Wikitree

Is anyone a member of the above site? It seems to be free and interesting but......

 

It does look interesting and I have added a few of my distant family. They do ask for sources which they claim ensures that it is correct.
I would be interested in other opinions.

 

That seems to me like flawed logic on their behalf. I can think of plenty examples in trees where perfectly good sources have been included, but for an incorrect baptism, marriage or burial etc. Of course there are researchers who try and guess dates and places, and never bother with sources, but many tree errors arise from an incorrect event being added.

 

It annoys me too and if it's an ancestor/relation of mine I usually message them.
As to Wikitree it seems to have millions of members and it's free.

 

As to contacting people, it seems largely a waste of time. Very few come back to me. (On here, even when Peter chases them up). Obviously they have other priorities or have changed their email, etc. I plan to use wikitree when I get around to it. My own tree has reached 6000 plus, which I never intended, so I if I add those to wikitree I can see where it takes me but also delve more into my immediate ancestors.

 

In this case, Peter I agree with you.

 

I would genuinely like to know your opinions as I have added some people. My intention is to keep my own tree separately on Legacy and would be unlikely to add anything from wikitree.

 

I have read some negative reviews on a site which suggests that some administrators are not kind. I am beginning to have second thoughts! Can anyone recommend an alternative?

 

I agree Peter for direct DNA ancestors although I have larger trees on Ancestry and FMP for all my other ancestors which I keep private.

 

Sorry if this is a silly question, but what is the advantage of a public tree of direct ancestors linked to DNA? I have a large private tree which is linked. I thought that the more names available, the easier it would be to find connections when Ancestry looks for the common ancestor.
I have come to the conclusion that a tree which can be changed by others is not a good idea as it could lead to grumpy interchanges! I am all for collaboration and discussion but someone changing what I believe to be right could get frustrating!

 

Thanks, Peter, I understand that. I can add the direct ancestors and link that while giving access to the few people who I want to see the whole thing.

 

I think you need a different approach when it comes to collaborative trees, and for the serious researcher it’s probably best to look elsewhere for the primary place to put your tree online. Otherwise it will, as you say, get frustrating when other people come along and change things that you’ve taken great care to get right. And from my experience with FamilySearch trees (also collaborative), exchanges can get beyond grumpy!

However, there can be some merit in taking part in collaborative trees, and it can be a way of exploring possibilities and new branches. And, of course, you can actually correct those errors and myths which abound in online trees (including Wikitree) rather than just adding comments (as at Ancestry, for example). But it’s not for everyone.

 

Pauline, I shared information with a very nice lady via Lost Cousins and we were able to help each other. Years ago I received help from a few contacts on Genes Reunited, however we weren't changing each others trees, just sharing which seems better to me.

 

It’s certainly better if it involves your main tree, which is why I said you need a different approach with collaborative trees, such as those at Wikitree and FamilySearch. And also why it’s not for everyone - I know plenty of people whose attitude (perfectly validly) is “what’s the point?”

 

That highlights the need for a different approach with collaborative trees - you need to step back from the idea of it being ‘your’ tree. It may contain your research but isn’t really your tree. It can still be frustrating if people delete or alter your research, but while I can’t comment on how Wikitree works in such circumstances (not having tried it), FamilySearch does allow you to restore your original information and so on. It’s usually not gone for good.

Some people can be very persistent in their mistaken ideas, though, usually when they’ve found a titled family with the same surname elsewhere in England, and are unwilling to let go of their imagined link to these titled families.