Is Famouskin.com a proper Source or not?

Question

Hello, I created quite a few new profiles using FamousKin.com as the only Source.  I was recently told, I think it was by the Wiki Tree Team or the first mentor that they assigned to me, that FamousKin.com was not a proper Source.  After that several of those profiles were placed in a Presidents Project.  Therefore, I dutifully went back to edit  those profiles and all of the profiles connected with them, there were quite a few of them in total.  If there were other Sources I simply removed the FamousKin.com Source.  If FamousKin.com was the only Source, I looked up and added a new Source to replace them with.  This took me a full day of work, but I wanted them to comply to Wiki Tree Standards.  Then a couple of days after that I received an email from the project leader asking me to put back all of the Sources (FamousKin.com) that I had deleted from those profiles!  Would a Wiki Tree Leader please clarify for everyone if FamousKin.com is a proper source or not.  I am a little upset by this situation.  Thank you,  [[Boren-314|Dusty Boren]]

Comments

My opinion is, whether or not one considers FamousKin.com (or any other website) to be a "proper" source, one should feel free to cite it if that is where one found information used for a WikiTree profile.

Interpreting our own guidelines (Help:Sources), we should cite any and all of the sources from which we built profiles.

Thus, if you used information that you found at FamousKin.com, then you should cite it as a source.

Again, that is just my opinion!

---

I agree. It is certainly not a primary source, but it is where you found the information and therefore a source.  Additional sources can always be added and the beauty of the project is that new information can be added and erroneous information can be edited as evidence is uncovered.

---

Thank you Lindy,  dusty.

---

Thank you DK, dusty.

---

Is the Resource Notes the correct category to include a link to a famouskin.com link?  Famouskin.com is copyrighted.

Answer 1

After taking a quick look at the site, I would put FamousKin (a website created and maintained by this guy) in the same category as an unsourced family tree on Ancestry.com. If it's the only source you have for information you've chosen to add to a profile, you should identify it as your source. However, you shouldn't be using it to create content, and if you have done so, you should be looking for better sources to support (or possibly refute) the content you've added.

Comments

Thank you, Ellen, dusty.

Answer 2

I took a quick look at this site, and perused a few family group sheets for a President, a governor, and a Mayflower passenger (and a few of their ancestors). All of these had sources, a mix of both primary and secondary sources, such as some of the prominent journals. Some of the secondary sources I am familiar with, and are considered reputable.

One thing I did not see was any link to internet family trees, ie, Ancestry.com trees. I will admit my sample was small, but on many, many sites these so common.

Thus, my first impression is positive.

Comments

Yes, I see what George sees--sources for information on FamousKin, so that does make it somewhat more reliable than typical family trees on some other sources. What I would do is look at the sources cited there and use them as my sources here on WikiTree rather than actually using the FamousKin site itself as my source. It's best to try to get as close to the original source as one can. I can't imagine why, after doing the work you did to get closer to the original sources as you were asked to do, someone would tell you to put all the citations for FamousKin back and I can understand you being upset. Perhaps someone can give us all an explanation.

---

Ah, the first 6 or 8 people all looked at (all notables) had no sources. After reading George's comment, I find that when I go to the profile of a random non-notable person (found via the surnames tab), the profile is likely to have some decent sources.

---

Ellen, the only place I found sources was on the Family Group Sheets for each person. None on the other pages.

---

Thank you Nelda, dusty.

---

Thank you George, dusty.

---

Thanks again Ellen, dusty.

Answer 3

To answer your question, Famouskin.com would be a repository of information, not a source. The quality of information and sources within that repository would vary greatly depending on the actual information provided.

Comments

Thank you George, dusty.

Answer 4

I have always endeavored to provide primary sources where possible, and secondary sources when primary sources are not available. What famouskin.com appears to be (to me) is a collection of unsourced biographies.

The purpose of Wikitree is to provide sourced profiles that allow other researchers to confirm or refute or enhance the information you provide in the profile by providing links to reliable sources that can be easily referenced.

There is nothing wrong (in my opinion) with putting links to famouskin in the see also section of a profile, but I would never use a site like that as a source.

For example, i normally put links to Wikipedia in the see also section, even though Wikipedia itself requires reliable sources for it's articles.

Answer 5

It is my unmitigated opinion that famouskin.com can be used as a secondary source.  Most of the sources in famouskin.com has sources listed in which case are 1st sources.  (In other words) the website is backing up the information I already have (i.e.) Ancestors of American Presidents by Gary Boyd Roberts.  You can cite both sources is my understanding.