Hi Paul, Excellent comment and I do fully agree! Btw, that's where DNA genealogy comes along as the gold standard in genealogy. Proofing or falsifying your family research through DNA and overcoming some dead ends is so fulfilling. It doesn't mean we throw away our research as for me personally my father who adopted me is my family as well (reminds me to enter his part of the family on WT as well). WT is right now one of the best places to combine paper trail (traditional) and DNA genealogy in their database with useful reports of proven by DNA relationships. I know many genealogists stay away from DNA as it's the big unknown, too complicated to learn something new, afraid of finding out that 20 or more years of research was wasted. But whatever you researched is never wasted, we're all interested in the correct sources proofing our work, right? That includes pointing out why some other leads/sources are incorrect (just take a look at any random Ancestry tree and you will find obvious errors). So see DNA as a powerful tool (actually the most powerful) that adds to your research and not substracts from it. Andreas > On 24 Jul 2015, at 21:05, Paul J. Lareau via <[email protected]> wrote: > > I manually entered a couple of entries to try it out, after reading > their goals and site information, I definitely got the feeling that they > strongly discourage anyone from adding more than a handful of very > carefully documented entries by any one person with that person taking > very proactive position regarding the people they enter. We oldtimers > have always considered the concept of an "absolutely true" and > non-conflicting database as some kind of "gold standard", and the wiki > model does seem appropriate to try to construct it. Several decades ago, > there was also feeling that the LDS model could be used. But the > existing "comparison of conflicting information" method that most > systems use today is probably more useful in the long run. Perhaps > I'm a bit too cynical. but I can't help but believe that the only person > who comes close to "absolute genealogical truth" is the mother, and even > when she is not trying to intentionally hide anything, even she has to > guess every so often! > > Paul J. Lareau > > >> On 7/24/2015 2:42 AM, Bill Webster via wrote: >> Have any readers here uploaded a BK gedcom to WikiTree? >> >> I'd be interested in your opinion of WikiTree and your experience of uploading and editing that upload - and how much information you decided to upload, or not. >> >> I have been to a couple of lectures recently where very experienced genealogists have uploaded just names, dates of bdms, and places of those bdms. >> >> Some have uploaded just their direct lines, no cousins etc. Others with strong interests in DNA have supplied more names, I think. >> >> Bill >> >> >> Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message