Questions about sources

Question

I'm still struggling with sourced for WikiTree profiles. However, I see the purpose of accurate sources.

I had posted a question about a profile I created from a GEDCOM and listed that as a source. I was told that a GEDCOM isn't a source and given links to the source guidelines.

I came across a profile that had as a source "Family tree compiled by ______." How does that differ from a GEDCOM?

Then we get to Moses Kinne, one of my ancestors. I'm looking at his record because the birthplace listed for him does not match what is in my mother's Legacy database. The Biography (and I recognize is separate from sources) for Moses lists information that came from a GEDCOM. The data is full of various IDs, none of which are explained.

Then in the sources section it appears to list records to MyHeritage.com. Since I'm not a member of MyHeritage I am unable to verify what kind of records these are. Another source listed here appears to be a GEDCOM.

I searched Family Search for records for Moses. I skipped down to birth records (which is what I'm interested in). I saw three records with the same birthdate of 8 May 1710 (my mother and WikiTree agree). All three list the father as Thomas.

Moses Kinni, born in Preston Twp, Connecticut (the birthplace my mother listed).

Moses Kenny, born in Danvers, Mass.

Moses Kenny, born in Salem, Mass (what WikiTree has listed).

I guess the first is a problematic source because it isn't linked to actual microfilm. Does that reasoning make sense?

One more question:

Do some of the more seasoned WikiTree genealogists look at profiles as they are created to see if sources are acceptable?

Comments

Just my view, but a GEDCOM is the compilation of the data found in source documents. While some GEDCOM programs may allow the attachment of actual images of the source documents, the GEDCOM itself should not be considered a source document.

GEDCOMs, like family trees (such as our own WikiTree) are the end result of our research; sources are the beginning of our research. Sources are where we find the data to create our tree or our GEDCOM.

Therefore, referencing a family tree or a GEDCOM is not actually sourcing a profile. The GECOM data on a profile may, however, contain information regarding the actual sources used to create the GEDCOM and the profile.

Summary: it can be confusing!!

Answer 1

Paul,

I think there is no difference between the family tree found online and a GEDCOM, as far as sources are concerned.  Either one might provide links to real sources, but if they don't, they are just hearsay and it's hard to know whether to trust the information in them.

Many profiles on Wikitree were apparently uploaded and then abandoned years ago by people who didn't understand the goals of Wikitree, or who got frustrated by the learning curve. Unfortunately there are a lot of profiles like that.  

Hopefully some day someone  will come along and improve those profiles with sources and then Wikitree will contain a majority of "good" profiles instead of so many questionable ones.  

I took a look at the profile you mentioned, and I know I can't follow those links either.  My preference (and other people probably have different preferences) is to see an actual biography narrative that says "John Jones was born on August 12, 1872 in Anyplace, Anycountry.  His parents were..." (and so on.)  (Followed by sources in the source section or inline reference links to sources.  

Many times people don't have a lot of information to begin with, and they do have to rely on somewhat questionable sources, but if they are at least traceable, then another genealogist can come along later and either accept or reject the source based on updated information.

I think you are on the right track with the way you are thinking and the sources you located.  Since I can't trace those existing links on the profile either, I'll defer to someone who can, in case there is actual helpful information there.

Reba

Comments

As Reba states, you are doing proper genealogical work by looking for sources to support - or correct - the data for Moses.

If you want to improve Moses' profile, you should first request trusted list access or at least notify the current managers of your intent. In my opinion, it's always better to gauge their cooperativeness before editing than after!

You needn't worry if a record is not connected to an image; however, you are correct to trust one that links to an image over one that doesn't.

As long as your goal is to improve Moses' profile (proper sourcing, accurate data, adherence to the Style Guide, etc.), you are indeed "on the right track" and will have the support of most of your fellow WikiTreers.

Answer 2

Hi Paul. Whoever responded to your original question was correct - a GEDCOM is not a source. You also are correct that "Family tree compiled by ______" is not a source.  Like you, I wish more profiles listed publicly available sources so any of us can check the records.  This is why I look in FamilySearch first, like you do.

A source is not a problematic source because it isn't linked to microfilm.  Original sources such as birth, marriage, and death certificates, are very valid primary sources.  Sometimes there may be conflicting evidence, or two people with the same name and close birth dates, so more research is needed.

I looked at the sources you mention, and only the first source lists the date and place of birth:

• Moses Kinni, born 8 May 1710 in Preston Twp., New London, CT, Father Thomas Kinni
• Moses Kenny, christened 18 May 1710, Danvers, Essex, MA, Father Thomas Kenny
• Moses Kenny, christened 18 June 1710, Salem, Essex, MA, Father Thomas Kenny

At first glance, I agree with your mother and the birth record.  Is it possible that he was baptized in Massachusetts ten days after he was born?  You may want to look at additional sources.  Have you seen "History and genealogy of a branch of the family of Kinne" by Emmeron Kinne published in 1881?

 

Answer 3

I want to respond to this question in your original post:

Do some of the more seasoned WikiTree genealogists look at profiles as they are created to see if sources are acceptable?

I don't believe there is such a review committee or project.  There are groups of greeters and mentors and rangers, each of which does some level of monitoring. During some of that monitoring, the quality of sourcing may surface and get some attention. But there is no group that I know of that specifically focuses on the quality of sources being added as new profiles are created. 

 

Answer 4

A gedcom is a secondary source. More often than not, it is not a good source. It can be compared to a reference book being used as a source. There may be parts of the gedcom that can be considered a primary source if the author was present at the stated event.