Public or private?
Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.
Tämä viestiketju on "uinuva" —viimeisin viesti on vanhempi kuin 90 päivää. Ryhmä "virkoaa", kun lähetät vastauksen.
The "do not share" side cites issues of privacy, and the work that was required to collect the information.
The "share" side promotes circulating the memory of ancestors as broadly as possible, and being openly cooperative with fellow share-and-share-alike researchers.
Am I missing any major arguments for either position? I'm on the "share" side myself. I've been disappointed a few times when encountering the other side of the fence, but for the most part I've understood.
As for "do not share, well, I think there are two different aspects to "privacy"; one being the security issue, that having all that info readily available to anyone is a potential risk for identity thefts and whatnot. The other being that it's simply personal private information; does one want the entire world to know their family history? It's our story, it's personal, why should strangers be able to come "in to" our lives that way? And the like.
I think it's kind of a toss-up, there's no real winner either way—both have solid reasons.
I do understand that names and dates cannot be copyrighted and I don't mind sharing that kind of information. I just think that no one else should have a right to my stories about my own parents and children.
An example is a third cousin who was fostered out and took the name of his foster parents, both given and surname. He googled his father and found my tree and I was able to put him in touch with his immediate family. I never would have even knows of his existence if his father's name was not online in my family tree.
#4 Taphophile13 - Ancestry.com never gives out information on people who are still alive but I agree that contemporary family history should be kept strictly private and that information should never be posted online. I am writing (trying to write) a warts-and-all family history which I am doing using HTML to utilise links, and that will be copied onto CDs to give to family members. Most of the information is in the public domain anyway. All the archived Australian newspapers are being scanned and are coming online now and wills were always available for a fee, as are BMD certificates although, unless you can prove a family relationship, they need to be at least 50 years old. Anyone can access the Australian Armed Forces archives and for a fee can get a very comprehensive copy of the records.
I've enjoyed looking up information on say ancestry going back into the 1800s if I'm stuck. The problem I have is that no one verifies they take the information and post it. I've got documents tracing one ancestor back and when I looked him up on ancestry, he has three different fathers. Some have documents. I find the interesting ones that have a copy of the will but the son is never mentioned that the father is attached too. He was living when his "father" died so don't people think that this is odd?
Having said that, I make sure my recent family history isn't 'up for grabs' to just anyabody through various means. I write under my initials - even my last name is just an initial - so anybody entering my name in a search engine will not find my blog. My parents are referred to as 'my father' and 'my mother'. Names of living persons are not used at all, simpy designated as 'my uncle R.' or 'my aunt S.' Only if you search for ancestors further back will you find my blog and if you do that, you're usually at the very least interested in genealogy, and not looking for some scam.
The other thing I am really careful about is pictures. I do not post pictures online (anywhere) of living people. You never know where they end up.
>6 homeschoolmom:, when I started using Ancestry.ca I was "young and naive" in the hobby; I presumed majority consensus on a fact reflected something well-established. All it means is that one person thought it, and a dozen people copied without considering or looking into it, lol. Many places in my tree feature information unique compared to others with that same person (sometimes an entirely different name, leading to an entirely different branch), since I seem to be the only one who sought out the actual facts.
>7 Samantha_kathy:, I agree about pictures of the living. I've a wonderful third-generation group photo of twelve siblings, but only the six who have passed away have had their images extracted and made available publically.
Distribution of faulty genealogies has been going on for a couple centuries at least. Many people have wanted to associate themselves with famous people or royalty and there have been unscrupulous people willing to provide the pedigrees for a fee.
For example in the late 19th and early 20th centuries there were people who paid significant sums to establish their connection to the Anneke Jans Bogardus lines in an effort to lay futile claims to land and financial legacies that were supposed to skip six generations and follow the almost untraceable (or at least very hard to document) female lines.
If you do a Google Book search on Anneke Jans you will find county and state histories with people who make their association known. In most cases this connection is a nearly complete fabrication.
A relative of mine was taken in by one of these frauds in the 1920s. She and her husband paid several thousand dollars to "prove" a genealogy to make them eligible for such a claim. They went to Europe and a "cannibal island" near Borneo they were supposed to inherit. When they came back, they settled in another state, perhaps to minimize those who knew them before they were subjects of national news.
Books with fraudulent genealogies have been published in small and large editions. If these lines are taken at face value, without actual corroboration, they become part of the computer trees we find online and in genealogical libraries (print and even microfilm).
The most respected "bible" of early settlers to South Australia has some aspects of my family wrong but as the BMD records and archived newspapers are made available then it is becoming easier to check the actual source material: BMD records, census records and electoral rolls.
Unfortunately, the Australian Government, in its wisdom, destroyed all census records until very recently.
I privatized many aspects of my tree because of certain relatives. I have no problem with this, especially considering I have nothing to gain if I don't respect their privacy. You should pester this relative to censor some aspects. If you don't think he will or feel he's trying to be a jerk, just muddy the waters by making up stories... or is that too bitter?
I collaborate with others when we are working on the same trouble spot. One gets to know who sources well...etc. I also mark the ancestors I'm working on or am uncertain about with a profile image (usually a caution "sign" or a work-in-progress "note") hoping that others won't copy what could be wrong information. I assist others, mostly DNA matches, in getting their tree back to where we have the connection.
>13 homeschoolmom: That's what I'm hoping for with one spot in my tree, that someone will come along that has that family bible...
>14 DMAndersen: I'm not sure I understand why some would be angry about it, if the information on living people isn't public.
relatives of Hollywood "Stars", for instance. It's those people who aren't famous who puzzle me, when they choose to be anonymous. When family members live in countries all over the world ... it would at least be interesting to know if they live in my own state or country ... or on some distant planet.
You begin to wonder if being anonymous merely means some people "think" they are important, or perhaps they are just trying to hide something.