Most of
the information contained in FamilySearch.org's Family Tree program can
be edited or, in some cases, deleted by any registered user. This includes most
of the personal information about individuals and the relationships between
individuals. The ability to edit or delete information is not limited to the
people who contributed the information. In Family Tree's predecessor
program, New.FamilySearch.org, everyone "owned"
the information they personally contributed and no one else could edit the
submitted information. If the information was inaccurate or inappropriate, the
only response was to add more, hopefully, accurate information. But all the
information, both accurate and inaccurate, was preserved at the same level and
availability.
Family
Tree changes this scenario dramatically. Any registered user can edit (or where
allowed) delete any information. Not just the information they personally
contributed.
Whenever
I present this function of the program in any class, there are always the same
two questions. These are:
- If anyone can change the
information then why doesn't the whole database devolve into chaos or fill
up with garbage? (Integrity of the database)
- Do you mean to say that anyone can
change my family information? (Ownership of the data)
Usually,
my explanations of these two issues does not satisfy those asking the question.
The issue of the ownership of genealogical data is extremely ingrained in the
psyche of the average genealogist. I find the attitude of ownership to be
almost pervasive. Researchers have a tendency to think of the information they
find to be "their" data. It is relatively easy to point out that all
of the descendants "own" their own ancestry, so no one ancestor is
owned by any one of the descendants. Although this simple explanation is true,
an attitude of possession is hard to overcome. Well, whether or not you or
anyone else believes they own their genealogical data, Family Tree still allows
anyone to make changes. So this issue has more to do with participation in the
program at all, rather than affecting the manner in which the information is
edited.
The
remaining question concerning the integrity of the data is a little more
difficult to address. It is true that allowing anyone to edit data in a
database would intuitively seem to move the data towards chaos. But in fact, as
counter-intuitive as it may be, allowing everyone to edit the data raises the
overall reliability of the data. The reason this occurs is dictated by basic
human nature. There are two factors; some people are driven to correct the
world around them and most people could care less. In other words, it a lot
more likely that people possessing the correct information about the people in
Family Tree will be motivated to edit and update the data than those who do not
care about either genealogy or Family Tree. This is the premise that makes the
wiki-based programs work where registered users can make changes. Family Tree is
not strictly a wiki but it does have wiki-like characteristics.
In fact
this is the case. Counter intuitively; the information in a wiki (or a
wiki-like) program becomes more reliable rather than less reliable. But this
brings up another common question:
What
happens if I change the information and then someone changes it back and then I
change it again and so forth?
Although
this might happen, Family Tree has several layers of features that make this
type of disagreement (commonly called a “revert war”) highly unlikely. First of
all, anyone can “watch” any ancestor in Family Tree. Watching an ancestor
initiates a process where the program notifies the user of any changes to the
watched individual. Secondly, and more importantly, the program allows for
communication between users through email. Obviously, if there is a difference
in the data offered for any individual, the users can communicate and come to
an understanding concerning the “correct” data to be entered. Finally, abuses
of the program can be reported to FamilySearch. If the users carefully rely on
sources, then the possibility of any disagreements will be minimized. If in the
end, there is a genuine disagreement about a certain item, then the family will
have to “agree to disagree” and get on with additional research to resolve the
controversy.
Unfortunately,
many of the duplications and errors in New.FamilySearch.org have been inherited
by Family Tree. It may take some time to work through these errors, but
ultimately, through the editing mechanism of the Family Tree program all of
those errors can be corrected and information mutually acceptable to the family
can be maintained.
Another
comment I get at this point in teaching classes concerns the need to correct
the duplications and errors in the program. The answer is yes, we are the ones who must start the work of correcting the information in Family Tree. We all hope we have more than one person per family to do the work.
All my work from early December was rolled back when the so to speak, non-destructive merges" in new.FamilySearch.org were, err... unmerged. After the first roll-back, FamilySearch support told me to go ahead and "fix it" again. I hadn't finished that work when the second series of roll-backs kicked in. Since then, there was a third roll-back.
ReplyDeleteOh ... and as an aside. One of my gg~~~uncles was a "Randall Presson [Preston]." [PID LHK9-CGB] His given name, Randall, was his mother's maiden name; she was Priscilla Randall. Her profile was indeed the third roll back noted above.
Earlier this week on FamilyTree, some kind soul changed his given name from "Randall" to "Ramdall." (As though it is not painful enough to read about her "restored" seven sets of parents.)