Do we really want to categorize people by their Family Search trees?

Question

In my experience Family Search documents are invaluable - census forms, birth, marriage, death records... though even those are not always 100% accurate because census takers and other record keepers make mistakes sometimes.

Family Search trees on the other hand are not reliable sources in and of themselves.  They are useful as suggestions and as such are worth referencing in ==Research Notes==.  But to put them at the top of the profile suggests more weight and reliability than most of them deserve.  Many of them are weakly or erroneously sourced or not sourced at all and if relied upon will introduce a great many errors and much confusion into the tree.

Comments

I am not familiar with the template.  But I want to remind all that ALL sources deserve careful consideration for accuracy.  There are no sources created by the mind and hand of humans that can be assumed correct all the time. Keep a healthy "show-me" approach to all family trees and sources.

Answer 1

It hasn't been categorised.  (That would put it in a group of other FS-matched profiles.)

It has only been linked, just like you would link to a census, or a freespace page, or anything else.  You can move it to 'See Also', yes, but that's personal preference.  Don't delete it.

Answer 2

I agree with you. You manage the profile. You certainly can remove the template from the top and place the link under "See Also:" following sources. That's what I do.

Comments

I agree with Nancy, but it's not a "template (at) the top".  It's inserted into the biography itself as text with a link to the familysearch tree.

I also agree with Nancy about not removing the link completely because it is valuable as a "hint".  If the information in the tree is used to support some statement in the biography then that would be a source, even if not as good a one as an actual record would be, and it should be placed in the sources section, with a footnote to it at the statement which depends on it.  Otherwise, I would definitely put it under "See also:" at the end of the sources section.

---

I agree completely with this - it's a source. It has no place in the Biography section. It's a style error on the profile and needs to be corrected. All sources belong in the Sources section, unless they're "inline" references, in which case, it's still an odd place to put a reference to a source which isn't really a biographical fact.

---

I agree. You manage the profile so it is your discretion to keep the link but move it under either Research Notes or under Sources See Also.

It is an external link template https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Links_to_FamilySearch

---

I would not put a link to it under Research Notes.  When I write research notes, I include any sources I use for them as footnotes to where they will appear under Sources, the same as I do in the Biography section.  For example:

== Research Notes ==
A family tree has additional unsourced information about this person.<ref name="familysearchtree">[https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/LCP1-141 Family Search Family Tree].  ''A more reliable source for this information is required.''</ref>

---

Gaile

Thank you!  I used your wording on the file.

Answer 3

As has been said very many times it is not the 'tree' that is the source it is the documentation attached to each tree member.

If there are sources attached then after checking that they are correct for the person, those can be used.

I know I am repeating what has been said in many previous discussions on this topic. But obviously it needs constant repeating.

I would remove a reference to the FS tree no matter where it is placed on a profile and include the actual sources. Then a person who wants to know more can find the record and who it is attached to.

Comments

It's not a reference to a tree.  It's a reference/link to ONE person on FS, which has probably been matched by a WT App.

---

Ros, sorry, my misunderstanding of the link to a person only, the sources still need to be checked and that can be done by following the link to the sources.

---

a lot of the links at Familysearch aren’t working (especially the US 1900 census). i add the sources and the link just in case.  and on certain devices it is easier to click thru to the link, then the link on sources. i believe the link should be at the bottom of the profile.

---

I would probably not have chosen this as best, or any of the others either - many of them are good. I agree totally with it except for the removal of the reference completely.  User submitted trees are useful as clues, hints, things to follow up on...

Answer 4

Another way to link from a WikiTree profile to a FamilySearch one is to use a "FamilySearch connection". This provides text in the right margin of the WikiTree profile with a link to the FamilySearch profile, and may seem more discrete or low-key than what appears at present on the example Jennifer provided.

See

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:FamilySearch_Connections

There is a tool to add such a connection for a single profile at

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:EditFamilySearch

Answer 5

There can be valuable information in trees such as FamilySource.  Sometimes they even have sources,  I have been adding a section labeled

===Online Resources===

in which I put links such as in Purviance-100

• Online Resources

• Geni: John Graham Purviance

• FamilySearch: John Graham Purviance 8 July 1796 – 1 January 1862 • LHM3-94M

• Descendants of Jon de PurVaiance: Descendants of Jon de PurVaiance
  • Go to 311. John Graham (Purvines) Purviance