General Chat

Dorothy, if the people are alive and well, then you're right. They have no right to put them on their tree without prior consent. However, if they are diceased, they have every right to do so.

Dorothy, There will always be people who just want to 'collect numbers', but the vast majority of family history researchers I've met and corresponded with have been interested in the HISTORY surrounding the families to which they belong. We all belong to at least two families by birth, some to more by adoption or marriage, and all of those families are intricate webs of complexity. It's been fascinating for me to find that, apart from the maritime history I knew of, my family tree contains farmers, clergy, wool merchants, soldiers, publicans, soliticitors, coalminers, insurance salesmen, barristers, fishmongers, weavers, domestic servants, a Baron, engineers, shoemakers, etc, and I would love to discover as much as possible about them and their lives. I'm not interested in prying into the lives of the living, but although my ancestors lives have passed, I don't want them forgotten. I want to be able to pass on my info to any grandchildren I may have or to any other family member (blood or married-in) who is interested. If other people hadn't done their research and shared it on the Net, I'd never have been able to find all those people in my tree, and I'm extremely grateful to them all. I can understand people not wanting some ghastly family secret to come to light, but not merely people's names and family connections. Your Mother wasn't exclusively yours - she had, at least, parents whose relatives were also hers - and yours. As I see it, those people are just as entitled to put you and your Mother on their tree as you are. CB >*|*<

Unless they've copied word for word what you put, you can't say if they've not done the research themselves or not. I for one, whenever I am given access to a tree, will double check all information on it. Some is wrong. I have corrected a couple of people where they have gone wrong. If I'm checking something, I feel I have done enough to be able to add it to my tree as my own research. I have to access the censuses, which I pay for, and trawl the BMD registers. I stop at buying certs, but then I only buy certs for those I need. I would wonder, if you didn't want them to take all the information, why let them see the tree in the first place? As has been suggested, it would be far better to let them have the people who are directly related to them, and let them work the rest out if they want. Then, if they do add these other people, you know they have done it because they want to, not because you gave it to them. If you have asked them to remove any living person, they should comply. If not, report them to GR and they will. Otherwise, you can't do much about it other than ask them to remove them. Next time, if you don't want the same happening, send a mail before you give access stating that you don't want them to add the people to GR. If they don't agree to that, don't give access. Another thought - simply change all the living people to ''living'' or such like, and then they won't be able to see people like your husband and, unless they know his name, won't be able to add him.

It's such a shame: they've lost the goodwill of a meticulous researcher and will never have the opportunity of seeing the memorabilia that puts the 'meat on the bones' of the dry facts .........

I think people have different reasons for reseaching the tree. If they want numbers, so be it!

I return to the subject of this chain: ethics. I am advised by the second culprit that he is, to use his own words, 'in fact building up a data base of EVERY Maslen or Minty that ever lived in Wiltshire--this by default includes those families they inter married with.hence the many Hiscocks.' He is nothing to do with my family, yet 'Hot matches' describes him as a relative with 9 matches, one couple of which he previously admitted he had no prior knowledge so I KNOW he plagiarized my research to make the double entries that emanate from that line of descent!

Seems that nothing has changed in twelve months. Can anyone persuade me that it's worth renewing membership?

I'm not quite sure how anyone building up a database of a particular surname can put the information here on GR into a tree format. I am doing an unofficial one name study of one of my surnames. It is unusual one and I collect any examples of them. This has proved really valuable over time and unexpected links are turning up all the time. The other day a Hot Match turned up. Someone had a person on their tree with the same name as someone on mine. It wasn't the same person but I knew who their man was and I have him on file so could tell my contact more about their ancestor. I haven't worked out yet how that person is linked to my own ancestors so there's no way I can put him or his family on my tree. I have removed all the named living people on my GR tree since discovering myself on a distant relation's tree. He was a bit surprised when I asked him to change that and said no-one else had ever complained to him! I think a lot of members never come to the message boards so don't read all that keeps being said about this. Sue

There are lots of 'one name studies' being done some by local Genealogy Groups others by people who share that surname. Try Googling ( One name study+a surname) I was lucky enough to have one of my lines, tracing back to 1600 on one such site.

My Tree offline has 18000 names. On here I only have my direct ancestors and their close blood relatives. The reason for this is because some people object to sharing their research, however, my research I treat as a archive which I will freely make available to anyone who demonstrates a link to it. This can often mean that I can provide someone, a distant cousin, with several generations of his ggggmother's ancestry whereas she is only linked to me by marriage. Surely th only possible aim at the end of the day would be a complete Tree of the Human Race showing everyone of us in our proper place. That can only come about if we share.

The reason I control information and never allow anyone to see my GR tree, is from a standpoint of ACCURACY. If you are my proven relative, then I will give you appropriate information. If you are NOT a proven relative, then I don't want all MY hard work pinned onto someone else's tree, and I particularly don't want my proven ancestors on the WRONG tree. I have recently had a very good contact, from another forum. We each have part of each other's jigsaw, and it has proved a very fruitful exchange. He sent me a gedcom of his family tree but asked me not to pass this on to anyone else, as he prefers to do the passing on himself - with the most uptodate information he has. I totally appreciate and accept his position - it is the same as mine.He agrees with me that we should check each other's work for ourselves, at which point we can each put the new information on our trees. I could of course, just tack his 2000 people onto my tree - but what would be the point of that? I would not 'know' these people. What is more - he is actually interested in DISCUSSING various points of research. This is heady stuff for me, all my contacts upto now have been one-way exchanges, they take, I give. OC

It does say in the T & C ; Please note that, if you make your tree available to other Members, they may take entries from your tree and put them into their tree (even if you do not wish them to). Genes Reunited does not have any liability in this event. However, you must always have permission to include any living individuals details in your tree. Your use of the Genes Reunited Service is entirely at your own risk >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they use living persons in your tree then ask GR and they will remove the entries, but now if you go into your details you have an option to hide living rellies. Personally if you wont gain from still being a full member, such as possible contacts who may enable you to add to your tree, help on the tips and record office boards, and other such tings its not worth renewing. But if you still use GR then its worth staying, after all it works out to roughly just over the price of a cert for the whole year, or a couple of coffees and cakes in a department store cafe. That's hardly anything per week Only you can make that decision Elaine x

I give you a quote from leeching 'Stanley': 'my tree is filling up with Hiscocks[it must be a hundred or two] -without any active research on them by my self .....' I rest my case.

I share mine,helps find more,,

Ethics is a man-made concept and there are no hard and fast rules. Some feel that nothing should go on a family tree unless it has been researched and proven by the owner of that tree. Others feel that it is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel and information could and should be passed freely. There are various shades of opinion in between. There is no organisation that has made some sort of declaration as to what is and is not ethical in genealogical terms aside from the issue of putting living people on trees. Ultimately, one has to decide on one's own ehtical stance, stick to it, but accept that there are different interpretations of what is and is not ethical. If you are the kind of person who feels that you 'own' the information on your tree, the only sensible course of action is to only share what you are willing for that person to publish.