A**y has become our worst enemy

[majm]

So I have just checked NSW BDM online indexes.... free to search, and of course, a commercial website as I could order and pay online for NSW BDM certificates...

So I can clearly see the given and surnames of several of my ancestors, whom I recall vividly from my childhood.  These are people who have been dead for more than 30 years.  I can see the names of their parents on that index too.    I can also see the names of several of my schoolfriends who were tragically killed in a multicar accident during my schoolyears, more than 30 years ago.  In many instances their parents are still living, yet those parents names are listed on that index, free to search, not even needing a log in .... no subscriptions....

Then I look at Trove, another absolutely fantastic resource, ..... I can find many fairly current things about my ACT rellies and friends.... including engagement announcements from the 1990s .... I remember attending those functions with my husband and our families....  There's family history in those announcements .... one even has four generations of then living family in them.   I am quite sure that little did the very proud parents who provided that info to the newspapers then expect that one day within their own lifetimes, those papers would be freely available to anyone (no need for any subscriptions, or log on) anywhere in the globe to come across those images of the newspapers online.

Hence, I cannot 'blame' Ancestory or Find My Past or those commercial websites.  We as family history buffs need to take some responsibility, and we need to work towards some standards being developed to protect the research....  Yes, there's Australian copyright laws, yes, there's Privacy Laws, yes, there's T & C on the websites ..... but yes there's also copy and paste functions at the fingertips of any keyboard operator..... Should we 'blame' Bill Gates ....

Cheers,  JM

[Ruskie]

Well said JM.

I doubt that a few years ago, anyone who published an announcement in a newspaper could have imagined that it would be widely available for anyone anywhere to read. Would they care? I don't know.

[majm]

To me, it does not matter if they care or not, what matters is that those who may have ulterior purposes may strive to obtain sufficient info about a living person's background, to then approach the vulnerable, or the elderly, and seek to ingrain themselves in their lives, and then steal or otherwise take without informed permission the very things that those people own, including their own identities.  So the very objective of our Privacy Laws becomes the very tool used to betray those objectives.  Now, that definitely concerns me.   

Cheers,  JM

[majm]

I am quite passionate about these issues.   If I am offending anyone who reads these posts, sorry for offending you, but please do become concerned (alert but not alarmed) for your neighbours, your elderly friends, or anyone who is vulnerable.  They too have the right to privacy and to our credit, we can respect their privacy and at the same time, protect their identity too.  We just need to care, and to treat them as we would want to be treated too.

And a huge apology from me to redmr2red for highjacking the thread. 

Cheers,  JM

[fastfusion]

It seems like just the only the other day we rootschatterers were talking about this matter of the wrong infomation from trees......   Well...     no doubt you all know how I feel about the trees and I dont rely on them.........   nor do I 'c & p" from them.......    HOWEVER.......>>>>>>>

there is one essential annoying fact that has plagued my research over the years, which some said " thats half the fun",     I am very sick and tired of fragmentation indexing on any sub site and some of the free sites.,,, in an effect to procure extra income for the sub sites., or even the fh societies.

As most folk come to reality of the humble English village atmosphere we learn that whole parish transcripts usually in pdf are required to a] check phonetic spellings, b] check sub linages, c] to get occupations, witnesses, and rectors or churchwardens etc etc.

To boost my point of late, I have been doing a series of genealogies in Gloucestershire.....  humbly I was sent materials pertaining to the records of 2 local fh societies who I not mention.   On all data sent which was not chronological or by the parish, or by the logical sense of order....  the data was compared to other web sites whereas finite details were found to enhance the entries, yet, in the most part one does know if any marriage was by banns or by licence... Similiarly the deaths of the 1800 to 1812 period showed in the most No indicators of age.........   and yet these groups or bodies are releasing data through cdrom or other andiquated means.

I am going to advocate that really the time has come where we genealogists need to have entire parish registers in complete form in one solid set of pdfs not the willy nilly over the shop method being used.     

It is extremely unprofessional to have the current method and any preference from me is for a subscription site to pertain in its holding COMPLETE parish transcriptions in pdf searchable formats not half ass willy nilly excel documents that arent searchable not practical....... or we have a website that has the visual imagery pdf of entire microfilms so we can seek out the images upon using pdf transcriptions......

the other thing that bugs the heck out of me is .....    the churchwarden or minute books seem to have been chained to the bookcases of archives and are not for public viewing...... 

take for a moment that 99 percent of us live thousands of miles  or kilometres away from these places and most in some perspective hope to enjoy visiting the ancestral homelands would it not be a better means to an end to present your genealogical materials in a way that stops us wasting manpower and money of fragmented indexes so we can actually spend money visiting the countries counties villages and homelands to improve upon the tourism and local commercial revenues that keep the places alive in the first place.

fusion

[fastfusion]

redmr2red>>>>     i wouldnt be concerned about the mentioning of the darn website that we pay high subscription for use of..... remember these organisations are making commercial profit from materials held in trust in the public domain...       and if we dont stand up for consumerism then there is no sense of democratic right to voice our opinions in the hope these mobs of capitalists will ever improve their services.

[majm]

I am going to advocate that really the time has come where we genealogists need to have entire parish registers in complete form in one solid set of pdfs not the willy nilly over the shop method being used.     

Or course, that would be ideal.  But we do need to remember that parish registers are NOT public property.  They are private property and are shared at the discretion of the owner.   Parish registers are Church property. 

So, for example, I am always delighted to mention that among the NSW Resources here at RChat is the following images of the parish registers of the Christ Church Cathedral, Hexham (Newcastle) NSW.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=369703.0


Baptisms, Marriages, Burials, Christ Church Cathedral, Newcastle
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157606066769147/ 1820 – 1899 Family Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157605008173551/ 1826 – 1837 Baptisms, Marriages, Burials
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157604433014652/ 1837 – 1838 Baptisms, Marriages, Burials
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157605132739200/ 1839 – 1861 Baptisms, Marriages, Burials
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157605674610949/ 1856 – 1868 Marriages Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157605785759029/ 1869 – 1885 Marriages Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157605802132868/ 1885 – 1897 Marriages Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157606197590347/ 1899 – 1913 Marriages Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157605928662968/ 1913 – 1914 Marriages Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157606308436455/ 1914 – 1916 Marriages Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157606323070651/ 1916 – 1918 Marriages Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157606450662513/ 1918 – 1929 Marriage Register
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uon/sets/72157606952230042/ 1929 – 1936 Marriages Register

Here in those images you will see the various hands of the clergy, the bride, the groom, the witnesses to marriages, the names of the deceased, the names of new borns, and the family history sheets too.   Sometimes the writing is easy to transcribe and other times, well .... ummm.... not so easy.   But these are family history documents and you can validate the BDMs from searching the NSW BDM online indexes. 

And yes, if only other Churches, including from that same denomination, but also other denominations were to be willing to share their parish registers .... 


Cheers,  JM

[redmr2red]

My gripe is with a cousin who has attributed six children to my GGGrandmother from her second husband. So her tree now shows she had 8 children, not 2 and 6 step children, in fact her first husband does not get a mention.  Anyone seeing that can just copy it to their tree, making two trees showing the same information.  QED!!!!!

I've asked her to fix it but so far not even a response.

End rant!!!!!!😄

[majm]

Is it possible that there is an option for "Comments" on these submitted trees?  If so, perhaps you could simply comment "please note that the following six children were fathered by .......... " and then list the children and their dates, and perhaps if you can then include your source .....  And as you note they were her step children, but their father does not get a mention, perhaps you could also gently note that these six are not her children, and so perhaps in your comments you can note their mum's name too ?

Cheers,  JM