Firsthand knowledge in 1769, Really? [closed]

Question

I see that this is a repetitive question, has there been a fix made for this?

I don't know about you but I want to pull my hair out when I see this on profile of someone who passed in the 1800's much less the 1700's. Then, I sit here wondering if there is a good response to that statement.

Just saying.

Comments

I remove those from inline citations and convert them into an acknowledgement myself.

---

I don't think they are worth my time to go to all that trouble. I just think to myself...Really? You were alive 200 years ago, I think NOT! lol

---

Personal knowledge by time travel.

---

Oh, I love this reply! I am a visual person!

Answer 1

A fix was made for this years ago.  It was not a retroactive fix, however, so there are still some profiles which were created a long time ago who would still have the sentence (created automatically).

It takes longer to explain all this than to just delete it and move on.  Don't pull that hair out! You may need it some day. :)

Comments

Ros, I think they make wigs for my issue of pulling my hair out.  Nice to know I can delete it!

---

I get a laugh every time I see this.  And then remove it.  Thanks for the info that it is no longer allowed as we have enough to do with sources will be added by X date, and it's 2 years later still with no sources.

Answer 2

I think that you have to cite the seance through which you got the firsthand information (chuckle).

Comments

I never thought about that. Good one! 

Answer 3

When someone reads an instruction their understanding of its meaning and how they should respond will depend upon their exposure to the subject matter. Responses reflect experience although a 'first-hand knowledge' response for much older ancestors fly in the face of common sense. But, genealogy/family history research is deceptively hard. It was always my suspicion that those who used the phrase 'first hand knowledge' (and I've seen these on pre-1700 profiles) were responding to the sources instruction without thinking it through. Their focus was probably more on macro objectives (such as getting all those gedcom ancestor profiles created).They read the recommended source example brief which said personal knowledge would suffice; they were aware (on paper) of the ancestor whose profile was being built; putting 2 + 2 together they themselves were a source... At least that's my reading of the situation. I had to teach myself to not react every time I come across the 'first hand knowledge' phrase otherwise my blood pressure would be sky high.  

Comments

I agree, I think sometimes people think I researched the person, and found information about them, and that then means I have personal knowledge about the person, not realising it actually means in person knowledge, as I talked with the person.