Without starting with some inaccurate online information, I wouldn't have eventually tracked down my whole direct line, then flown to Salem County for ten days' research where I stood at my ancestors' graves and saw their handwriting on wills and deeds. My argument with Ancestry.com is that I renewed my subscription last summer and still can't get on; and my protesting e-mails are answered by automated responses that don't make sense. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:54 AM Subject: Re: Accuracy of Online Information > Hi there, > I've forwarded this on from another list's genealogist -- very good advice > and reminders for us all. Joan > > > Accuracy of Online Genealogy Information > > > > > > > > I've copied and pasted an article from the January 12, 2003, issue of > > Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter. It concerns the reliability of > > online genealogical data. I consider it one of the most important and basic > > articles on genealogy that I have ever read. > > > > > > > > The following article is from Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter and is > > copyright 2003 by Richard W. Eastman. It is republished here with the > > permission of the author. Information about the newsletter is available at > > http://www.RootsForum.com. > > > > - Accuracy of Online Genealogy Information > > This week a newsletter reader asked if I might comment on a series of > > messages posted to a mailing list server that attacked Ancestry.com. I read > > through the mish-mash of statements and found a number of comments painting > > Ancestry.com in a negative light. The various messages all claimed that you > > couldn't trust the information found on the company's Web site, and that > > you still had to verify the information elsewhere. The general theme was > > that this particular online site was not a good place to find genealogy > > information. > > > > My favorite line was, "Searching the records at NARA is more reliable and > > still necessary." > > > > Duh! Where have these people been? Of course you still have to verify > > information elsewhere. You always do that with every piece of genealogy > > information you find, whether it is from an online site or from a published > > book or other printed genealogy publication. That is a basic in Genealogy > > 101: "Always check your sources." > > > > Anyone who thinks that this is an issue only with Ancestry.com or only with > > another online genealogy database is misguided. The same issue applies to > > Ancestry.com, RootsWeb.com, Genealogy.com, FamilySearch.org, > > GenCircles.com, OneGreatFamily.com, books you find at the library, messages > > receive in e-mail, and even this weekly newsletter. It is true of all > > secondary sources and even occasionally of primary sources. Whatever you > > read, check it out! > > I consider Ancestry.com to be valuable. I consider the other online > > resources I mentioned to be valuable. I also consider genealogy books to be > > valuable. I also solicit e-mail assistance from other genealogists. But I > > never, ever believe anything I read until I can verify the claims. > > > > I also hear people moaning and groaning about the quality of genealogy > > information to be found online. There are claims that much of the online > > genealogy data is worthless. These comments seem to insinuate that people > > shouldn't place information online until they have verified it. > > > > You know what? I don't care. I want to see the claimed information anyway. > > Yes, I even want to read the inaccurate information. When I am looking for > > the unknown parents of one of my "end of the line" ancestors, I want to see > > every possible clue, accurate or not. If someone else thinks he or she > > knows the parents of Washington Harvey Eastman, I want to know what that > > person is thinking. No, I don't care if their information is accurate or > > not because I am going to check it out anyway. If possible, I'll contact > > the person who created the information and ask, "Where did you find that?" > > I'll find out later if the information is accurate or not when I verify it > > in primary records. All I want is ideas and hints of possibilities. > > > > In fact, this is all you ever find online or in print: ideas and hints of > > possibilities. Remember that nothing is ever a "fact" until you personally > > prove it. > > > > I will also point out that genealogy information found online today is no > > different from information published in books before the invention of the > > Web. Walk into any major genealogy library and grab a bunch of books > > written 50, 75 or 100 years ago. You will find some books that were > > carefully researched, while others were not. I can show you some old > > genealogy books that are true fairy tales. In short, the same is true of > > the data you find today on the World Wide Web. The only things different > > about the Web are speed and convenience: it is easier and faster to publish > > accurate and inaccurate information alike. However, the percentage of > > inaccurate information doesn't seem to have changed much in the past 100 > > years. > > > > In summary, the e-mail messages attacking one particular online database > > missed the point. This is not an issue with Ancestry.com, nor is it an > > issue with RootsWeb.com, Genealogy.com, FamilySearch.org, GenCircles.com, > > OneGreatFamily.com, or the information found on some distant cousin's > > personal home page. It is an issue dealing with conducting genealogy > > searches. > > > > Quoting from Ancestry.com's own site at > > http://www.gale.ancestry.com/learn/learning/gedcoms.htm: "You verify and > > corroborate every single detail. Never assume that someone else did all the > > research and did it correctly. Even if their research is documented with > > sources and citations, recheck every detail before you accept it as fact." > > > > > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >