Setting The Record Straight: Episode 6 - Misinformation...

It's very easy to add information to your online family trees. But what if the information you're adding is wrong?

This episode of Setting The Record Straight looks at how easily misinformation can be spread online and suggests that evidence-based research might be a better approach.

[BeverleyBleackley]

Thanks to the link from Lost Cousins newsletter, I have now watched this video and all the others you have made so far. The type of misinformation you mention is one of my prime bugbears. Before adding anyone to my tree on my Family Tree Maker tree and then onn Ancestry (and Lost Cousins), I follow up by searching every census record I can find, parish records for births and marriages, registrations for all BMD for that person and his or her immediate family members. I particularly note the names and maiden surnames of parents, and look at the signatories and witnesses. It angers me that other tree owners may use the same sources, but seem to ignore vital pieces of information -- then attribute wrong parents who happen to have similar names (correct father's names, but wrong maiden surnames of the mother), simply because they have found a birth record which fits timewise. Meanwhile, the other documents clearly indicate the correct parents.
Commenting on other owners' trees does not seem to get results. I suppose that is because everyone believes that their own research is correct, even through the documents proves it is wrong. Barking up the wrong tree, I suppose (pun intended)!

I was wondering if you could do a video on the importance of adding siblings to a tree to ensure there is a complete family. Too often I come across trees which include my grandparents, great-grandparents (1st, 2nd, and further back), on both sides of my family, but only show the owner's immediate ancestor and ignore that person's siblings, Or the owner has used a nickname for a sibling or parent. This wreaks havoc with any DNA links that should exist but are then impossible to corroborate. I would like to see this problem addressed.

[GJPG]

Another thing that shows from your example: so many people record the baptism date as the birth date. OK, it's _usually_ not much different, but since most genealogy software can record both, why do people do it? _Possibly_ one of the reasons is that Ancestry (for example) don't then show the first date in summary things like trees; they should, maybe with "bp" before them, if the birth hasn't been entered. Similarly, people record the burial date as the death date. (OK, before refrigeration, that _was_ even more likely to be close, but still, if you're going to record an actual date, recording the wrong one seems an odd thing to do.)

[PaulStrickland-wifq]

So true. I've lost count of the number of (mainly, but not only) American trees I've come across which are plainly wrong. Mostly down to wishful thinking (or blindly copying). And those trees with hundreds of thousands of people? It drives me nuts.

[EugeneDuboisEpen]

I never use online familytrees. Always check the original record. But even then, checking if the child didn't die as an infant is very sound advice.
The problem is, in my region, part of the Netherlands, the death of those very young children often wasn't registered.

[jaymm]

We need to do our own due diligence and check, research and recheck.

[jemimapearson]

I found our family scroll is wrong. The person recorded as our ancestor isn't - and I can prove it!!! I sent my evidence to the keeper of the scroll and have been cut from all the research. It's just so sad. The person recorded as our ancestor died without wife or children and I have a copy of his will dated 1706 where he leaves his fortune to his siblings.

[opaqueentity]

When you do not trusted a trusted source, let alone random peoples trees is certainly a big issue.