WARNING: This article contains personal opinions.

One thing that constantly puzzles me is why do genealogists keep re-inventing the same wheels? In fact, we have the tools today to reduce this duplication of effort immediately and perhaps to even drive it to zero within a few years. If we do that, the result will be peer-reviewed, high-quality genealogy information available to everyone.

For decades, the standard method of genealogy research has been to look at original records as well as compiled genealogies, looking for information about each ancestor, one fact at a time. In modern times, we typically have used IMAGES of the original records published on microfilm and, more recently, images that appear on our computer screens. We then supplement these original records with compiled genealogies from many sources, including printed books, online web sites, and even GEDCOM files online or on CD-ROM disks. Experienced genealogists also understand the importance of VERIFYING each piece of information, regardless of where it was obtained. Yes, even original hand-written records made at the time of an event may contain errors.

Compiling a genealogy typically requires hundreds of hours of work, sometimes thousands of hours, sometimes great expenditures of money, and, when original records have not been easily available locally, we often spend significant amounts of money on travel. 

To be kind, I will simply say that the results have been variable. Some skilled and careful researchers have produced accurate and carefully documented genealogies. Other genealogists, typically those with less-than-perfect research skills or motivation, have produced compiled genealogies containing errors. A few have produced genealogies that I can only describe as “fairy tales.” 

The guidelines that we have all learned for years state that experienced genealogists must educate the newcomers in the proper methods of creating accurate and meaningful genealogies. We must teach every newcomer how to “do it the right way.” My opinion is that this hasn’t worked very well. I see as many errors being cranked out today as I saw years ago. In fact, due to the efficiencies of computers today, we can crank out more errors in a shorter period of time than ever before. I don’t think the percentage of errors has changed much over the years, but the VOLUME of genealogies certainly has increased! 

Today, we produce more garbage than ever before. I will suggest our efforts of “educating the masses” in proper research techniques have been a failure. Yet, I believe there is a better way.

The methods of researching haven’t changed much over the years. Erroneous information gets published by well-meaning genealogists who try to do “the right thing” but unwittingly publish and perpetuate errors. Finding and correcting those errors is difficult and frequently never happens. Because the erroneous data becomes widely circulated while corrections rarely receive the same distribution, errors are perpetuated forever.

For instance, a thick book published on my family name in 1901 had a significant error published on page seven concerning the place of birth of the original immigrant of that name. The author contradicted himself and published the correct information on page eight. I have no idea why the author would publish contradictory information within a few paragraphs, but, whatever the reason, he did so. Later examination of original documents by expert genealogists have verified the second claim while the original statement is obviously incorrect. Guess which version has been perpetuated and republished many times over the years? The wrong one!

Despite publication of many, many corrections in books, magazines, and online, the “facts” published in the original book seem to haunt us forever. Thousands of genealogists read the original books but never find the corrections that were published elsewhere. Why don’t they find the corrections? Often it is because the corrections are difficult to locate. Another reason is that most genealogists—myself included—are more interested in new facts about newly-identified individuals. Going back and verifying already-found information is never as interesting as finding new information.

A few years ago I had a chance to sit near renowned genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts as he examined pedigree charts and other newly-created documents prepared by a number of genealogists who were seeking his advice. Gary is an expert in several areas of genealogy, including royal ancestry of many early immigrants to the American colonies. Gary has a photographic memory and has memorized huge amounts of genealogy information. He is also passionate about accuracy. 

I listened as Gary examined pedigree chart after pedigree chart, frequently exclaiming “Oh, that’s been disproven.” I heard him say that dozens of times. One of the attendees at the event later referred to him as “Mr. Gary Oh-that’s-been-disproven Roberts. “Of course, Gary did this for good reason: the statements written on recent documents indeed were erroneous, according to the latest research available from a number of respected genealogy scholars.

Gary would always follow up by offering suggestions as to where to find the corrected information. The persons seeking his advice always thanked Gary politely, but, as they walked away, you could see the disappointment in their eyes. After all, they had spent many hours researching their ancestry and now realized they had also been victims of bogus information.

Finding errors in ancestry charts going back to royalty is easy for experts such as Gary Boyd Roberts. However, I would suggest there are many more inaccuracies in our other genealogies, those claiming descent from commoners. Indeed, that’s most of us. How many errors are in YOUR compiled genealogy information? I know I have found errors in my own records in the past, and I suspect there are additional errors that I have not yet found.

The first frustration is that erroneous information gets published at all. However, I doubt that we will ever change this. In short, mistakes happen. Some are simple errors while many others are information that once appeared to be accurate, but later discoveries changed the interpretation of facts.

The second frustration is that finding corrections seems to always be more difficult than finding the previously-published information. In fact, published corrections often are never found.

My third frustration occurs when I visit a major genealogy library or a courthouse or other archive to examine original records or compiled genealogies. The more popular documents are often thumb-worn! The microfilms are frequently deeply scratched from frequent use. In fact, hundreds, if not thousands, of genealogists have previously followed the same path that I am presently following, looking for the same information or corrections that I seek. Is this efficient? Why do I have to “re-invent the wheel?” Shouldn’t I be looking at the corrected results found by previous genealogists instead of seeking those corrections on my own?

All this is so twentieth-century! We have the technology today to produce better genealogy documentation. In fact, various organizations have already produced terrific documentation tools, but I don’t believe that all genealogists are aware of them yet. 

In short, we need central repositories that contain all the known information about every deceased person who ever left records. This sounds like a monumental task, and it is; but it is not impossible. Future genealogists should be able to go to this clearinghouse and identify an ancestor by name, dates, locations, or whatever information is available, and then be able to read EVERY KNOWN FACT ABOUT THAT PERSON, as discovered by all previous genealogists. The facts should include proposed corrections and any other newly-discovered information. In fact, none of the pages should be static. Instead, they should be constantly updated as genealogists make new discoveries and correct previous assumed “facts.”

The secret to making these clearinghouses work effectively is PEER REVIEW, something that has never successfully been implemented on a large scale in genealogy in the past.

In fact, there could be more than one such clearinghouse. Competition usually results in better products for all.

I envision a database in which every deceased individual has a separate and distinct page. The contents of each page include every fact known about the individual as contributed by many different people. Indeed, some of the “facts” on a given page might contradict some of the other “facts” on the same page, especially with information contributed by two or more people.

Having contradictory information all summarized on one page, complete with source citation references, is certainly far superior to today’s methods of trying to find the same information spread throughout a plethora of books, magazines, and individual web sites. Each “page” in this clearinghouse database could serve as a “court” in which plaintiffs (the interested genealogists) could each “plead their case” by offering the information they found, their interpretation of those facts, and the sources they used. When two or three or more contradictory opinions are published on the page, the eventual reader becomes the “judge and jury,” deciding which bits of information to believe, if any. This is peer review in which peers (genealogists) can look at each other’s works and then add their own input on an ancestor-by-ancestor basis.

Let’s take an example, based on the family history book of my family’s surname that I mentioned previously. One person might enter information on Roger Eastman’s web page, stating that he was born in Wales, as stated on page seven of the original book. The genealogist may also be able to provide references as to where he or she found the information and perhaps a personal opinion as to why the “fact” is believable. A second genealogist might later offer the opinion that Roger Eastman was born in Downton, Wiltshire, England, as stated on page eight of the book. The second genealogist would also “plead his case,” perhaps by offering statements from court cases made later in the immigrant’s life or by including a scanned image of court records or even an image of the immigrant’s christening record, as found in Salisbury Cathedral, the closest church to the village of Downton.

In no case should any claimed “facts” ever be deleted. Nobody will ever serve as arbitrator of what is right or wrong, other than the later reader who is researching his or her own family tree. All newly-entered information should be APPENDED to the page, never replacing any previously claimed facts. This is peer review with no judge, other than the reader who evaluates all the facts presented.

In fact, such tools exist today and have been available for some time. What I have described is commonly called a wiki.

Ward Cunningham, the developer of the first wiki software, WikiWikiWeb, originally described it as “the simplest online database that could possibly work.” Indeed, that is the secret of why wikis work so well: simplicity.

By far, the most successful wiki in the world is Wikipedia at http://www.wikipedia.org. This serves as an online encyclopedia that is ten or twenty times bigger than the Encyclopædia Britannica. Recent studies also suggest that Wikipedia is more accurate than Encyclopædia Britannica. Actually, Wikipedia wasn’t all that accurate when it was first created; but, thanks to “grooming” efforts, or peer reviews, by thousands of users, the articles have constantly received corrections and updates. The result is a new encyclopedia of great accuracy.

Wikipedia contains information submitted by tens of thousands of users. Each person contributes whatever information he or she cares about. Most of the information is accurate, but occasional errors do creep in. Sometimes, as in political, religious, or other controversial issues, some users will even attempt to insert biased opinions that may or may not be based on facts. However, each new reader has the ability to submit “second opinions.” The more people involved, the greater the number of reviews. The result is constant improvements in accuracy. Wikipedia succeeds simply because of the number of people involved.

Quoting a statement about accuracy found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia:

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of “serious errors”. The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica, and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica’s main objections. Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology, pharmaceuticals, and psychiatry comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard. 

For further details, go to http://en.wikipedia.org.

Moving to the world of genealogy, the wiki model appears to be a strong tool for identifying and correcting genealogy information. As stated earlier, a genealogy wiki can produce a separate page for every individual who ever lived and left records. Like Wikipedia, the genealogy wiki “is open to anonymous and collaborative editing.” 

A genealogy encyclopedia will function in the same manner. There may be inaccuracies in some of the articles when first entered, but those articles will come “close to the level of accuracy” in other respected genealogy publications as they are reviewed and updated by thousands of users.

Two large genealogy wikis are in place today: We Relate at http://www.werelate.org and WikiTree at http://www.wikitree.com/. In addition, FamilySearch has created wikis.

In contrast, We Relate has been in full operation for several years, is growing rapidly, and already contains pages providing information about more than two million people. WeRelate is supported by volunteers and your tax-deductible donations. 

Two million sounds like a lot of people, and it is. However, it is still a small fraction of all the people who ever lived. As more genealogists contribute the information they have found, Werelate.org will grow into a stronger and stronger offering in the marketplace. You can learn more about WeRelate at http://www.werelate.org/.

WikiTree appeared later but has been gathering strength and users quickly with 4.5 million profiles contributed by 65,000 members. More information is available at http://www.wikitree.com/. 

Ancestry.com also offers opportunities to contribute online information about ancestors, both on the main site at www.Ancestry.com and on its RootsWeb subsidiary at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ although none of those pages are in wiki format. Peer reviews are not handled well on the pages of Ancestry.com or RootsWeb, although there is a capability to add notes to some existing pages. Generally speaking, changes to information on Ancestry.com can only be made by the person who created the original information. However, everyone is able to create NEW pages that may, indeed, contradict earlier pages. However, this is problematic for the later user who is trying to find the correct information. Did he find ALL the pages? Did he perhaps only find the erroneous information but not the corrected version? Having separate web pages about the same individual is never a good solution. 

You can find dozens of smaller genealogy wikis, mostly designed for providing genealogy specific about specific topics although none of these approach the size or have nearly the content of WeRelate.org ir WikiTree.com.

The wikis at We Relate and WikiTree have become very popular tools as thousands of users contribute information AND CORRECTIONS about millions of ancestors. The wiki at FamilySearch also shows similar promise. I expect that we will see additional wikis from other producers in the future. Which one will be “the best wiki?” I don’t know, but I do know that competition is a good thing. Historically, whenever two, three, or more organizations compete to provide similar services, the result is better services for everyone. In this case, the primary beneficiaries will be rank-and-file genealogists. In other words, you and I will reap the benefits.

I would suggest that you enter information about your deceased ancestors into all wikis that you believe are relevant or useful. I would also strongly encourage you to add corrections to information already entered by others. If you are not sure which version of information is correct, you should enter both versions and then ask for contributions of more facts from other genealogists who have researched the same individual(s). In all cases, add source citations about where the information was found or, even better, scanned images of the original records whenever possible.

Errors are inevitable. No matter how hard we try to train new genealogists, some will never get “the word.” I would suggest that results will be far more accurate if we allow everyone to enter whatever information they have, accurate or not, and then allow others to perform peer reviews of the information, correcting or supplementing what is already entered. The only effective method of making this work is to have these peer reviews visible on the same pages as the original claimed information. Peer reviews have long worked well in academia, in Wikipedia, and elsewhere. I believe the results will be similar in genealogy.

Collaboration is the key. Why should you go out and re-research facts that have already been researched by dozens of other genealogists? In a similar manner, why should future genealogists have to perform the same searches that you have already made? Even more important, why should we all have to grope for corrections when there is an easier way of making corrections easily available to everyone?

Are your ancestors in the wikis?