Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FamilySearch

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Re: FamilySearch

    Originally posted by BL Samuel View Post
    You can access FamilySearch from Reunion 10.

    I for one, do not and will not put my research on FamilySearch in their very public database. Why? ANYONE may access your tree, alter and change the data. If you are a careful, diligent researcher, having someone else re-write your work makes no sense. This as I understand it, may be done without your knowledge. You may be notified that changes have been made, then it will be up to you to make corrections!!!

    In a conversation with someone at FS, I was told that such changing of one's data is not at unusual!!
    Bonnie, I'm quite surprised by what you point out here about anyone being able to CHANGE someone else's data. Merely ACCESSING your data is one thing but being able to CHANGE it means it is no longer your data. No doubt the reason for allowing this to take place is that FS considers your data to belong to them when you upload it to their site. That is why I will never upload MY data to FS or any other site that allows such an unfair practice.

    The fact that anyone can ACCESS MY data and BENEFIT from it, perhaps even help them selves to it and incorporate it into THEIR data as if it belonged to them is NOT the issue.

    FS has apparently turned on its head the policy of its predecessor where it was next to impossible to get anything CHANGED even if it was totally inaccurate or blatantly false.

    When I discovered numerous errors with respect to some of my ancestors (whom I personally knew) were on the predecessor site I was told that to get it corrected (CHANGED) I would have to contact the person who posted the incorrect data. Of course, when I did make the contacts, those who posted it usually said, 'Well actually your so-called error is not in my direct line but only in some appended data so it doesn't matter to me. Go fix it yourself.'

    In other words it appears to me that the people behind FS (and it's predecessor) are totally irresponsible. They appear to be unwilling to do anything to maintain accurate data. Allowing anyone to make changes to data I posted is not a solution. It is no better than making changes impossible. They apparently follow the same pattern of many beginning genealogists and accept anything that suits their purposes regardless of whether it is true or false.
    John McGee Leggett, Jr.
    Late 2014 MacMini, MacOS Mojave 10.14.3, Reunion 12, Safari 12.0.3
    Leggett Booth McGee King Coulter Morton Ashley Douglas Ranard Maners

    Comment


      #17
      Re: FamilySearch

      Originally posted by John M. Leggett View Post
      Bonnie, I'm quite surprised by what you point out here about anyone being able to CHANGE someone else's data. Merely ACCESSING your data is one thing but being able to CHANGE it means it is no longer your data. No doubt the reason for allowing this to take place is that FS considers your data to belong to them when you upload it to their site. That is why I will never upload MY data to FS or any other site that allows such an unfair practice.

      The fact that anyone can ACCESS MY data and BENEFIT from it, perhaps even help them selves to it and incorporate it into THEIR data as if it belonged to them is NOT the issue..
      I agree, Jim. As to their new system, yes, any tree posted on FS is considered theirs! As to aiding researchers looking for info, most trees already posted before this new phase, were rather like ancestry.com public trees...copied from another and not sourced accurately or at all! Considering the enormously helpful contribution made by LDS in years of photographing and digitalizing the world's historical records, FS policies on trees does not square!

      Someone looking for info often finds reference to another's research on any of many websites. If the contact the researcher, most are willing to answer questions. I do. But given the masses of non-documented and badly built trees now on these sights....we who do our very best to be accurate need to be guarded in publication on the web.
      Bonnie Samuel
      Research: Samuel, Gillan, Roper, McClure, Samuell, Windfuhr, Windgassen in NC, KY, IL, KS, Ireland, Germany.

      Comment


        #18
        Re: FamilySearch

        Originally posted by BL Samuel View Post
        I agree, Jim. As to their new system, yes, any tree posted on FS is considered theirs! As to aiding researchers looking for info, most trees already posted before this new phase, were rather like ancestry.com public trees...copied from another and not sourced accurately or at all! Considering the enormously helpful contribution made by LDS in years of photographing and digitalizing the world's historical records, FS policies on trees does not square!

        Someone looking for info often finds reference to another's research on any of many websites. If the contact the researcher, most are willing to answer questions. I do. But given the masses of non-documented and badly built trees now on these sights....we who do our very best to be accurate need to be guarded in publication on the web.
        I'm a long time (since card program) reunion user and have been researching for many years. I don't understand why anyone would care if others want to use data on a common family member. I have been cooperating with a lady in North Carolina who has a treasure trove of data on my Fathers side of my family and she is very thorough with her documentation. We both have our tree on Ancestry.com as public trees and no one can alter our data except us (but they can and are welcome to, copy pertinent data where it fits in their tree.
        This is a way of perpetuating the data I have collected and verified over the years so others may benefit from my research (Or Not) as the case may be.
        Am I wrong in assuming no changes are made to my tree unless I do it?
        Delbert Curlin
        Reunion 10.0.6 OS X 10.9.2 iphone 3GS
        Searching Curlin, White, McClish,Buckner

        Comment


          #19
          Re: FamilySearch

          Am I wrong in assuming no changes are made to my tree unless I do it?
          Delbert, I believe you are right as far as public trees on Ancestry, however nothing prevents another from extracting your tree in part or whole, altering as to fit their own scenario of family lines, maybe using your name as source, and publishing it. In fact, this is exactly what I have experienced.

          Sharing your research with others, collaborating, even aiding a new and serious researcher is a wonderful idea and helpful to all concerned. I often share info with others searching the same lines and have benefited too......and without making my tree public!

          By the way, you might check your tree settings on Ancestry. I don't know if public trees have similar settings to private, but settings can be set to allow or not allow editing by a guest to one's tree when it is private.
          Last edited by Frank; 16 April 2014, 10:20 AM.
          Bonnie Samuel
          Research: Samuel, Gillan, Roper, McClure, Samuell, Windfuhr, Windgassen in NC, KY, IL, KS, Ireland, Germany.

          Comment


            #20
            Re: FamilySearch

            Originally posted by BL Samuel View Post
            ......By the way, you might check your tree settings on Ancestry. I don't know if public trees have similar settings to private, but settings can be set to allow or not allow editing by a guest to one's tree when it is private.
            Just checked. Unless you invite someone to share your tree, it can only be edited by you. If you share, the persons that you invite to share can edit also. No one else can edit.

            By the way, to my way of thinking, most of the data that we accumulate and record is either public record or from published media or from a relative relating information passed from an earlier generation or ....... Do you get my idea? Almost none of it is invented or originated by me.

            Therefore, I don't "own" the data and, in most cases, the source of the data also doesn't "own" the data. Thus, I don't buy into any notions of ownership. Simple as that.

            Another thought, touched upon by Delbert, is that in some manner the contributions I have made to connect ancestors will live on in Ancestry or its competitors even if my specific family file no longer exists. I find comfort in that thought.
            Bob White, Mac Nut Since 1985, Reunion Nut Since 1991
            Jenanyan, Barnes, White, Duncan, Dunning, Luce, Hedge and more
            iMac/MacBookAir M1 - iPhonePro/iPadPro - Reunion13 & RT

            Comment


              #21
              Re: FamilySearch

              Originally posted by Bob White View Post
              ...Therefore, I don't "own" the data and, in most cases, the source of the data also doesn't "own" the data. Thus, I don't buy into any notions of ownership. Simple as that.
              OK I’m prodded to jump into this discussion at this point. <grin>

              Although the items of data may well be public record, etc, I believe it is the skill set gleaned by an experienced researcher that enables him/her to make intuitive associations of unconnected pieces of data that gives the researcher entitlement (ownership) here. Thus while the individual items may not be “owned” by the researcher, it is the body of work created by the researcher, including his conclusions and associations, that can be considered as “owned”.

              This is no different than for non-fiction authors who can copyright their biographical story developed from facts in the public domain. Or scientific researchers who can patent an invention based on individual components previously developed/invented by others.
              Last edited by ByronSpoon; 16 April 2014, 02:55 PM.
              Byron Spoon

              Comment


                #22
                Re: FamilySearch

                Goodness, Bob, You are making me sound like a mean old lady!

                1. Settings on Ancestry for a private tree: you can set to have a guest edit or ONLY view.
                2. I have over the years shared and cooperated with many researchers and historical/genealogical groups and also provided my research for their files and databases. I do believe strongly in doing so, advocating for proper research methods and integrity as well. I do NOT isolate my work, but share it with family and other researchers who value and understand genealogical standards, including novices who are learning.
                3. What I do not do is throw my research out publicly willy-nilly. In the early days of online research, I did publish my tree and resources as it was then (many years ago) only to find it re-published in a much varied rendition with my name used as the source! I confronted this individual and he blatantly said he changed it to suit his desire to show a connection to another family (unrelated) of the same name.....! And ....that info is still floating around as a valid tree.
                4. As you likely know, even private trees on Ancestry come up in searches and an individual can contact private tree owners to inquire. I have had such inquiries and do answer questions.

                I hope that clarifies my position. I most definitely believe in sharing.
                Bonnie Samuel
                Research: Samuel, Gillan, Roper, McClure, Samuell, Windfuhr, Windgassen in NC, KY, IL, KS, Ireland, Germany.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Re: FamilySearch

                  Didn't mean to start a range war. Just clarifying that I don't consider putting my tree on ancestry as public, which as I understand it means people can see and copy as they see fit, helps or hinders any researcher who truly wants to get it right. I try to put source data that justifies my entries (not always successful) but I can assume certain things based on known facts. This is how I found that my great-grandmother and great grandfather were cousins even though names had been misspelled on various census records.

                  Thanks ya'll - I'll probably continue for another six months or so before my health and eyesight make it impossible to see even my large screen. I'll be 81 next month so I'll print out what I have and pass it on to family to do with what they might Anyway I've had fun and made a lot of new friends doing this.

                  Keep searching - Who knows what won't be found if you quit.
                  Delbert Curlin
                  Reunion 10.0.6 OS X 10.9.2 iphone 3GS
                  Searching Curlin, White, McClish,Buckner

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Re: FamilySearch

                    Originally posted by ByronSpoon View Post
                    Thus while the individual items may not be “owned” by the researcher, it is the body of work created by the researcher, including his conclusions and associations, that can be considered as “owned”.
                    For those of a philosophical bent, this is John Locke's Labour Theory of Ownership (of land) being applied to intellectual property. I think Byron is right, but personally I still feel I have a duty to share such property, and in contrast to land, I don't lose the enjoyment of it when I give it away. Of course, the sharing doesn't have to include trees at Ancestry, with all their drawbacks already outlined in this thread.
                    Last edited by Michael Talibard; 17 April 2014, 02:38 AM.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Re: FamilySearch

                      There have been several cases in the United States, even up to the Supreme Court, about the ownership of data. The courts have been pretty clear that it is not copyrightable.

                      Hard work alone does not create intellectual property; creativity and originality do. A narrative history of your family or the presentation of your genealogy in an entirely new way may stand, but I doubt a gedcom, ahnentafel, or any traditional form of family tree presentation that consists of compiled data could be defended in a court in a claim of copyright.

                      This is a good thing, because Ancestry cannot prevent you from using the data they have spent millions indexing. They license access to their database, but have no legal standing to prevent you or charge you a license fee to reproduce anything that I have ever seen there.

                      This will explain the concept better than I can:



                      David (not a lawyer, not giving legal advice).
                      Gilbert - Fulcher - Hackney - Harvey - Holmes - Hall
                      in Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and beyond.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Re: FamilySearch

                        Originally posted by BL Samuel View Post
                        Goodness, Bob, You are making me sound like a mean old lady!.........
                        Not my intention. I was simply stating my personal opinion --- about data.

                        By the way, I also keep my tree on Ancestry in the private mode. I don't mind sharing data but, at the same time, I am careful. If I get a contact, generally, I will exchange several emails (or Ancestry messages) to get a feel for the contact's methods and seriousness. But my purpose in doing this is for a different reason than discussed here. It is that oftentimes the data includes living relatives....I do not want to be the reason for any grief related to ID theft, etc...

                        Actually, I think Byron and I are pretty much on the same page. e.g. If I create a book based on the research that I have assembled, I quite definitely own that book. If I create a chart, I own that and give credit to Leister for the tool that I used to create it.

                        Without meaning to, it appears that I sparked an interesting discussion. I like those because we all learn from them. (Examples are Gilbert's and Michael's references.)
                        Bob White, Mac Nut Since 1985, Reunion Nut Since 1991
                        Jenanyan, Barnes, White, Duncan, Dunning, Luce, Hedge and more
                        iMac/MacBookAir M1 - iPhonePro/iPadPro - Reunion13 & RT

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X