From now on they'll have to ask

Am I being Bah Humbug?

A while ago I found an unsourced tree that had quite a number of my ancestors listed online at a fellow genealogist's website. I immediately thought how mean-spirited or lazy this chap was for not sharing sources. It didn't bother me personally as I was using his site for clues from which I went off to seek sources.

I've been mulling over his practice for some time and think I may follow his lead. I like to share and collaborate with fellow genies, that's why I have my tree on the web in a public space. What I expect is that if anyone republishes what they find at the GeniAus Family site they will acknowledge their source.

I regularly see on Ancestry and now on MyHeritage  bits and pieces from the notes I share copied into online trees without acknowledgement. What makes me giggle is that I am a poor typiste and make quite a few keyboarding errors, these are replicated in those trees. Copy and Paste has a lot to answer for.

I stopped putting photos on my GeniAus Family site  when I saw so many of them subsequently appear on Ancestry, I have yet to see one sourced as coming from me. Could so many distant cousins really have copies of those photos in their collections? The photo with the most shares, an image of my Kealy ancestors' home in Ballyfoyle, was taken on my last trip to Ireland. As I have another trip to Ireland planned I'm going to try for a sharper image which I may just keep for myself.

The original photo of the Ballyfoyle home from which the shared one was cropped

The cropped and enhanced (by me)  photo I find all over the place

I am about to upload an update to my site that includes names, dates and places but no sources or notes. I know that some folk will still copy my stuff but if they want more information they will have to ask.

Am I being mean-spirited?

Nitpicking

I had previously talked about my intention of going through all the BDMs (vital records) in my possession and going over them with a fine tooth comb. It's proving to be an illuminating exercise.

I had pulled all of the copies I have out of their plastic sleeves with the intention of scanning them and then placing the copies (which have cost me several $$$) into acid-free sleeves and folders. Last week as I was researching the Irish ancestors I thought I'd see what I could dig up on them but then I decided to have a rest from the Irish and go through all my certs.

What have I discovered?

* Certificates that I didn't even know I had and from which I had entered no information into my database. I am carefully examining them and adding info to my Family Historian database. I am also noting in the notes field for the source if I actually hold a copy of the record in question.

* I realised that one of the certificates I had wasn't for the right person so had to lop another branch off my tree. Since I purchased that certificate I had found other evidence that refuted what was in the certificate. It pays to revisit.

* I found several factual errors on certificates. Further evidence gathered since I procured the certificates shows them to be wrong. It pays to use multiple sources.

* I am finding familiar names as witnesses to BDM events now that I revisit the certificates. The knowledge of families I have gathered over the years has made it easy for me to recognise these names. Knowledge gained over years of research helps one make valuable connections.

* I've been doing some fact checking on other sites as I go along and it's interesting to see how many folk have copied my stuff (including typos) into their online trees.

* By using the clues contained in online trees as I go through my certificates I have made some valuable discoveries. I managed to finally kill off Mr GeniAus' 2x great-grandmother the other night because someone had provided a source in their online tree.

* I have found something new on just about each certificate I have put under the virtual microscope.

* As a result of this activity many of the previously unsourced events in my database now have sources.

We are often reminded of the value of doing such an exercise. I can thoroughly recommend putting your research on hold  while you go nitpicking through the  records you have to hand.

Guilty as charged

One of my favourite bloggers is James Tanner of Genealogy's Star. James, a prolific blogger with a legal background, writes thoughtful and challenging posts.

Yesterday James posted a list "My top ten worst genealogy practices targeted in 2012" in which he outlined  common crimes committed by the genealogists with whom he comes in contact. James intends to write further on these misdemeanours in 2012. This post must have hit a raw nerve with some genealogists as I read a few tweets yesterday that obliquely referred to the post. I made a flippant comment in a tweet "Guilty as charged - but only on one". 


It appears that another genealogist was also offended by the tone of James' post as today James responded with, "Mean Spirited"  a lengthy defence of his previous post. James made it difficult for the reader of this second post to reread and view the first post comment he cited as he did not provide links back to them.  I don't have a problem with what James' wrote - he is entitled to publish his opinion as are the people who have commented on his post.

I agreed with 9 out of  10 of the crimes cited by James, however I am guilty of his number 3 crime: "People who copy information directly from an online compiled family tree without sources."

I wrote this lengthy comment on his original post:

"James, I am guilty of your number three crime - People who copy information directly from an online compiled family tree without sources.

I take unsourced information, add it to my tree and publish it. 

I expect that those who visit my website and find unsourced information (and I use that term loosely) will do as I do and seek out both print and online resources to verify the facts (?) I have published. 

My family site is dynamic, a work in progress, not the end point of a piece of academic research. 

I am not guilty of your crime number 4 - People who think (or claim) that their genealogy is done. My genealogy is not done - my website is my workhorse not a show pony. I choose to let people view my work in progress.

By publishing my far from perfect work I have made contact with a number of cousins who have been able to verify some of the unsourced facts I have published. On occasion people have contacted me to correct what I had published. 

If I had waited until everything in my tree was cited correctly according to genealogical proof standards my tree would be very spindly and I would have missed out on reaping the benefits that the digital age offers genealogists who use online tools to make connections.

My message to those who borrow from my tree is "Caveat emptor"."

Why Cite?

I was on the international judging panel when Joyce Valenza's school library website was awarded the IASL Concord School Library Web Page Award  for 2000/2001. Since that time I have been following Joyce through various online media and have learnt many things to apply to my work, everyday life and lately to genealogy.

In a a blog post today Joyce shared this video "Produced by the University of Texas at San Antonio Libraries, the film features a college student sharing his soul on an information ethical therapist’s couch and a visit from an uncited journalist."

The ideas expressed in this video relate to genealogy just as much as they do to education.

I am a name collector

I just posted a long comment on Elyse's genealogy blog in response to her post today Online Family Trees: A Genealogist’s Dream or Nightmare?

Elyse compared name collectors who have large online trees with relationships and facts that are not always verified with real genealogists who  search "vital, census, military, land, court, church, and every other record" to source the relationships and facts in their trees.

Here is what I said:

"I am a name collector....I use the names collected from online family trees, newspaper articles and websites such as Facebook as a means to find distant cousins.

Being armed with a name and date (especially for the Smiths and Browns) provides me with clues with which to search "vital, census, military, land, court, church, and every other record" I can find to verify the relationships of those names to my family.

I spent yesterday doing just that. As I added the names to my tree I concurrently searched Ancestry, FindMyPast, Australian Government BDM indexes, NSW State Archives,Familysearch,The Ryerson Index, Australian Cemetery Indexes,Trove and The Sydney Morning Herald Online to try to prove whether these people belonged in my tree.

By the end of the day I had identified one whole line of Brydon/Bryden descendants of my convict ancestor, Elizabeth Phipps. I uploaded this to my online family website http://www.geniaus.net so that other "name gatherers" might use what I have gathered as clues to solve their genealogical jigsaws.

For me genealogy/family history is not a serious academic pursuit but a hobby/passion/obsession about which I am very serious. By posting names for which I don't have evidentiary documentation  of relationships/existence on my website I have made worthwhile connections and entered into dialogue with cousins from all over. Some of these people have generously shared photos and documents relating to the names I have posted thus making the presence of those names in my tree legitimate.

Name gathering can be a means to an end for genealogists.