Why do we allow Ancestry.com sources on WikiTree?

Question

Ancestry.com is not a primary source for any well-researched professional genealogy. Why are we permitting links to Ancestry.com in our profiles?

I see countless references to uploaded .ged family trees from a decade ago populating colonial and other profiles for which there are other published and primary sources. Why does this practice persist?

Comments

A book about the family history isn't a primary source UNLESS the book references verifiable documentation. Very many family history books don't do that and wikitree has an ongoing list of "bad" family history books. A primary source is a document that can be seen and verified or disputed by other wikitree members.

---

Any site can be lacking in sources, whether Ancestry, Findmypast, Familysearch etc. The answer is to only use actual sources, not unsubstantiated family trees. This is something I have learnt by being on Wikitree, where I have received lots of help, guidance and not a few laughs over my beginner attempts. Now I try to pass this on to others, because we are all learning.

---

Another recent lengthy G2G discussion may be relevant here. It covered a lot of ground.

---

Having spent years, traveling to Court Houses and writing to them, I was glad when I was able to see that court record online. To find a will or probate record on ancestry, property records. and marriages.  I think you are confusing the records available with peoples family trees. I stay away from family trees. That also goes for Family Search which uses records found on Ancestry.com

---

I disagree Eddie - published genealogies preceded data aggregators by centuries and generally implied a serious study, if only a good preponderance of the evidence, far before the present pay-wall resources. These books were kept at genealogical libraries and updated over time with published errata. Now we have encoded errors from digital transcription of primary sources locked behind pay-wall pretending to be an 'absolute' source.... That's not how this works - professionally or for any hereditary society presently. What is your quality standard without Ancestry.com?

---

I disagree.  Census records, vital records, military records, etc. are all available on ancestry.com, and  all have their place in "any well-researched professional genealogy."

---

@ Nan - do you disagree because you use those sources, because you correct those sources, or because it's easier to cut and paste than to do real research?

---

Exactly what part of using census records, military records, and vital records  do you consider not "real research?"  I see vital and census records on profiles you manage.

---

Exactly - most of which I did not supply... and cannot verify or validate. My own genealogy has been professionally researched 50 or more years ago. This is a standards/quality issue for open contributors who rely on pay wall sources exclusively.

---

They didn't do all that well researching 50 years ago, professional or not.  about 1/3 of the DAR discovered their Rev War hero's were  Tories, when more records opened up and others began researching those lines.  Ancestry records are the same records you use traveling to the different Court Houses, only digitized and available to us without travel.  I've done my share of hitting old Court House, Church records and writing to Government for Military records. None are error free.

---

I have relatives that were either born,  died or married  in countries  as far apart as Russia ,South Africa ,  India, Canada.Australia etc I made a list once, I am up to  32 modern countries, er am i supposed to travel to each country to find "authentic" sources.

---

Here's what my local archives has on Ancestry. There are 20 sets of records. Most are unavailable elsewhere. https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/libraries-history-culture/dorset-history-centre/doing-your-research/ancestry.aspx

If you had the time and money to visit them and wanted to view the original you would be disappointed. Unless you had an exceptional reason, your request would be declined and they'd sit you down at the computer. (frequent production damages documents). 

Answer 1

I think the real answer lies with something touched upon in the comments above. We do ask that people joining have at least a mild interest in their family tree, but we don't demand that they must be professional genealogists. This creates a wide gap in knowledge of sourcing, from "I don't have a clue" to "there's a clear way to create a proper citation and I know where and how to find original source materials". This generates the types of questions you submit above.

Should we simply ignore improper sourcing? Absolutely not! However, should our response be that they're Wrong Wrong Wrong? Absolutely not! We should try to determine if that individual putting those types of references down is doing so out of ignorance, laziness, or is simply doing the best they can. Either way, we should approach them, ask them if they need some assistance understanding how to properly source a profile, guide them to sites that provide sources, and if they're still confused, perhaps even source a few of their profiles to show them how it's done.

And hopefully you're referencing the use of simply "Ancestry.com", which would mean that the information they used came from the "Entire Website". That's just like saying it came from "Wikipedia.com". Not everyone gets that this is like saying you were born on Earth. While it's true, it's not all that helpful. Perhaps the guidance needed in these cases is to understand how to gather the proper citation from the source document images on sites like Ancestry, and drop them onto the profile in proper citation format. The key is communicating with the person who left that information behind, finding out their needs, and helping.

Comments

Great sentiments - very inclusive however what do we do about quality deficiencies in older profiles that are either orphaned or left by non-active owners of .ged uploads?  How do you argue with a ghost about sources, references, or doppelgangers on decade-old references cached behind a pay-wall?

---

The honest answer is that those of us who are more experienced will have to assist those who have less. If we note a problem, we should try to help. If they have created profiles and are either no longer on WikiTree or not responsive, we do our best to fix the problem.

This is a part of the reason we have periodic profile reviews, scheduled "Clean-A-Thon" or "Source-A-Thon" events and such to ensure the integrity of the data being saved to WikiTree. It does encourage correcting errors, updating profiles with less than stellar sources, and trying to improve quality on the site.

Answer 2

I’m a big fan of properly sourced research on WikiTree, but a few thoughts:

1. Not everyone is able to work at the level of a professional genealogist.
2. We should cite the sources we use. Sometimes that is Ancestry, because it is all that someone had access to at their level of experience or ability.
3. A citation is an invitation to others to evaluate the sources used (which may include deciding that the evidence is lacking).
4. A citation to a poor source is better than no citation at all.

None of the above are arguments in favour of settling on sources from sites like Ancestry, but they do allow for the mixed experience of a volunteer community, such as WikiTree.

Best wishes,

David.

Comments

I disagree - the 'standard' should be the quality of a professional genealogist, if not the same qualifications. Most of these Ancestry.com tree or source references are behind paywall, not verifiable and outright wrong in many cases on older profiles created via .ged uploads a decade ago....

---

I think you are wrong in requiring a newbie family researcher be held to the same standards as a professional researcher.  We are not, most of us, professional genealogists.  For many of us this is a hobby, that we do for enjoyment, and for the benefit of our family/families.  It is not a job.

---

Definitional - not personal, enumeration of individual choice in the matter of a discussion of standards

---

Why should the standard be the quality of a professional genealogist, or the same qualifications, when most of us at WikiTree are not doing professional genealogy, nor professing or attempting to do so?

WikiTree terms of service, Honor Code, and style guidelines determine the standards at WikiTree. And those standards are to cite our source documentation so that other can find the records and judge them for themselves. Additional WikiTree standards are to make our research accessible to all levels of ability and interest; as WikiTree is a website, online accessibility to records is a presumed preference.

While the trees at other websites, including Ancestry.com, are not, themselves, source documentation (as per WikiTree policy), many of these websites also include source image repositories. These images, by WikiTree standards, are considered acceptable as proxies for the actual hard-copy records. Ideally, the citations for these images will include the repository for the hard-copy records, too.

Whether one is a WikiTree newbie or a grizzled veteran, most of us (my opinion) don't aspire to be professional genealogists; nor do we expect professional-grade work. If we did, we would hire professionals do research our ancestry; only then, would we expect professional-grade work.

---

So is the issue that you don't think that the census or birth, marriage or death records are accurate for the person whose name is on them? In which case we do not have the benefit of time travel to go back and witness the events described.

Or that the person who attached the records to someone in their family was in error and that the record belongs to a different 'Bob Smith'.

---

@ Melanie - how does that affect the standard? Your personal role is not the measure of success here. The fidelity of the database is more important than your opinion in this matter. You can keep you own personal journal for enjoyment without muddying the water at WikiTree. If one self-selects to avoid real research then that is a personal choice, not a group effort.

[Moderator edit to correct text color - E. Smith]

---

@ Lindy - policies are made to be changed, updated, and improved to meet standards; not the other way around. The logic of the argument you make is reverse logic in this instance. Thanks again for your inputs!

Answer 3

Leake --

I think our Sources FAQ help page will explain why we have a rather "low bar" for sources when a profile is first started: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_FAQ, particularly this section.

Comments

I'm not talking about when a profile is 'first started' - these instances are insipid, increasing in frequency among many of the older profiles, and are already contributing to the collisions of more than 5 profile managers in some cases who are constantly fighting over tertiary references instead of primary records. It's a growing issue - not a style complaint.

---

The most relevant and reliable sources should be able to resolve any discrepancy, and if there are ongoing problems or difficulty collaborating, then please use the Problems with Members process on the Help menu.

Thanks!

Answer 4

Leake,

let's say it this way: In case you find a profile that has as only source "Ancestry.com" or "MyHeritage.de", you are right. This profile is {{unsourced}} and should be marked as such when you don't find at least one source that corroborates the facts stated on the profile.

BUT: There are sources that you find nowhere else but only on subscription sites. If those sources (and that can be books that are scanned by the subscription companies) are well cited, there is nothing to say against a source from a subscription site.

Comments

Jelena, I was hoping someone would mention {{Unsourced}}. I have done a double-look at the profiles on my Watchlist over the last couple of weeks. On some I am the manager (one who needs to work harder) and on other on the Trusted List (many I was added on w/o my knowledge).

Each time I found one for which I could not locate a source better than "memory" or "unsourced tree" or something like that I added {{Unsourced}}. I am happy, now, to look at my Watchlist and know who to work on first.

Also, I think that calls the attention of others to the profiles.

Answer 5

Anything a human touches is open to errors.  Please accept all sources with a bit of skepticism.  As the old saying goes, believe none of what you hear and only half of what you read.

Answer 6

Unfortunately there are many profiles that were added to wikitree with no dates and relationships that are incorrect. When a parent is added so that siblings are connected, it would be helpful to have estimated dates added to the parent's profile.

If everyone, including yourself, would review the Suggestions for their managed profiles and clean up their Suggestions, it would help to improve the profiles on Wikitree.

Answer 7

Leake:

First, it is a mistake to classify all links to Ancestry in the same way.  Their extensive repository includes primary sources, including the images.  Why on earth wouldn't we want to use them?

Second, those profiles that were long-ago gedcom uploads are already here on WT.  Now our challenge is to make the best of them.

Third, re your comments--WT simply isn't a professional genealogy website.  Our best genealogists are indeed quite professional, and add immeasurably to our quality.  But WT welcomes even beginning family genealogists.  That is established policy.

Comments

P.S.  Why start a new thread when these issues are still being discussed on a previous one?

Edited to fix minor typo.

---

Julie - I was not aware of the 'other' thread... It did not come up when I searched the issue before I posted. I was not participating in that discussion but did see and posted a comment or two on it after Jim Richardson alerted me on this thread.

Please see my answers to M. Ross under one of the posted answers to my query. I'm just saying that we should seek to 'prove' ancestors by reviewing the primary source docs, gathering them for local storage/use, and providing the same upon request to another WikiTree reseacher. That's more than formatting or style - it's substantive, probative, and collaborative.

Simply pointing to an index of source documents on an index published by a data aggregator, etc. does not satisfy the first step of 'proof' without downloading the document and comparing it to other records. There's no indication that the bulk of pay-wall subcribers are doing anything similar to this process when they post links that non-subscribers cannot also use.

Furthermore - there are intellectual property rights that are fundamental to all of this, even if one chooses to believe that 'fair use' protects non-professional hobbyists.

These are not inconsequential issues.

---

Leake, I see now from the time stamps that you did post to the May 12 Boggiano thread after posting here two days ago.  So I stand corrected on that.

As for your other comments, I completely disagree and have explained why, including above in the answer you're commenting on and multiple times on the other thread, and i have nothing more to say.

---

Thanks for your understanding and engagement. I'll go read the other thread but I'm not seeking your 'agreement'. I'm pointing out a substantive issue that does not require agreement or disagreement by individuals for my points to be valid for the community as a whole. My door is always open.

Answer 8

Leake, I'm trying to understand the issue.

If I look up a census record on ancestry, perhaps for my distant cousin's grandfather, I can provide a link to that information.

I try to remember to provide the description of the document such as:

1901 Census of Canada, Year: 1901; Census Place: Caledon, Cardwell, Ontario; Page: 8; Family No: 76, and the information regarding the family members , this allows another person to find it even if I don't provide a link to Ancestry .

I can also provide a FS link, or a Library and Archives Canada link or an Automated Genealogy link, all free sites.

 The information on the census does not change with different sources, yes there are cases where the transcription of the document may differ between sources and it is up to the person viewing the document to decide if the person's name is Arthur S Davis, or Athemis, as the original has several ink blobs.

The documents are the original source, where they are found may differ but those repositories all started with the same document.

The problems arise from badly researched and copied family trees, when people are only interested in collecting as many names and dates as possible because family history is increasingly popular we know they aren't interested in accuracy. Making the assumption that the information and sources provided on online family trees is accurate is a big problem.

The digitised documents are no different than the original paper versions.

What people make of those records is the issue. That's why one of my 4x grt grandmothers was apparently able to have 2 children 3 months apart one in colonial America and another in England, following that she had 3 children in less than 12 months in places more than a 1000 miles apart and they all lived, that's of course if you believe what is presented on online trees.

Part of what we try to do on WT is to educate people so that they would look at the information given for the said 4 x grt grandmother and say to themselves, this is a crock!

Comments

Excellent description! As long as a PM doesn't just list Ancestry.com and take the time to use either of our tools to make an Ancestry link free and visible to non-subscribers.

---

Hi M. Ross - thanks for your answer. My issue is this:

(1) Ancestry.com links change frequently and are broken over time

(2) References, or links to Ancestry.com aggregated indices for where to find primary records are "meta" and not the primary source documents themselves

(3) Primary documents should be sourced, gathered, downloaded to a researcher's personal archive for study, comparison, and validation to document each individual Wiki profile - this is called "proof"

(4) If a reference to a primary source is an open source book or a volume freely-available through a library resource then it may be referenced such that another researcher can find it and consider it as "proof of vaidation"

(5) there are ethics and practices for professional genealogists that apply even if one's own skills are not provided by fee, are not intended to match professional standards for detailed reports, or even casual hobbyist cousin hunting - my insistence on matching these is not meant to handicap individual family tree tenderers; rather these standards are implied by the duty each of us agrees to in the WikiTree T&Cs to be able to collaborate successfully as a group of researchers working together.

Does this make more sense? A Heinz-57 of sourcing standards creates a 'fruit-cocktail" of less than meaningful connections. These issues are especially clear when an abandoned .ged created profile has no or only meta references behind a pay-wall (and not the original profile manager).

---

No , it really doesn't make any more sense!

I agree and I think so would most of the people who have responded that links to any source can break, they can change and sometimes don't get copied correctly, we all understand that. The fact that the link is broken does not invalidate the source.

I like to provide the details of where a source was found, title of the collection, Volume #, page # and what the information is, so that someone else can find it if a link is broken.

This is my understanding of what you are saying if I download a document from Ancestry, Family Search, Find My Past, Scotland's People or some other source it becomes real, and I can use that document as a source.

If I look at it online it isn't either real or reliable???

What if I order a document from a source? They send either a Pdf or image by email, they certainly are not going to snail mail me the original.

The Gedcom issue is well known and we all know that requirements for sourcing have changed since WT was born. There are amazing people who specialise in finding proper sources for old and abandoned Gedcoms.

Me, I have never met a Gedcom that I liked! I adopted a lot of profiles created by Gedcom from a distant relative. I knew a lot about most of the people profiled, it has still taken 6 months to properly source them.

Edit: typo

Answer 9

Leake,

If the old profiles bother you, please come join us at the Data Doctors. We work on the profiles all the time. We could use your help!

edited for typo

Comments

Thanks Loretta - I have and it's wonderful!  I never realized these tools exist to help with my own profiles. Thanks again for opening up this side of WikiTree to me and others!

leake

---

You are very welcome.

Answer 10

There are tons of images of original records on the Ancestry website that are good sources.

Answer 11

I wouldn't be in favor of sourcing to Ancestry "unless" a direct link (sharing link) was provided. I have done this in the past. In some cases there is not any other available way of viewing the actual document, and if someone has an Ancestry account and provides it as a "free" resource to Wikitree members, it seems they should be thankful it is available. F.S. would be preferred, however they don't always have the image, only the reference to it. I definitely think we should opt for open sources where available. It is always convenient to be able to use FamilySearch's citation generating feature for the quick and easy cut/paste into our profiles, and it is my first choice, but when F.S. simply doesn't have the source we have to look elsewhere. We at Wiktree don't always have the luxury of having all the tools for free, we sometimes need to be happy with what we get. If someone has a Wikitree and Ancestry account  and gets WT members past the paywall so much the better. An example of a sharing link for those who have not seen one yet would be Cook-10313,  for example.