Why Ancestors In the Attic teaches bad genealogy
I've been watching the "Ancestors In The Attic" show for a few weeks now and while some of the research scenarios are quite touching, I am highly disappointed in the research methodology and tactics being taught.
For a couple of weeks now the online version of the International Genealogical Index (IGI) has been used to piece together 3/4/5 generations of a family. The IGI can be quite useful when the records referred to are extractions as opposed to patron submissions (although these have their value too), although frequently records are incorrectly transcribed. As with any index you need to consult the original records to check for errors and, often where there is a lot of people in one area or parish with the same surname, use other corroborating evidence to check that it is the same person or family (address, witnesses, occupations). Yet none of this is mentioned when genealogy expert Paul McGrath puts together entire family trees using this tool.
In addition he even seems to fail to understand what this database actually is as he tells the audience it is a database of births and marriages, when in fact it is a database of people having had LDS temple ordinances performed for them and as part of the identification process, christening NOT birth, marriage, burial NOT death events have been recorded (included extracted from original records around the world). It is not complete for any geographic location but is substantially complete for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Another thing that concerns me about this show is how the experts fly to the geographic location in question or visit an archive in person. Do none of these archives have a telephone? What about address or web site? And I guess none of these archives have had their records microfilmed by the LDS church so they aren't available through the 3000 or so family history centers worldwide.
I can't fathom some of the conclusions being offered on the show. This week Paul McGrath concluded that because two people had the same MacAdam surname, lived 13km apart, one generation apart, that they MUST be related. Not could be, may be, probably were, but ARE related. He told the woman in question that she was a descendant of this famous person when in fact there was no supporting evidence just a common surname and locale. Amazing!
Over the past 8 years or so of working in family history centers, I have seen lots of questionable research by patrons. And while it is commendable to try to encourage genealolgical research using the mass medium of TV we have to make sure that the research being performed as a result is held to the same standards of evidence as that used by the rest of the genealogical community. If we don't, these people might be claiming ancestors that don't actually belong to them. Save to: Digg | | Yahoo | Furl | Reddit
For a couple of weeks now the online version of the International Genealogical Index (IGI) has been used to piece together 3/4/5 generations of a family. The IGI can be quite useful when the records referred to are extractions as opposed to patron submissions (although these have their value too), although frequently records are incorrectly transcribed. As with any index you need to consult the original records to check for errors and, often where there is a lot of people in one area or parish with the same surname, use other corroborating evidence to check that it is the same person or family (address, witnesses, occupations). Yet none of this is mentioned when genealogy expert Paul McGrath puts together entire family trees using this tool.
In addition he even seems to fail to understand what this database actually is as he tells the audience it is a database of births and marriages, when in fact it is a database of people having had LDS temple ordinances performed for them and as part of the identification process, christening NOT birth, marriage, burial NOT death events have been recorded (included extracted from original records around the world). It is not complete for any geographic location but is substantially complete for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Another thing that concerns me about this show is how the experts fly to the geographic location in question or visit an archive in person. Do none of these archives have a telephone? What about address or web site? And I guess none of these archives have had their records microfilmed by the LDS church so they aren't available through the 3000 or so family history centers worldwide.
I can't fathom some of the conclusions being offered on the show. This week Paul McGrath concluded that because two people had the same MacAdam surname, lived 13km apart, one generation apart, that they MUST be related. Not could be, may be, probably were, but ARE related. He told the woman in question that she was a descendant of this famous person when in fact there was no supporting evidence just a common surname and locale. Amazing!
Over the past 8 years or so of working in family history centers, I have seen lots of questionable research by patrons. And while it is commendable to try to encourage genealolgical research using the mass medium of TV we have to make sure that the research being performed as a result is held to the same standards of evidence as that used by the rest of the genealogical community. If we don't, these people might be claiming ancestors that don't actually belong to them. Save to: Digg | | Yahoo | Furl | Reddit
2 Comments:
I have relatives telling me about the Ancestors in the Attic Series,which I have watched,wishfully thinking it would be nice to give them my family info that I have been digging and undigging into for the last 5yrs and finding my family history. The only question I need to have an answer to, (via the computer info hwy).Who or what are the legitimate online sites.There are now Genealogy sites popping up everywhere.Is there a site where people can get information regarding which sites are qualified and trusted for obtaining family histories before they decide to part with their money or even worse the fly-by-nights who will no doubt give the true and usually voluntary genealogist an uncalled for bad reputation.
Whoever sponsors the TV show would be doing a service to all viewers and researchers in taking the time to air a few specials with regard to the above.
I agree this would be useful but it would also be difficult to keep up to date.
The key to any information (online or not) is to evaluate the source of the information.
Sites like www.familysearch.org, www.origins.net, www.ancestry.com, deal in original/transcribed records (mostly) and if you can see a copy of the original record then it is really no different than if you had a copy of that record in your hand from another source.
The issue arises from records that don't have well documented sources. One of the biggest culprits for this is the www.familysearch.org IGI. Most of the records are actually transcribed from the originals but if you see "submitted by an LDS member" then there is really no way to verify where this information came from. Yet some individuals take this information as the gospel truth. The IGI at best is an index, even if you find a record that is a transcription you should still be looking at the original record to make sure it is correct and matches your existing genealogical information.
I would certainly not advise anyone to part with any money on the internet without having at least one reference (for the site subscription or the researcher in question).
Post a Comment
<< Home