I recently posted this on one of the Ancestry Boards- it expresses my feeling as to how online trees should be used for 'research'
"Donna- Bottom Line... IGNORE ALL ONLINE TREES-ALWAYS!
Search only for documents, use mailing lists, message boards, websites (other than online trees) etc. but Never, NEVER, pay attention to ANY online trees ANYWHERE.
You will hear people that proclaim that online trees provide 'hints' - and perhaps they do but most of those hints are as useless as those provided by that blasted shakey leaf and the time you spend verifying those hints could better be used doing actual research rather that following someone else's junkology."
http://rootdig.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-does-1880-census-provide-proof-of.html
"I use 'em," she whispered, peeking out from under the covers. As with any material consulted, the online trees contain errors and omission ... And then quickly ducked back under the covers.
ReplyDeleteSomething needs to be done but I can't see it happening any time soon. Most people acknowledge the problem, but there is no consensus on a solution. In the meantime, content providers are forging ahead with these unworkable, merged, single-source, collaborative trees. There are many alternatives, with obvious advantages, so why do they continue to adopt these simplistic models?
ReplyDeleteIt should not be a problem if a researcher has a best-fit, working hypothesis online. However, if that is not differentiated from other trees - by categorisation, narrative, and relationship to evidence - then it just means we're all p*ing in the same water.