Edward Gilman - Sources?

Looks like information is coming from wills mostly.

See. https://books.google.com/books?id=EDFMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR8&dq=ed...

P. 145.

I've looked at all the old Gilman books and this tree contradicts what is printed in them (well, they contradict each other). Particularly Edward II son of Edward and Rose Rysse ALSO marrying a Rose Rysse when everything I have located has said his wife's name was unknown.

There seem to be several conflations in this GENI tree. I'd really like to see better sources.

Yes, many contradictions. When you've got a translation of a will, that would trump any online trees -- that's not the actual original source -- you'd have to go to the record office where it lives and read it for that -- but it's as close as you can get, otherwise.

So I'd go with that, and untangle from there.

The Gilman book I found this in isn't what I would call trustworthy in its speculations, no. BUT. It gives transcriptions of the original sources, which makes it valuable.

Obviously. That is my point. This current genealogy on here is less than worthless because it is demonstrably and palpably fallacious.

Or is that simply the nature of this cooperative sites, in which case I guess it is time I stopped spending my time on them...

There is simply no evidence for this. The first Edward has been duplicated.

This is what the documents support

Edward GILMAN-Rose RYSSE
Edward GILMAN - Mary _______
Edward GILMAN - Mary CLARKE

This first Edward has been duplicated. Edward husband of Mary CLARKE has been put as a son of Robert (which was proven false a long time ago.)

Go see Torrey, Clarence Almon. “English Origins of Edward Gilman.” American Genealogist 11 (1934) 137-138

Or the Gilman's in either

Davis, Walter Goodwin and Gary Boyd Roberts. Massachusetts and Maine Families in the Ancestry of Walter Goodwin Davis (1885-1966). 3 vols. 1996

--------. Ancestry of Abel Lunt, 1769-1806, of Newbury Massachusetts. 1963

All the relevant documents are cited and evaluated there.

The Rysse line given here I can find no evidence for whatsoever, it is seems to have been spun out of whole cloth.

Who is in charge of editing this profiles and do they care to try to make them accurate?

"Cooperative" does not mean "correct". When a profile merges, it gives more than one person the option to modify it. Some people do this with ill intent, but others unknowingly proliferate old wive's tales. It happens. Look at Wiki. It's a cooperative and many take what is on it for granted. Like here, there are moderators who try to keep the information as accurate as possible.

However, in a genealogy, each and every single little detail requires multiple sources before it can be considers true and factual. Unfortunately, many of the original sources themselves are often full of errors, mistakes, blanks, and outright myths.

If, however, you have a source for a fact, and that source is compiled from earlier sources, you MUST have those original sources before you can actually say the source you are using is correct.

I've seen false documents on many of the genealogy sites. There were more than one early historians who often made things up just to fill up a paper in order to get paid. This practice didn't stop until the current Genealogy system was set up around the mid 20th century. So all early documents are at face value - inherently questionable. It is only with multiple documents and sources that a single fact can be located.

And any time those facts are located, it is best to have a physical (or digital) copy of that source provided with the fact, not just cited. Cited sources vanish, or may not have existed in the first place.

If something doesn't have a source, or you can't provide multiple source documents with it, assume the discovered fact is unsupported. You can use it, add it, or what ever, but no one can prove it. And that's the whole point of genealogy. In a regulated genealogical history of a family or person's pedigree, unsupported facts, no matter how interesting, would be omitted. This often means entire branches of a family are lost....

What a person says is true, is irrelevant. Without multiple supporting facts, what a person says can not be trusted.

You best resource would be to discuss your concerns with a moderator/ curator such as Erica Isabel Howton.

Erica Howton

Geni has an advantage on other online sites that you CAN correct profiles and over time correct mistakes, add sources, and even images.

Geni is a work in progress. Jump in and help expand, refine, and correct the tree.

So what I am hearing is, time to stop wasting my time on these silly sites. Good to know.

It is a bit frustrating to be careful, accurate, and judicious only to click on your family true one day and see someone has merged your work with something demonstrably false. The problem is there will always be more lazy/unqualified users copying from other trees and incorrect assertions from antiquated research. The trend isn't towards accuracy sad to say.

I guess these projects are a textbook case of too many cooks...

Jason Straight - Jason there are many ways to ensure accuracy on Geni, but you have to stick around and ask questions and seek learning and assistance, not just point out fault.

1) Master Profiles are curated and their fields can be locked if they are fairly complete and documented
2) Attaching sources and linking the sources to "facts" in the data fields helps
3) Images help prevent bad merges
4) Having something in the Overview (About) and also in the Curator's Notes that disambiguates the profiles - biography and history relevant to the profile
5) Adding the profile to relevant projects also disambiguates the profile
6) Revisions tab allows a curator to "undo" recent erroneous merges. Revisions tab also helps Geni users "revert" to previous correct values for data fields and in general provides a trail of crumbs as to why a profile has changed over time

I have almost no problem in my family with bad merges. And when there are bad merges in profiles I curate or manage, I usually can address the issues quickly because of all the tools and methods that Geni provides.

So in summary, you are part of the solution, if you learn how to use the tool and if you correct errors, build complete and sourced profiles and get curators to make them into MPs and field lock them.

If you want your own tree, MyHeritage might be a good place for you. You will have more control, but less of the great features that a collaborative site like Geni provides because not only you, but other descendants are working on the tree.

But what is the incentive for me to do so?

It may be that for you yourself there are no real incentives to work on the collaborative World Tree, in which case, as Hatte Blejer says, using the MyHeritage site would be a better choice, since you would be able to control exactly what happens in your tree.

I myself keep my own records on my hard drive, using a genealogy software, and then I can keep things as clear as I like them, there.

For me, the incentives to working here on the geni World Tree are: 1) I enjoy the whole project. It won't ever achieve perfection, and indeed it can be pretty far away from that, but the whole idea of even trying to connect us all appeals to me greatly; 2) although not everybody here makes the same decisions I would, I enjoy the collaboration. I get a lot of information from other people, and I like the varied viewpoints; 3) in the cases of the really problematic tangles (I think here of Medieval Welsh Genealogy In General), we are able, collaboratively, to discuss the problems and where they come from, and then, when things get clearly hashed out, add in curators' note, or even lock fields, so that the ubiquitous problems in certain profiles actually don't get promulgated.

I'm sure other people have different reasons for working here; those are mine. In essence, I enjoy helping to clear things up.

But of course not everybody wants to spend their time doing that.

Of course I started with a desktop program tree & an ancestry.com subscription. I learned how to cite census records, keep 12 kids disambiguated, and confirm / reject family sources (bible records, family stories). In a few months I hit dead ends and realized I has learned nothing about the intriguing family story origins, so i started exploring on line trees (the old One World Tree from Ancestry.com) and FamilySearch records from the pedigree resource file.

My first adventure in collaboration was the parents of this great grandmother:

Lucinda Reed

There were contradictory parents given on various trees. I reached the owner of one tree - an "LDS qualified genealogist" - and also a sixth cousin through this line; she had done the original research behind the pedigree submission.

But the tree still wasn't working. Finally I searched records again and found probate records that showed the Lucinda Converse she thought married William Reed died as a child. So - she remains parentless until more info emerges.

In my search, which has now included a complete reading of the Converse book, there was only one person, working on one platform, who had reliable, detailed, accurate and sourced Converse trees. He's an original member of Geni.com and I owe him more thanks than I can ever repay; I do my best by curating his research and extending his tree "ends."

It does not seem there is a Gilman researcher on Geni to assist. You could become that person, if you choose. But you'd have to put some work into it.

What Erica, Anne, and Hatte said. The genealogy you discover is for YOUR personal information. Keep copies of the information you want in your records. You may not be able to find them again years from now.

(Notice, Hatte, I let yall talk more as I'll screw it all up when I say too much.It's part of why I don't say as much anymore, but only part. )

...

I still said too much, didn't I? :/