Mike, >The Internet has been a wonderful tool for connecting family lines and >speeding up a process that once took years. I don't believe that you should >use it to replace scientific or genealogical proofing methods. Everything >that you read on the Internet must be treated as a secondary source at best >(e.g. scanned documents). The Internet does not take the place of you going >to a research library, a records facility, etc. and using your own >discernment. I fully agree. It is the reason that I often ask for primary sources from people who post ifnromation I am interested in. I can then check the source myself to verify the accuracy. I have found and corrected many mistakes that way (especially relating to transcription of Quaker dates: which month is the 4th month?) >I also do not believe that we should try and place any further limits on >what someone publishes on a Website. If there are corrections or additions >that you can provide, stating your reference sources . . . great. If the >Web page owner incorporates it, all the better. However, attempting to "do >something about it" would tend to do more harm than good. Remember, the >intent of most sites is not only to present a thoroughly documented body of >work, but also to stimulate thought and conversation (debate :) regarding >hypothesis (speculations based on factual circumstance). I agree with this too. The web is a wonderful communications medium. Free speech and expression of opinion never had a better partner. >I agree that speculation, with the appearance of fact is not good. Since >The Homesite was referenced in one of the posts directly, I took a look, and >although I believe that the material there was clearly premised as to what >was documented as fact and what was presented as speculation, I have removed >the access to the data from the GeneWeb page >(http://www.web-ster.com/miked.family.htm). When I get some time, I will >clean up the database and clearly mark any questionable or unacceptably >documented material. I applaud you for this. While the degree of speculation in some lines may be clear to you, it is sometimes not clear to others who may copy it. Software ought to have a clear deliniation between "proven" and "speculative" connections. Unfortunately, it typically doesn't. Either you enter a name as the father (or spouse or whatever) or you don't. Then the automatic report generators take over and there is no way to assure the caveats are known or printed or included in HTML output. In my own Family Tree Maker file, I have text describing "possible" relationships in notes fields but in order to make the speculative relationship clear I have to enter the individuals as part fo the database. For that reason I won't give my file to others. They may never look in the notes field. Doug