XPost: alt.genealogy, england.genealogy.misc, free.uk.genealogy   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 14:49:38 +0100, Jenny M Benson   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 31-Aug-18 12:09 PM, knuttle wrote:   
   >> Unfortunately this error still appears in some online trees, and their   
   >> owner seem un interested in correcting their mistake.   
   >   
   >I often wonder why so many people publish their trees but seem totally   
   >uninterested in accuracy or in making contact with possible relatives.   
   >   
   >I often contact people along the lines of "I see you have Joe Bloggs on   
   >your tree, who is my nth cousin n x removed.  Can you tell me what your   
   >Source is for ... as the information I have found suggests ...  I am   
   >happy to share with you", but only very rarely do I get any response.   
      
   In this case, the error was made by me, and I was able to correct it   
   within hours, using theb resources of FamilySearch. But it was just a   
   lucky chance that a brother was staying with the family in the 1911   
   Census of Canada that enabled us to discover it.   
      
   There's another instance where seven Ancestry trees had the wrong   
   information and three had the right information. Ancestry encourages   
   people to copy information without checking, and so if more people   
   copy the wrong information than the right information, it looks like a   
   majority view, so people assume it must be right.   
      
   More information about that here: https://t.co/nDxaSbWDGH   
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/   
        http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com   
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)