Note: Please take time to read the extensive comments to this post. I am also writing another post to answer the issues raised in the comments.
Here is a long comment I recently received by email.
At one point I hoped to clean up my pedigree in FamilySearch and retain all useful information--even potentially useful information.
For instance, in merging duplicates, I would copy to the preferred record all worthwhile and unique information from the less-preferred record--including details, sources, notes, discussions, memories, relationships, and ordinances--so that no valid (or even potentially valid) information would be lost.
But crowd-editing has prevailed and I am really too late at this point to save the information. I fear that MUCH VALUABLE information has already been lost through merges, deletes, detaches, and other editing. And this by people who have very little understanding about what they are doing.
There are many who just want a name to take to the temple, including young people. They often do not check for duplicates and may take the name of a duplicate person for whom there is very little information, when the ordinances have already been completed and there is much more information for the same person, but under another FS ID.
While the addition or attaching of pictures and stories gets some degree of scrutiny before becoming part of FamilySearch, there is no scrutiny that I know of for merging, deleting, and detaching. While a providing a "reason" for a change is suggested, I often see that no meaningful reason has been given.
And I don't know how one might recover the information lost through such merges, deletes, and detaches.
Is there any way that the bar might be raised for and scrutiny applied to actions resulting in loss of information (or loss of the attachment of information to a person), and thus minimize loss and damage by the inexperienced and uninformed?
In one case that seems especially bad ( LLC9-JYG), I believe that a person was morphed completely into another person through a long series of uninformed removals of information, one piece at a time, with frequent uninformed replacements by other quite different information. These changes include baptism, christening, father relationship, mother relationship, residences, and sources for vital events..Is there really some fundamental issue with the way the FamilySearch.org Family Tree works that is losing "MUCH VALUABLE information?" Can a person on the Family Tree "morph" into another person?
Let's see if I can answer these questions and the rest of the questions from this comment. Here is a screenshot of the person mentioned by ID number in the comment.
James Mellor, Jr. LLC9-JYG is apparently the son of James Mellor, Sr. KWJW-2HG. To become familiar with these entries, I through the sources listed for both and the entire Change list for both. From the comment above, it would seem that I should have found that the information concerning James Jr. to be substantially inaccurate. However, almost all the sources about this individual who was born in England are from his time in the United States. It also appears that both James Jr. and his father designated James Sr. (These designations do not seem to appear in the records and have been added by the contributors) came to America as a family. However, the sources attached to James Sr. with a few exceptions, also pertain to his time in the United States. My first question is where are the sources about this family from England? By the way, I find this to be a common issue with early immigrants. Sources easily obtainable from US sources are attached but little information is provided about their origins in Europe.
Despite the designations, is James Jr. the son of James Sr? The main, and seemingly only record attached is an 1851 English and Wales Census record leading us to believe that these to people are related. I am sure that other documentary evidence such as a cited diary and biographies etc. may add further support for the relationship, but it is interesting that all of the other English records are missing. There is a copy of the 1841 English census attached to James Sr. but that was taken before James Jr.'s birth.
Now, I can see the origin of the comments cited above. There is some dispute over the parents and place of birth of James Jr. When doing research in England, it is very important to specifically identify a location associated with an event in a person's life. It may seem surprising, but James Mellor (with spelling variations) is not a particularly uncommon name. However, there seems to be no particular issue with the identity of James Sr. here in the United States. Also, both the 1841 and 1851 English and Wales Census records attached as sources agree on James Jr. being part of the family. What is missing is a birth record for James Jr. But he might not have been baptized in the Church of England and there may be no baptismal/christening record. Other missing records include the English Mission records although the immigration records, including the Church records, confirm the identity of the family.
I note that there are 4 people watching these individuals. This means that there is a substantial interest in maintaining the accuracy of the records and maintain scrutiny. It is the nature of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree that there will be additions, changes, and the need for corrections. The Family Tree was specifically designed to allow user changes and contributions. I see these two individuals in transition. They both need substantial additional research especially in England, but I fail to see that anything in the Changes made to them is out of the ordinary of what I encounter repeatedly and correct repeatedly. The best way to proceed is to enlist the help of all of those who are watching this record and find others in the family who are willing to watch and help maintain the entries.
I suggest that it would be appropriate to provide more specific information about the family in England and then respond in a positive way to those who try to make changes with non-existent, contradictory, or inaccurate information. That is the purpose for watching the entries. In my experience, the number of changes declines dramatically over time except for very prominent people.
If any pertinent information has been lost through merges or otherwise, it is always a good idea to maintain a separate program containing all of the pertinent information that can then be restored to the individuals if lost through changes or merges. There are several programs that work well and synchronize entries with the Family Tree. See RootsMagic, Ancestral Quest, and Ancestry.com for examples. Failing to back up vital information always runs the risk of loss.
It is also a good idea to attach copies of specifically important records in the Memories section. These cannot be deleted or modified by anyone except the person who uploaded the information.
In summary, there is nothing dramatically wrong with the Family Tree program that needs to be fixed. Issues with the data or information in the program can be corrected, modified, or replaced if lost. Defending the integrity of the data in the Family Tree is the responsibility of those who enter and maintain the entries. There are already several major program innovations, such as watching the entries, that assist the users in maintaining the integrity of the entries.
There will always be those who negligently or ignorantly enter inaccurate information, but the Family Tree program provides a way to safeguard the information without creating another "supervisory" level of people who do not really know anything about your particular family members, ancestors or relatives.
Here are some links to some of the videos I have made for the Brigham Young University Family History Library YouTube Channel on this subject.











