Posts
The FamilySearch.org Family Tree is a wiki-based, open, collaborative family tree. By virtue of its design any registered user can add family history information, correct, or change existing information, add source citations, and variety of memories. Much of the controversy about the Family Tree is based on the issue of changes made to existing information. Over time, the Family Tree program has become a valuable, relatively easy to use, and functional venue for genealogical data but problems arise when the information is entered by users with a variety of genealogical experience levels and also with some of the ways the program handles changes to existing information.
One reason for employing a wiki-based format for the Family Tree was to provide an open access way of entering new entries and correcting existing entries. However, from the very beginning, one major issue was the issue of ownership of genealogical information and claims that “other users” were changing the information on “my family tree.” It has been pointed out continually by FamilySearch representatives and by others, such as me, that no one “owns” any part of the Family Tree. It is universally available to all the registered users.
Over the past few years, I have written about the issue of changes on the Family Tree many times, but the issue has now been raised to a new level of concern and it is once again necessary to write about the new threats to the integrity of the Family Tree. It is apparent that there are people out there who are using some sophisticated and intentional ways of making substantial changes to the Family Tree for the purpose of undermining and preventing its use for the ordinance work of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These intentional changes are directed at the accuracy and integrity of the data and unfortunately the changes are camouflaged by exchanging information with other records. I am not going to describe the actual process.
At this point, I need to provide a detailed analysis of the different types of changes that can and do occur in the Family Tree.
Of course, the first major changes occur when someone adds a person to the Family Tree. The issues here are whether the person is correctly added and/or if the information about the person added is correct or complete. Because the Family Tree is an open access, collaborative website, the person who entered the incorrect or incomplete information may come back and make corrections or do the research to complete the entry. Of course, the correction or completion could also be done by some other user. This is how the Family Tree is supposed to work. In addition, because the Family Tree is intended to be source-supported, any entries or changes should be accompanied by a citation to a source where the information came from.
If people add information without doing the basic research to support the addition, they can expect that someone else will come along and add more information or correct the information already added. The Family Tree also has a feature that allows all the users the opportunity of following the people they enter. Following a person, turns on a feature where FamilySearch will notify the user once a week about any changes made to any person they are following. I will come back to the need to follow individuals many times in this analysis.
Adding information to the Family Tree implies that the person entering the information has made an opinion about the validity of the added information. In every instance, this information should be supported by a valid historical record that contains information consistent with the person’s conclusion. As I previously noted, because the Family Tree is intended to be source-supported, any entries or changes should be accompanied by a citation to a source where the information came from.
The need for supporting source citations brings up the next issue level, adding and changing source supported information in the Family Tree without citing a source. This is endemic and is the main source of concern by those who carefully document every change or addition they make to the Family Tree. I extensively wrote about this issue in several of my blog posts. Here is a partial list of some links.
And many more.
Despite some who deny that GEDCOM files can be uploaded to the Family Tree, FamilySearch has allowed the data from GEDCOM files to be added with the results that a huge number of inaccurate or duplicative entries can be inserted into the Family Tree causing a great deal of work for those whose families turn out to be the targets. Additional duplicate information can sometimes be added through FamilySearch Partner Websites.
The next level of concern involves intentional, destructive changes and additions. This is sometimes motivated by sincere beliefs but now we are seeing systematic attacks that are hard to detect and if continued will seriously undermine the integrity and usefulness of the Family Tree. This vandalism is not something that can be ignored. Correcting all these types of changes, when unsupported by valid source citations, are a tremendous time waster for those who are trying to do supported, valid work on the Family Tree.
In Part Two of this post, I will continue my writing about the issues but will begin an analysis of the ways these unsupported and unwanted changes can be reduced or possibly eliminated.
Once again James you have raised another most significant concern about Family Tree. You are spot on how easily the original vision of Family Tree is so easily subverted. For those of us who have extensively researched a family name and made the effort to source and cite the correct information in the Family Tree only to have it essentially wiped out by someone else who haphazardly decides to change it all, it is frustrating and discouraging to say the least. The added burden then to monitor and watch for these changes in order to rapidly restore the correct information saps the energy and drive of most researchers who have had to restore again and again the accurate information. And if that researcher becomes weary in making these corrections or passes on, the tree information can be falsely altered and remain so for years to come before some else tracks down the research and starts the cycle all over again. Thank you for raising the issue of intentional corruption of the data. For some time now some of us have been concerned how easy it would be for vandals to intentionally corrupt the tree information and disrupt this entire work. The ultimate concern of all of this is that the tree data may become less and less accurate over time. Awareness of these issues should continue and bright minds are needed to address how to resolve these high priority issues.
ReplyDeleteSpot on with your comments. I have forwarded them to those who are supposed to be listening.
DeleteOne thing that Wikipedia has, that the FamilySearch.org Family Tree could use, is the ability to easily "undo" any post. If you look at any page in Wikipedia, there is a "view history" tab at the top of the page. Clicking on that tab takes you to the complete history of revisions to that page, allowing you to view each change made, and giving you the ability to undo any one. Being able to easily undo a change makes it less appealing for a bad actor to vandalize a page. Also, having a "recent changes" page that covers the entire wiki highlights multiple changes made by a single person.
ReplyDeleteFamilySearch has a change history for each person and a "Restore" option also. But apparently it isn't much of deterrence.
ReplyDelete