Identify, Search, Find, Review, Evaluate, Incorporate, Source, and Share

The basic tasks of the genealogist have not changed. Initially, we need to identify our research objectives. We must then search for and find the records containing information about our ancestors. When we find new information, we must review the newly found information and evaluate it for consistency, accuracy, and applicability. Subsequently, we need to incorporate the information into our records by providing complete and helpful citations to where the information was obtained. Then make sure to share the information with other family members. The sharing part is simple assuming the entries are included with source citations in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. All the technological advances in the world are not going to change our need to perform these basic tasks. Surprisingly, some of these tasks become more difficult rather than easier with advancing technology.

Some approaches presented about the FamilySearch.org Family Tree emphasize superficial examination of its contents thereby assuming that somehow the work of genealogical research can be avoided or even eliminated. What is even more alarming is the fact that as a result of this superficial approach to the Family Tree, some users believe that the content of the Family Tree has been evaluated and verified by FamilySearch or whomever. For example, I was recently contacted through the BYU Family History Library by someone asking about a supposed ancestor from the early 1500s. The inquiry did not include any information about the inquirer's connection to this remote ancestor but made the assumption of a relationship.

As a result of my examination of the ancestor, I determined rather quickly that the ancestor in question had no sources attached but had gone through about 118 user changes; some of which were quite recent. The changes included adding and removing family members, adjusting dates of birth and death and other changes all without providing even one reference to where the information was coming from. This kind of activity moves beyond the issue of assuming the information in the Family Tree is correct. Unfortunately, this kind of meaningless activity is quite common among the individuals in the Family Tree dating back into this dim past.

I have difficulty imagining why the people who are making changes to this person are so intent on wasting their time with unsourced and therefore, unsupported, information. From the entries, you would think that there was some sort of controversy over the information about this ancient individual, but a rather simple search using Google shows a very consistent number of websites that have extensive information about this same person including a Wikipedia article that contains references to the original sources beginning in 1630. In a few seconds, I found the original book online on the Archive.org website.

I am writing about this person using rather vague references for the reason that these observations really apply to a very large number of the individuals and families listed in the Family Tree that appear without any substantiating sources.

It is apparent that the people who are concerned about these rather obscure and ancient entries in the Family Tree have no concept of the basic steps necessary to obtain valid information.

Personally, I have way too much to research before I get back to any of these late Medieval era folks.