wrong information in family trees and theft of privacy

[philipsearching]

I think Rootschatters share your frustration at the incorrect trees uploaded to various websites.  However, when information is publicly available, there is not much that can be done when people misuse it.  Different countries have their own laws on privacy and data on living individuals is often available (whether it be from official registers, newspapers or whatever).

My advice is to dismiss the errors as not worthy of wasting your time on.  As long as you do proper research using original (or completely reliable) sources you can be satisfied with your results.

In all aspects of life there are some people who are more honest, more talented, more knowledgeable or more hardworking than others - the same is true for genealogy.  Maybe the incorrect tree posters are lazy or maybe they are just inexperienced and don't know any better.

Rootschat is a forum for researchers of all levels - some are experts in particular areas, some have access to obscure records, some have general knowledge, some are just starting out.  What we have in common is an interest in genealogy, a willingness to help each other and the ability to enjoy ourselves.

I echo other posters in welcoming you to Rootschat and hope that you enjoy this wonderful website.

Philip

[Jomot]

Hi phenolphthalein & welcome to Rootschat.

Unfortunately as others have said, this happens frequently and many of us will therefore have similar experiences.

Personally I was quite surprised at the depth of my reaction the first few times I saw my grandparents names displayed for the world to see as part of a completely incorrect family, and I think that's because I knew them - they were real flesh & blood to me, not just names and dates - and I felt very protective of them and their memory.   

As in your case, someone had initially added my great-grandfather as the husband of one of their extended family members & then 'researched' down.

However, I completely agree with what Annie has said in her final paragraph, although it's taken me some time to learn how to rationalise such errors this way.   You possibly find yourself picturing your grandparents whenever you see their names on that incorrect tree, but as your Great-Grandfather never married person X then it follows that he didn't have any children with her, so any names descending from that couple never actually existed, ie they are not your grandparents, they are the completely fictitious children of person X.

Similarly rather than thinking 'my great-grandfather never married person X' try thinking 'person X's husband was actually called Fred Smith', and picture Fred with completely different physical characteristics to anyone in your family.  That way poor Fred - who after all did exist - has just been labelled incorrectly & given fictitious children.

I know it might sound odd, but it has certainly helped me to stop fretting about it.

I'm sorry you feel that some of the replies have been a little harsh- I'm sure they weren't intended to be but 'factual' response can sometimes feel that way when the subject is something personal to you.  I do hope you decide against leaving.

Jomot

[jess5athome]

.
..............................................I'm sorry you feel that some of the replies have been a little harsh- I'm sure they weren't intended to be but 'factual' response can sometimes feel that way when the subject is something personal to you.  I do hope you decide against leaving.

Jomot

Agree completely...................... And a very warm welcome from me 

Frank.

[trystan]

phenolphthalein,

Welcome to RootsChat - I hope that you find the site helpful and useful. It's often difficult to tell the tone of some messages - but there are so many people more than willing to spend hours searching to help you and to go that extra mile too.

I like your username! Red cabbage works amazingly well too.

Trystan (RootsChat co-founder)

[Andrew Tarr]

So I'm finding some of the comments very not nice and am rapidly considering leaving on the day I've joined in.

That would be a pity, and I think unjustified.  But - trying to add a poor bit of humour, and to make sense of your pseudonym, and if you are still with us: (if I recall my indicators correctly) your pH may have been above 10 when you penned your original post.  So have a sherbet lemon or something, get down to pH 7 and reduce that bright pink colour.

[apologies if my recollections are wrong, and to all non-chemists]

[Rosinish]

Hi Phen......

Welcome from me too 

While you have the same problem as many on here (including myself), with wrong info. on Trees, you need to "let them get on with it"!!!

A lot of them are not genuine researchers but merely name/date collectors.

I find it very amusing that e.g. my GG Grandparents have more children than I have found after many years of thorough research.

I see the mistakes clearly though (my GG Grandmother was a "Widow" with children) when she married my GG Grandfather but those trees have all my GG Grandmother's children (along with an added 3) & 1 genuine son missing, all born to my GG Grandfather with no mention of her previous marriage with some of those born to 1st hubby.

I know I have all the documents (not transcriptions) from Scotlandspeople i.e. I have genuine references/sources.

I'm glad I didn't put my sources (certificates/census') online as they cost me a lot of £'s but I have them on my computer & willing to share info. if anyone gets in touch.

Annie

[Blue70]

Unfortunately you can't control what happens to information you put on a public tree. People put up photos on their trees not realising there is a facility for other users to save those photos to their trees whether given permission or not by the tree owner. I always put the bare bones on my tree no photos for that reason.


Blue

[coombs]

Welcome to the real world of erroneous trees online compiled from major genealogy websites. People find the only likely entry and put 2 and 2 together and make 5. I tend to keep an entry in mind but never add it until I can prove it is them. Lots of records are yet to be indexed and put online.

And anyone can research any deceased person whether related to them or not. Nobody can claim they own a deceased grandparent or great grandparent.

[JenB]

My grandparent's marriage is UNIQUE.
Only my dad, sister, son and I are descendants.
We would NOT have chosen to publish it because of privacy and lack of need to.

Welcome to Rootschat 

Do you mean that the marriage is unique (which of course it is!)

Or, as assumed in an earlier reply, that the surname is unique?

   It seems to me from re-reading the opening post that only six people have ever had that surname.  (the couple who married, their son, phenolphthalein's sister and her son and phenolphthalein himself/herself, and no further descendants will ever use the surname ....  )  And it is that reason that phenolphthalein objects to others using that surname in their own online family trees.