Stephen Hopkins, "Mayflower" Passenger - Stephen Hopkins

Hey Jon,

I agree that changes, especially ones that are locked-in, should be based on solid sources of evidence and NOT on some family tree. If that particular family tree has solid sources to support their listing, then that solid source should be stated and added/uploaded to the Geni.com profile to support said changes.

We are constantly hearing complaints of listings not having any sources, yet, much of what is on Geni.com does not have any solid source listed. Church records, land records, immigration records, historical documents, books of genealogical records, wills and death certificates, marriage and divorce records, etc., are important to validate a person's existence at a certain place and time, and also their connection to other persons, including family members. These sources also create viable potential verification of a person, by providing evidence of circumstance and logical estimation. Some person or organization's family tree record is not enough to believe, but only provides possibility, without any solid source to support the information's validity.

Thank you for your comments.

Erica, I know the great work you are doing, and I'm not pointing to you in my comments about profiles and sources. However, there are many profilles on Geni.com that do not have sources attached, and sometimes those profiles are ones we are comaring or adding to our own family tree lines, so it is important to be assured they are correct. You and I have discovered some of those and changed or deleted them. I know, from creating my own family tree in Ancestry.com, that I often have input names to create the family tree line or branch and only put sources on one person and assumed I would remember that everyone else was supported by the same, but, now I look back and do not find anything there to remember why I thought the names were valid. With that in mind, when I find profiles and family lines on Geni.com changed, but not all are backed with a source, and not just a family tree from somewhere else, I find I do not trust it. I have input family connections on Geni.com which were taken from older internet records from genealogy researchers, only to have them denied by Geni and taken off. I think everyone just needs to make more effort to add good sources in each profile.

David and Erica,
Thank-you for responding. I didn't mean any criticism of you, Erica. I was just disappointed to see the sources seemed to consist entirely of family trees and articles. The trees and the articles may well have had annotations listing primary sources, I didn't do, nor had the time to do, more than a prima facie examination, so I didn't even try to examine such footnotes as the family trees and articles may have had.

I will try to remember to do a more thorough examination of the articles and trees before I venture to complain next time.

I guess I'm getting spoiled in my old age and am unconciously expecting everything to be handed to me and immediately obvious. Although it would be convenient, I realise, on second thought, how difficult it would be to do and the time it would take to have the annotations and sources in front of the trees and articles.

I can see that what you've presented took quite a lot of time as it is. I apologize for going off half-cocked like I did.

Erica, I for one really appreciate your knowledge of trustworthy sources and thew work you do here. Jon and David, I agree in principle that primary sources (legitimate ones, as Erica points out) are the standard we should use for reliability (haven't read all the way through the "Genealogical Standards of Proof" document, but have it for reference).

As a practical matter, I started my work on Ancestry.com, and hadn't even heard of Geni.com for about a year after that. I copied a GEDCOM file over to try out geni and see if it was of any value. I like it a lot, but then comes the question, am I going to copy over every source document and re-do all the work for thousands of profiles? No, I'm satisfied with the documentation if no one else is asking - and if you have a question, don't assume we are all irresponsible idiots, PLEASE ASK. That's the nature of collaboration. You make me sharper, and I help you know more, and we're both better off. If we interact and you conclude after that that I'm a button-clicking idiot, so be it, you at least gave me a chance by contacting me and letting me prove or disprove it. That's why Geni has those links for us to contact each other.

I know some people lose interest in genealogy after a while, or dig as far as they can and get stuck, or their interest comes in fits and starts. For my part, I look to see the last time if a user was on when I want to contact them, and when someone contacts me, I try to give them the respect of a reply [not claiming perfection there, just intent], even if the reply is just, "sorry, don't know that".

I have had a handful of folks ask to collaborate, but generally prefer to interact directly with them on specific cases, as I really don't have the time to keep up with busy bees who might be making changes I never had a chance to think about. If I manage a profile, I assume I'm responsible to some degree; if the sole manager, then solely responsible.

Hope that helps.