Question

I have run into profiles from the 16th and 17th century that use "personal knowledge" as a source. Is this permissible?

Comments

There's no prohibition for it, but it ain't logical.

At one time if no source was quoted, that was an automatic filler.

---

Ah, but there is a prohibition for lying or giving false facts. 

We cannot be useful to each other or to abide by the very specific realities of genealogy and written genealogical comments. To write a comment that is false and present it as an accurate statement or a view of someone else's factual statement is itself a FALSEHOOD. And stating that a living person's comments about a 16th or 17th century set of words are facts is just that. (To be clear, comments about are typically, usually observations or opinions, not facts though those can be added/included.)

We must not give in to false language, sloppy language, overstatements, exaggerations, political languages (and on and on) into a much further "wide range" of poor language uses).

In the main and over several years, I've been impressed with the accuracy of so much of the language we use in our written trails--and that is not an easy, quick response for someone like me and others, who've spent their working lives as editors or teachers/professors of English. Also including all those millions here and abroad of non-professionals who read carefully, widely, and well. 

I've come to think of us as a group of people who like to be heard well and clearly. And that REQUIRES careful writing. Further, I believe I've had good cause to do that here, so let's be of one mind: Writing well and clearly makes better genealogical comments and conclusions. In expressing ourselves, we lay out a clear understanding, a thing that others and ourselves can learn by. 

Please, KEEP IT UP, and also appreciate the silent, happy efforts of those who, as a normal habit, read carefully too.

Answer 1

Since it's totally illogical, in that time frame. Please remove it when you see it and if there are no legitimate sources on the profile put {{Unsourced}} on it. Unless of course you'd like to find sources for it yourself. Thank you

Answer 2

Hi Lyle, 

Great question. As Tom pointed out it there no prohibition for it. I personally view the source "Personally known information" as the general equivalence of a family tree, family bible, Unpublished records. You can find out more about certain/uncertain sources here however this list is not complete and all records are a candidate for being debunked. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Uncertain

---

Side-note

Wikitree is about collaboration. I can't check your source to prove or debunk the source. I think that "Personally known information" should be used as a secondary source or reference point. I don't feel that a fact can be marked certain on a "Personally known information" reference/source. I also find it somewhat difficult to source a profile that has "Personally known information" as the only source/reference it don't give me a good starting point of where to start looking especially on unconnected profiles. 

Comments

Actually, there is a prohibition against it for this time period. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Pre-1700_Profiles#Cite_reliable_sources

---

Ah, I see the original poster misused the term 17th century for profiles of people born in the 1700s, so the link I just provided does not apply to the profile linked to above. Unfortunately.

---

If people are using the “first-hand knowledge” or similar notation to mean there’s some personal documentation on hand, then in my opinion that is what should be noted. It would be much more clear. For example “correspondence between A and B, dated…, personal collection of …” or “family bible handed down from …, personal collection of …” Scan and attach to the profile if it’s not something copyrighted or containing private info. (Edited for clarity)

---

"First hand knowledge" does not mean that, Denise. It means "information or experience gained or learned directly, rather than from other people or from books."

I.e., I have first hand knowledge of my marriage; I do not have first hand knowledge of my parents' marriage.

Answer 3

In your example profile, the actual phrase is "First-hand knowledge" rather than "personal knowledge".  It has the same meaning, but "First-hand knowledge" used to be the default source that Wikitree inserted when creating a profile if it wasn't changed.  You'll still find it all over Wikitree profiles, even those that have been edited many, many times.  Is it permissible?  Yes.  Is it correct?  Obviously not.  Unfortunately, you could probably spend the rest of your life trying to correct all of the instances of this and still wouldn't finish.  The best that can be done for now is to correct it as you encounter it.

And if you do correct it, you'll still run across the occasional PM who will put it right back in, usually in an acknowledgments section with other 'helpful' info such as everyone who uploaded a GEDCOM.