> On 20/06/2016 1:12 AM, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > > > > I agree that many novices quickly advance to the stage where they can > > recognize the difference between good and dreadful sources, but I have > > also encountered too many who still can't tell the difference after > > years of "experience." There are those who never figure out that you have to be willing to question everything, even published material. I have been hitting a brick wall trying to get someone to change a Find-a-Grave entry. I showed him the actual baptismal record, plus the memorial stone itself gives her an age in perfect agreement with the baptism, but his book from the 1800s says she is mother of a man who in actuality was her contemporary, so he has back-dated her birth by 23 years (though he kept the day and month of the baptism). I initially got him to change the birthdate but when someone else pointed out this would make her too young to be mother of the next generation, his solution was to moved it back again, then dig in his heals and argue that the baptismal record and the stone must both be in error. Meanwhile her husband is given a birthdate 50 years before his own supposed parents married, but again the marriage record must be wrong because otherwise it would break the connection. It is absolutely ludicrous, and worse yet, it has given rise to 4800 pedigrees on Ancestry, not a one of them with the right chronology (although this is a biased sample - those with the right chronology would break the link and hence the people in question wouldn't even be in those pedigrees). As Stewart suggests, some people just don't get it and never will. On Sunday, June 19, 2016 at 5:04:51 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote: > A settlement by consensus is only worthwhile insofar as the group assent > is informed, reasoned and free of self-interest. This is why a project that does not limit contribution rights is bound to run into all the problems we have been talking about with the open access sites. taf