Wikitree

[JohnR65]

Is anyone a member of the above site? It seems to be free and interesting but......

 

[Kate]

It does look interesting and I have added a few of my distant family. They do ask for sources which they claim ensures that it is correct.
I would be interested in other opinions.

 

[Pauline]

They do ask for sources which they claim ensures that it is correct.

That seems to me like flawed logic on their behalf. I can think of plenty examples in trees where perfectly good sources have been included, but for an incorrect baptism, marriage or burial etc. Of course there are researchers who try and guess dates and places, and never bother with sources, but many tree errors arise from an incorrect event being added.

 

[peter]

They do ask for sources which they claim ensures that it is correct.

That seems to me like flawed logic on their behalf. I can think of plenty examples in trees where perfectly good sources have been included, but for an incorrect baptism, marriage or burial etc. Of course there are researchers who try and guess dates and places, and never bother with sources, but many tree errors arise from an incorrect event being added.

I agree, many of the incorrect entries I come across at Ancestry have sources attached, sometimes 7 or more.

What really annoys me is when the sources are clearly contradictory, yet the tree owner seems not to have noticed!

 

[JohnR65]

It annoys me too and if it's an ancestor/relation of mine I usually message them.
As to Wikitree it seems to have millions of members and it's free.

 

[Kate]

As to contacting people, it seems largely a waste of time. Very few come back to me. (On here, even when Peter chases them up). Obviously they have other priorities or have changed their email, etc. I plan to use wikitree when I get around to it. My own tree has reached 6000 plus, which I never intended, so I if I add those to wikitree I can see where it takes me but also delve more into my immediate ancestors.

 

[peter]

I have heard mixed comments about Wikitree in the past, so I would recommend waiting for some past/existing users to contribute to this discussion before committing time or data to Wikitree.

 

[JohnR65]

In this case, Peter I agree with you.

 

[Kate]

In this case, Peter I agree with you.

I would genuinely like to know your opinions as I have added some people. My intention is to keep my own tree separately on Legacy and would be unlikely to add anything from wikitree.

 

[Kate]

I have read some negative reviews on a site which suggests that some administrators are not kind. I am beginning to have second thoughts! Can anyone recommend an alternative?

 

[peter]

My intention is to keep my own tree separately on Legacy

Always keep your tree on your own computer - family tree programs are far more flexible and more powerful than any online tree. (Though I should say that I know nothing about Legacy - it could be the exception.)

Can anyone recommend an alternative?

Ancestry is by far the best place to keep an online tree. I have several private trees, and a public tree attached to my DNA results which includes only my direct ancestors.

 

[JohnR65]

I agree Peter for direct DNA ancestors although I have larger trees on Ancestry and FMP for all my other ancestors which I keep private.

 

[Kate]

Sorry if this is a silly question, but what is the advantage of a public tree of direct ancestors linked to DNA? I have a large private tree which is linked. I thought that the more names available, the easier it would be to find connections when Ancestry looks for the common ancestor.
I have come to the conclusion that a tree which can be changed by others is not a good idea as it could lead to grumpy interchanges! I am all for collaboration and discussion but someone changing what I believe to be right could get frustrating!

 

[peter]

Sorry if this is a silly question, but what is the advantage of a public tree of direct ancestors linked to DNA? I have a large private tree which is linked. I thought that the more names available, the easier it would be to find connections when Ancestry looks for the common ancestor.
I have come to the conclusion that a tree which can be changed by others is not a good idea as it could lead to grumpy interchanges! I am all for collaboration and discussion but someone changing what I believe to be right could get frustrating!

When Ancestry search for Common Ancestors and ThruLines hints they look at ALL searchable trees, private or public, which is why I often get a Common Ancestors connection with someone who only has 3 or 4 people in their tree. I doubt it makes any difference to Ancestry whether you connect your complete tree to your DNA results or do what I have done. My focus is on making life easier for my cousins....

The disadvantage of connecting a private tree to your DNA results is that your cousins cannot see your tree. They may discover that you have this or that ancestral surname in your tree, but they won't be able to find where those ancestors came from except by trial-and-error, which can be tedious, and can give erratic results. Having limited time I tend to ignore people with private trees unless Ancestry has found a Common Ancestor - there are plenty of other matches to work with.

What your cousins really need to know is who your ancestors were and where they came from: attaching a direct ancestors-only public tree to your results achieves that. With any public tree there is a risk that people who are not cousins will copy the information, but if I take my own tree as an example, my direct ancestors tree is less than one-twentieth the size of my main tree, so that eliminates at least 95% of the copying that might otherwise have occurred.

What a public direct ancestors-only tree won't do is compromise the privacy of your extended family. Even though Ancestry don't show information for living people the ready availability of BMD indexes for England & Wales makes it easy for others to figure out the hidden names - I do this all the time with my DNA matches so that I can add them to my tree without asking them for the information.

 

[Kate]

Thanks, Peter, I understand that. I can add the direct ancestors and link that while giving access to the few people who I want to see the whole thing.

 

[Pauline]

I have come to the conclusion that a tree which can be changed by others is not a good idea as it could lead to grumpy interchanges! I am all for collaboration and discussion but someone changing what I believe to be right could get frustrating!

I think you need a different approach when it comes to collaborative trees, and for the serious researcher it’s probably best to look elsewhere for the primary place to put your tree online. Otherwise it will, as you say, get frustrating when other people come along and change things that you’ve taken great care to get right. And from my experience with FamilySearch trees (also collaborative), exchanges can get beyond grumpy!

However, there can be some merit in taking part in collaborative trees, and it can be a way of exploring possibilities and new branches. And, of course, you can actually correct those errors and myths which abound in online trees (including Wikitree) rather than just adding comments (as at Ancestry, for example). But it’s not for everyone.

 

[Kate]

Pauline, I shared information with a very nice lady via Lost Cousins and we were able to help each other. Years ago I received help from a few contacts on Genes Reunited, however we weren't changing each others trees, just sharing which seems better to me.

 

[peter]

you can actually correct those errors and myths

Which presumably means that the people who believe the myths can change your tree (for the worse)? If they can be bothered....

 

[Pauline]

however we weren't changing each others trees, just sharing which seems better to me.

It’s certainly better if it involves your main tree, which is why I said you need a different approach with collaborative trees, such as those at Wikitree and FamilySearch. And also why it’s not for everyone - I know plenty of people whose attitude (perfectly validly) is “what’s the point?”

 

[Pauline]

Which presumably means that the people who believe the myths can change your tree (for the worse)? If they can be bothered....

That highlights the need for a different approach with collaborative trees - you need to step back from the idea of it being ‘your’ tree. It may contain your research but isn’t really your tree. It can still be frustrating if people delete or alter your research, but while I can’t comment on how Wikitree works in such circumstances (not having tried it), FamilySearch does allow you to restore your original information and so on. It’s usually not gone for good.

Some people can be very persistent in their mistaken ideas, though, usually when they’ve found a titled family with the same surname elsewhere in England, and are unwilling to let go of their imagined link to these titled families.