Published genealogies
can provide us with lots of clues. Since we don't really know how good the
author was with his or her research, it is always incumbent on us to personally
research, verify, and corroborate what is stated. If the author has included
source citations for original materials and facts, it is easier for us to personally
track down the sources, thoroughly read and understand them in location and
time context, and to analyze the facts presented.
Not every published genealogy is written in such a scholarly manner. There may
be omissions of critical facts, mis-communication of others, and the sharing of
unprovable hearsay that can muddy the truth.
About 20 years ago I wrote a magazine article about published genealogies, and
I received a lot of great email. Most of it was complimentary, a lot shared
personal experiences, and some complained about genealogy data published in any
format. We all become ecstatic over the find of published and unpublished
material. If you are a writer like me, an indexer, a transcriber, an extractor,
or an abstractor, you come to appreciate high quality original source materials and always want to examine them for yourself.
As more information becomes available to us, it is imperative to review every
word in its entirety. I received several E-mails from people who asserted
that the reason for inserting incorrect data was so that they could identify
whether their own material was being used by someone else. One man went
so far as to proudly recount that he only does this with children who died in
infancy. In effect, he stated that he adds or changes middle initials for
these children because it supposedly doesn't make any difference because they
didn't marry or produce any offspring anyway, so nobody will be researching a direct
line. Another man wrote to say that he did the same thing or makes a
change to "the date of death by one day because nobody cares."
In both cases, these men stated that they wanted to protect the copyright on
their research data.
One woman wrote to tell me that she has "a
family member from another line who has blatantly been falsifying [information]
and has even admitted it in e-mails to some of the family. He said
all family historians put markers in their work so they will recognize [sic] it
if someone else uses it. He also has been threatening some of the
family with lawsuits if they use his work."
I would
strongly disagree with that man's statement, and with those of other writers. This practice is not only nothing about which
they should be proud, I find it downright unethical and detestable. While they may feel there's nothing wrong
with altering the facts about a child who died in infancy, the repercussions to
other researchers who encounter and perhaps reference their work can be
decidedly negative.
The Consequences for Other
Researchers
Pretend for a
few minutes that you are a researcher seeking evidence concerning a family line
about which you know little. Let's use a
fictional example. Perhaps it is that of
your great-grandfather, John Jones -- a somewhat common name -- born in 1849. You know his father's name was James Thomas
Jones but you do not know his mother's name.
You have been told that your great-grandfather had an older brother who
died quite young who was named after their father. You think that they lived in Fairfax County,
Virginia. These are all the “facts” of
which you aware. Your next research step
is to examine the 1850 Federal census for Fairfax County. Let's assume that the index to that census
shows seven heads of households named James Jones, none of which show any
middle initial. Which family is that of your
ancestor? If what you have been told is
that your great-grandfather's older brother was named for their father, you
would probably search each household for a young male child, born before 1849,
whose name was listed as 'James Jones' or 'James Thomas Jones" or
"James T. Jones" or "Jim Jones" or Jimmy Jones" or
"J. T. Jones" or whatever. You
would look for all variations with an emphasis on a child named for his
father. Don’t forget nicknames of “Johnny”
or “Tommy” or even the name “Junior”. You find there are three households with
children named James Jones and John Jones.
You still don't know which your set of ancestors is.
You
subsequently find a public family tree at a Web site that shows a Jones family
in Fairfax County, Virginia, with a father named James T. Jones, a mother named
Mary W. Jones, and two sons, James W. Jones and John Jones, and a daughter,
Mary Jones. The dates look about right,
and you further learn from the tree that James W. Jones died in 1852. You Find
A Grave in Failfax County and find a
burial for a John T. Jones who died in 1852.
Since the middle initial in Find A Grave differs from that in the
online, public family tree, you may believe that these are not the same
individual. The son’s forename is correct,
but that middle initial is wrong. Could
this be the right family but some unexplainable discrepancy? And here's a daughter born later about whom
you know nothing.
Unfortunately,
the researcher who encounters this informational inconsistency may take one of
at least three paths:
1) He/she may search further for additional
evidence to corroborate or refute the hypothesis that this is their family
line.
2) He/she may abandon this family group,
deciding that young James' middle initial and the presence of a heretofore
unknown female child rules this household ineligible to be their family.
3) He/she may return to the 1850 census and
come to the conclusion that another household is a more appropriate avenue of
inquiry.
In all three
cases, the researcher is confounded, confused and sidetracked in their
research. In a worst-case scenario, a
less tenacious researcher may decide that this is a dead-end line and stop
researching. What would you do? The
uncertainly created by such a difference in something as supposedly simple as a
name may make you move on, leaving you with a hole in your research – a dreaded
brick wall. I’ll wager, though. that a nagging feeling will persist that causes
you to return to this same avenue of research again and again.
What if all
this confusion and extra work was caused by someone who, in the interest of
supposedly 'protecting' his or her work, inserted or altered data?
Protect Yourself
As a good
genealogical researcher, it is always important to maintain a healthy
skepticism of all the evidentiary material you encounters, even in original documents
where any type of spelling errors or omissions are made. When you find contradictory information,
always look for other sources, especially ones that are separate and
independent from the material in question.
Don't automatically discard contradictory information. Retain it in a "might be related"
file for future reference when you find other sources. And if you find those wrong initials and date
discrepancies, remember that someone may have purposely altered the data for
his or her own purposes. It's up to you
to find the truth and document your family tree with as much accuracy as possible.
