In a message dated 10/28/2002 7:38:50 AM Central Standard Time, darrellm@sprynet.com writes: > it is > *not* ethical for anyone to quote primary sources > as if that person had seen them, when that person > Actually, if credit is given to the original researcher, it is ethical to cite primary sources in order that anyone using a compiled history can CHECK those sources. One merely states that not all of the cited sources have been personally verified YET. Cite as "document name and source data, as provided by so-and-so" or "seen on website such-and-such." PROPER citation is ethical. It is the IMPROPER "as if that person had seen them" that is unethical. I am working on a group compiled history of a couple married in 1809 who had thirteen children. While I do some research, my primary function is as an editor for the many cousins who supply information. When conflicts arise, I coordinate efforts to resolve the conflict. I cross check and double check and verify the data. However, the compilation is the result of many people's YEARS of research, and covers thousands of individuals. I do not have the time or money or physical endurance nor remaining lifetime to double check all sources. While I have found a minimal number of transcription errors in Census data, page numbers, dates, and the like, all the sources I have verified have been essentially correct. The compilation will be published with the caveat above. ALL sources will be footnoted, and the footnotes which I have verified will be marked with a note. "Verified by editor (date)." Future genealogists in our family will have plenty of sources to verify and data to locate and work to do, as well as additions to make. This is a legacy project, preserving the oral knowledge of the living as well as documentable sources. Personally, I would rather receive a GEDCOM WITH sources cited than one without, even if the person sharing it with me never saw the original. This reduces my time and effort in verifying the data shared. Furthermore, if the information came from a letter from Great Aunt Minnie to Great Uncle Joseph written in 1901 and they are both dead and I will NEVER see the letter, it would be nice if people stated who has possession of the letter. Otherwise, I will be left with some unverifiable information that IS true, but I cannot prove it. And sometimes we are left trying to guess where the data is! Nothing annoys me more than a GEDCOM devoid of dates and places! If it's a common name, such as WILLIAMS or SMITH or JONES, it even loses much of its value as "a place to start." How the heck will I identify which "William Williams" I am supposed to check out? Many times what we share is NOT a completed work, but an ongoing work in progress. If a cousin in California shares a file that cites a source in a library in North Carolina, where I may never get to travel to see the source, but I then share it with a cousin who is going to North Carolina or is in that state, the second cousin can verify the source, send me a copy, etc. Frankly, I think if one has a document that is unavailable -- it is also wise to include a scanned copy or photocopy of it when one provides the data to anyone else. Example: any original marriage certificate passed down in your line from a courthouse which has burned, or an obit from an 1895 newspaper that has been passed down. Finally, when one cites a book, it would be VERY nice if one stated where the book was found! Some books are not widely available, so the name of the library/collection would be very nice! It isn't required in citation form reference books, but it's certainly considerate and most helpful. As to people borrowing research....if the sources are cited -- whether one has personally seen them or not -- someone else checking those sources will eventually discover the error. If sources are NOT cited, it is MORE likely to perpetuate the error. Just note that the sources were provided by someone else and have not been verified! And footnoting errors in Ancestry and the like is a viable solution. Happy researching all, and "Let's all play nice and be careful out there!"

Dear newcomers to these lists: All genealogists need to know about a useful tool in trying to locate your ancestors who were living in time for the 1850 census or prior censuses. This tool is located at all LDS family history centers and is on hundreds of microfiche. If you do not know whether there is an LDS FHC in your vicinity, check the lists on <A HREF="www.familysearch.org">www.familysearch.org</A> A link to the lists should be on the lower right--there are over 3,500 of them around the world. To learn about AIS (Accelerated Indexing System) on the microfiche, which I mentioned previously, go to the Search tab on the first screen of the familysearch.org On the left, click on Sorted by Title A listing beginning with the letter A should be immediately available Look for the second item entitled "Accelerated Index System" Read each link under that title and learn as much as you can. Then telephone your LDS center and ask the hours and days of opening. They are not open all the time, as they are staffed by volunteers--unpaid, that is. Make a list of all the surnames you want to search--and the places where you think they lived. Remember that in 1790 and earlier, the US was not very big. Kentucky had not yet been admitted to the Union, so it May be called Virginia. Some tax lists are included (very helpful) to make up for missing 1790 censuses. I would start with the Search which closely matches when I know my ancestor was living. For instance, if in 1850, my person were living in Ohio, I would look in the Search for 1850 for Ohio. Each Search is a different census year, or a different part of the country. This is why you need to read the instructions!!! Please know that this Index (AIS) is full of errors--misspellings (use your imagination), omissions, duplications, etc. Still, it can be a useful tool. Read the instructions carefully (maybe even print them out), and begin with one of the later Searches (census year). But do NOT overlook the 1850 and 1860 mortality schedules. Amazingly, I discovered two ancestors on the 1860 mortality schedule--gave their ages and what they died of--oh, yes, and where they were born. This was a lot more information that I had been given by previous genealogists of these two families!! Learn to use this tool. I think it may help you over some brick walls. All professionals use AIS when starting out with a new client. E.W.Wallace

Experienced genealogists know that most huge databases--including censuses--are full of errors. That goes especially with databases which are NOT documented, and even some that are only half-heartedly documented (such as the International Genealogical Index--where the wrong spouses are linked--father to daughter, for instance). Yes, one runs the risk of having all the WRONG information collected in a database. I volunteer at a large LDS family history center, and the wrong linkages, particularly in something like Ancestral File and now on Ancestry.com and other large databases, are a major complaint of SERIOUS researchers. Yes, one has to reconcile that these errors go with the hobby of genealogy. I understand that even the Mayflower lineages, which have been accepted so long, are now being reworked. However, I cannot speak with authority on this Mayflower matter, as my father's lineages are all Southern, and my mother's all immigrants!!! Perhaps the way to go: Don't get mad!!! Get even!!! Publish a corrected genealogy and point out the errors of others. For some examples of this, see some articles in THE VIRGINIA GENEALOGIST and other well-respected genealogical journals. Some newer authors begin their first paragraphs pointing out the errors of previous authors. All's fair in the publishing business, I think (except outright plagairism ). One correspondent is correct: Don't share. But then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, as some of your best clues are going to come from others, whose statements you will TRY to get them to document--or at least give you the source. Experienced genealogists just have to learn to take this in stride. However, try to get back to the originator and ask him/her to correct. E.W.Wallace

The lady who has my information is trying to correct it. It can be done because another one of my cousins was able to remove some things from her line. I am trying to find out how to do it and when I do I will post the information in case some one else needs it.It will come off of Ancestry. As far as submitting to the Mormon Church. Forget it. I was told by my genealogy friends that you can't trust their work. I looked in their records just to see if any thing had been submitted on my Williams line. the only thing that was found was a Civil War Pension which I could obtain at my state archives in Ms. I already had that. Nothing more was found on any of my lines. All of the research done was my work. I never intended for them to get their hand on it. I would gladly share with those kin and always look through my files when some one asks me do I have a certain person. That is the only way I would share. In this instance though the person who got it was told I was not kin to her line but in her haste and anxiety to get it on line she posted information that she should have never used. It is so sad that some folks want to be first that they have to do this. They disregard the fact that some one spent many long house and money on this work.

But I believe the originator (poster) of the information, right or wrong, can delete the postem. Carl. >Hello Williams List, > >One way to try to correct any misinformation out there if people are >unwilling/unable to delete/correct misinformation is that some of those >trees have the capability to add "postems". This might be the place to add >in a disclaimer that the info is wrong and to contact you at your email >address if there are any questions so you can correct the interested party. >The postems can not be deleted because they require a password that you >enter when you add the info. At least it's a start if ancestry, rootsweb and >LDS are unwilling/unable to delete the multiple trees that are incorrect >copies > >Mary in CA

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:11:33 -0600 Bobbye Davis <bobbye@microsped.com> wrote: > I asked my cousin who is a Certified > Genealogist about copy write. This her reply > > . Your research is copyright already when you > write it and sign your name as researcher. > > As that stupid person said, all records are > public. Public records, yes, > but not when you dig them out with hours of > your time invested and somebody > comes along and uses your exact wording for > their own write up. Hi, Bobby: There are two completely separate issues here. First, that you dug out the details investing hours of time (and perhaps incurring expenses). As unfair as it might sound, this gives you precisely *zero* rights to your conclusions. Ah, but you said, "uses your exact wording for their own write up". Now, that is a horse of a different color. Not only is it illegal, but it does not even require you signing your name to create your ownership of your own (creative) words. The moment you create them, they are yours. > Besides, you are the one with the > documentation. If any questions arise, > you are the one to give the answers. What > answers is he going to give if asked? He must > refer the question to you as the author of the > published piece. He cannot answer with > authority if he did not do the research. Why > would anyone want to put themselves in that > position? Now, this is an excellent point. In my opinion, someone who makes broad claims and cannot back them up will quickly lose credibility with those people who actually care about the truth. > The legal term for > this type of "stealing" is Plagiarism. > (copying, lifting, stealing, illegal > use, breach of copyright, bootlegging). Yes, as long as one is careful about what is, and is not, permitted. If I write, "Derrick Dutton SEVERANCE drove his horse-drawn wagon through a snow storm that crippled much of Vermont, to bring the doctor to the birth of Derrick Allen DUTTON, 5 January 1905" and someone takes my *exact* words as his own, then that *IS* plagiarism. If someone writes, based solely on my words, "Derrick DUTTON was born during a snowstorm 5 January 1905" then that is *NOT*. Whether it makes me happy is, in all honesty, irrelevant; it is the law (in the U.S.A.), and it protects us all from being told that we can't say anything unless we find it first. P.S. Derrick Allen DUTTON was in fact born in a Vermont snow storm in 1905. He married Ruth Alice WILLIAMS. They are my grandparents. Darrell darrellm@sprynet.com

Oh, Carolyn the same thing happened to me, but I did find out from the Mormon Church that the correct information can be submitted as well. They will not, or do not remove the information that is in error, but by having the correct information there it gives future researchers the option of discovering on their own which is correct. It is infuriating and because of that I have also stopped sharing except with a couple in my group who I know won't share the information all over the Internet. Once the Mormon Church gets the information it is automatically made available everywhere. I think that is a good thing if it is marked only as possible names or dates and noted as such because at least then it would give you a clue to go on and then you can either qualify the information or disregard it and move on to the next clue. But when information is put up as FACT without the proof it is very misleading. No shortcuts in life - Bottom line - everyone needs to confirm all their information. When I find information on someone in my line I immediately try to confirm that information instead of assuming it is correct. -----Original Message----- From: Carolyn Trim [mailto:ctrim@pdq.net] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:56 AM To: WILLIAMS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [WILLIAMS] Let me explain my Williams I too had a similar situation. A group of us for years had been digging into the line on my husband's side. We had names but no proof how each generation was linked to each other. There were several scenarios floating around. A new inquiry from a young woman came on the scene --who was doing a genealogy project for "school". She gleaned from each contact and then wondrously found the missing links. Oh the works were published all right -- she was a member of the Mormon church -- she turned the data in as truth for her family. They are now published as what some consider as the truth for ever. I contacted members of the church and representatives of the church at an LDS research center. No one could help. To make matters worse, the same wrong information was given to the companies that publish and sell. It is out there on cd after cd and in the vast Internet for every. My regret is that for generations to come, decedents will be led down the wrong path. We think finally we have sorted out the ordeal, and it is not like published. This experience soured me so. Our family research group had limited the sharing but some twit made a rosy story anyway declared to her church as the truth. Carolyn Williams ==== WILLIAMS Mailing List ==== List web page: http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/WILLIAMS.htm Your WILLIAMS listowner - Carol C-H <cch@netdoor.com> http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:55:32 -0600 Carolyn Trim <ctrim@pdq.net> wrote: > [snip] > My regret is that for generations to come, > decendants will be led down the wrong path. We > think finally we have sorted out the ordeal, > and it is not like published. This experience > soured me so. > [snip] > > Carolyn Williams > Hi, Carolyn: Sloppy (or fraudulent) genealogy has been around as long as there has been genealogy. It can be found in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, it can be found in the Gilgamesh Epic, it can be found in the records of the Daughters of the American Revolution (although the latter, at least, are making an attempt to clean up their act). It is not a new thing invented by the Internet.... This does not bother me at all. I take the position that the best antidote for bad genealogy is not *hiding* the good genealogy; it is *publishing* the good genealogy. Use the best tools and standards available, and GET THE GOOD STUFF OUT THERE. Give some credit to those people who want to know the truth (whether today or in the future); they will not be impressed by name after name, date after date, place after place, with no supporting documentation, no proof, no evidence of careful research. It is the well-documented and carefully presented material that will be seen as a gold mine, and given credit. Those who don't care will *always* be able to find junk that fits their own pet theories, or their desire to "fill in one more blank". Rather than be soured, continue to do the best job that *you* can, and be content. Maybe you'll live a bit longer that way, perhaps even long enough to see the junk discredited [grin]. But vindication is not the most important thing -- as sweet as it might be. My opinion. Darrell darrellm@sprynet.com

Having read the previous comments on unauthorized use, I have a general question that someone might be able to assist with. When I find family connections on the web, I usually contact the author and try to set up a dialog with them. If I am not able to reach them, I usually just use the data as a guide and try to find sources to back up the information. Recently I discovered a family connection (not Williams line) that was beautifully documented and took the family back to the 11th century. I have tried to contact the author, but his email address is no longer correct. >From the amount of information presented, I assume this was an older person. Any suggestions on how to find the source or possible heirs to this research? I did download, but kept the gedcom file separate from my family file, so that I don't lay claim to something I didn't do. I have been able to verify some of the data from independent sources, but don't andt to "steal" his work. Lynda

I asked my cousin who is a Certified Genealogist about copy write. This her reply . Your research is copyright already when you write it and sign your name as researcher. As that stupid person said, all records are public. Public records, yes, but not when you dig them out with hours of your time invested and somebody comes along and uses your exact wording for their own write up. Besides, you are the one with the documentation. If any questions arise, you are the one to give the answers. What answers is he going to give if asked? He must refer the question to you as the author of the published piece. He cannot answer with authority if he did not do the research. Why would anyone want to put themselves in that position? The legal term for this type of "stealing" is Plagiarism. (copying, lifting, stealing, illegal use, breach of copyright, bootlegging) .

I run accross a site that had copied from another,,,,,,,,, The lady that they had copied from had put post it's at every place where they had copied. I thought that was neat. I too did that very thing. Hopefully no one will use my info with the wrong family. I am still searching for the children of Abraham Fletcher Williams locations. I have their names and approximate birth years but can only find one so far as late as 1930. I know that A.F. Williams and father (myggg)Wilson C. Williams was in Sumter Co. Fl. in 1880. Apparently Wilson died before 1900 but no location of burial has been found.

I guess my suggestion to you would be for you to post the Correct information stating what is not proven yet. That way someone could see that the other tree info is different and then they could do the research to see which they believe. I can imagine how you feel. Maybe the person that listed it just wasn't thinking? Would it be possible to write or call Ancestry.....give them the correct info? Anita

Sorry guys, I called them "footnotes" instead of Postems but still the same thing (works like a footnote) and this has successfully worked for me and the data in question was removed by the person in error, finally. Lynda

I'd appreciate any help available on the following family.Sorry, I don't have more to go on... Thank you,Nancy Hernandez 1. Patrick1 Williams He married Eliza Hogan, daughter of William Hogan and Narcissa Goza. She was born Abt. 1809 in Georgia.

I can certainly sympathize with people who find the wrong information put on sites on the Internet. I have found myself being born "around 1920," when I was born a considerable number of years later than that. I have also found myself married to someone I have never been married to. I do think that people who put that information out there should be sure of the facts. All this makes trying to find reliable information on the Internet impossible. I am still searching for information on James Williams born around 1805 in Virginia and listed in the Russell County, KY 1860 census as being 55 with his wife Elizabeth. He married Elizabeth Glover in Pulaski, Kentucky, February 21, 1829. Alene

I too had a similar situation. A group of us for years had been digging into the line on my husband's side. We had names but no proof how each generation was linked to each other. There were several scenarios floating around. A new inquiry from a young woman came on the scene --who was doing a genealogy project for "school". She gleaned from each contact and then wondrously found the missing links. Oh the works were published all right -- she was a member of the Mormon church -- she turned the data in as truth for her family. They are now published as what some consider as the truth for ever. I contacted members of the church and representatives of the church at an LDS research center. No one could help. To make matters worse, the same wrong information was given to the companies that publish and sell. It is out there on cd after cd and in the vast Internet for every. My regret is that for generations to come, decedents will be led down the wrong path. We think finally we have sorted out the ordeal, and it is not like published. This experience soured me so. Our family research group had limited the sharing but some twit made a rosy story anyway declared to her church as the truth. Carolyn Williams

Hi: I know it puzzles a few, confuses a few more, and angers some of those, but at least in the U.S.A. it is a matter of settled law that *nobody* under *any* circumstances can claim ownership of facts. If I spend thousands of dollars and countless hours researching the date and place of a person named John SMITH's birth, and finally prove it, and it "gets out" in any way, then any person who wishes to do so is legally entitled to state that John SMITH was born on that date at that place. Period. This is not only the way it is, it is the way it *ought* to be. How would you like to find that, because someone else had discovered who your grandfather was before you did, that you were not permitted to claim him? Think about it ... What is emphatically *not* ethical is for anyone to state that John SMITH was born on that date at that place and to claim or imply that the research was original with that person, if it is not; it is *not* ethical for anyone to quote primary sources as if that person had seen them, when that person has not; and it is not only unethical but illegal to quote an original researcher's exact words describing the reasoning behind a conclusion without giving full credit to that original researcher. I have had a tremendous amount of information passed down to me by those now gone. I hope to pass on the results of my own research in the same way. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, both in our ancestry and in the study of that ancestry. Credit should be given where credit is due. But nobody owns genealogy. Darrell darrellm@sprynet.com descendant of Nathaniel Williams of Mass. Valley Forge patriot http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy/

Hello Williams List, One way to try to correct any misinformation out there if people are unwilling/unable to delete/correct misinformation is that some of those trees have the capability to add "postems". This might be the place to add in a disclaimer that the info is wrong and to contact you at your email address if there are any questions so you can correct the interested party. The postems can not be deleted because they require a password that you enter when you add the info. At least it's a start if ancestry, rootsweb and LDS are unwilling/unable to delete the multiple trees that are incorrect copies Mary in CA *********** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn Trim" <ctrim@pdq.net> To: <WILLIAMS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:55 AM Subject: RE: [WILLIAMS] Let me explain my Williams > I too had a similar situation. A group of us for years had been digging > into the line on my husband's side. We had names but no proof how each > generation was linked to each other. There were several scenarios floating > around. A new inquiry from a young woman came on the scene --who was doing a > genealogy project for "school". She gleaned from each contact and then > wondrously found the missing links. Oh the works were published all > right -- she was a member of the Mormon church -- she turned the data in as > truth for her family. They are now published as what some consider as the > truth for ever. I contacted members of the church and representatives of > the church at an LDS research center. No one could help. To make matters > worse, the same wrong information was given to the companies that publish > and sell. It is out there on cd after cd and in the vast Internet for > every. > > My regret is that for generations to come, decedents will be led down the > wrong path. We think finally we have sorted out the ordeal, and it is not > like published. This experience soured me so. Our family research group had > limited the sharing but some twit made a rosy story anyway declared to her > church as the truth. > > Carolyn Williams > > > > ==== WILLIAMS Mailing List ==== > List web page: http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/WILLIAMS.htm > Your WILLIAMS listowner - Carol C-H <cch@netdoor.com> http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ >

Hi all: I have also found that sharing is great if your share partner as some scruples, BUT if they don't and they won't remove the data you object to, one can use the "footnote" feature on the Ancestry/WFT in explaining that your particular line is not that line or that you have done the research, etc. etc. Whatever you want to get across to the unsuspecting researcher can be added in this area. I hope this helps some of you, Lynda

A while back I discovered an error I had made on some research. I had shared this research with a "cousin". Trouble is, that error has now been published on various sites, including the LDS site. I was able to get a whole line removed from Ancestry, but I understand you now have to jump through hoops to get them to remove anything. The Family Tree Maker site still contains the faulty information. At least my name was not used on any of the sites, so I can't be blamed ;) Another cousin had published private information on their site and it took several letters to their ISP to get it removed. It has made us real hesitant to share our information, which is truly sad since that is what Genealogy is supposed to be about. Robin At 10:21 PM 10/27/02 -0600, Bobbye Davis wrote: >Hello list. >I have discovered that a certain person posted my work on my Williams family >to ancestry. The trouble is the way it is connected it isn't the family I >belong to. >They have my works on my Smith family connected to my Williams. My Quimby >Family to one I am not connected too also. >One of the ladies says she has removed me from her line but low and behold >several days later I am still there. Then the man who has my grand father on >his page connected to first wife which is on his line did not have >permission to use my work. He gave credit to some one who maintained a web >site for a county I was working in at one time . He really got nasty about >me asking him to remove my grand father since he has children still living. >I don't mind helping any one but I would like to keep my work private until >I finish proving and finding all of the info on the two generations I am >working on now. >I do not like for people to take information and connect lines who do not >connect. What do we have to do to stop this theft. Sue them? > > > >==== WILLIAMS Mailing List ==== >List web page: http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/lists/WILLIAMS.htm >Your WILLIAMS listowner - Carol C-H <cch@netdoor.com> http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/ > > >