterday.

If the Australian people and government had been so at ease with it in the past none of the census would have been destroyed.

Have you ever asked yourself why was the LDS forbidden to sell their Australian Vital Records Index (released in 1997) in Australia if the attitude was so liberal?

Cheers
Guy