Ragnar "Lodbrok" Sigurdsson - 31st Great Grandfather

NB: Til Kari Lian. De får holde på for meg vedr. gud og Hitler etc.

I'm not making dire warnings about the coming collapse of the world. I'm just telling you the truth.

The dialogs you are talking about are better suited in the discussions tab.

And while you are critiquing and making discussions the finally proven wrong link, which is still there and looking valid, is already copied by a number of people, and the wrong link is now spreading to who know how many other sites. And the person(s) administering the profile showing the wrong link is ofcourse responsible.

Better to do this in a discussion without any links in any tree, where there are less chance for spreading of false genealogies.

Remi, just to make explicit what's probably painfully obvious:

We have different opinions about what constitutes "the truth" on the subject of what the best thing is for Geni - keep the weakly supported links or remove them.

If I believed you were speaking the truth, I'd change my mind at once. But I don't.

Wich meens that we have fundamentally different approaches and thoughts about how genealogy should be done and what type of genealogical works that should be published. And in the genealogical community, at least the Nordic one that I know best, your opinion is not widespread, in fact we even warn against publishing weakly supported links as you call them, since they in our experience, do more harm than good. This is not only "what the best thing is for Geni", but what is the best thing for genealogy, and publishing weakly supported links is absolutely not the best thing in our view. Your way is spreading false genealogy to a wide number of personal and public genealogical works, which is bad. It also makes Geni (and other sites were these kinds of genealogical works with weakly suported links are published) to look bad, look unprofessional and even being warned against the use of them. But if that is what you want.....

Personally I wish you would stop.

Remi - I speak about Geni, not about "genealogical works" in general.

Geni is not a publication.

I don't see the point of arguing about "publication". The links on Geni have already been published, however we define it. In most cases they are links that appear on dozens and sometimes hundreds of other sites.

I also don't see the point of arguing about weak links that are not contradicted by primary sources. Improve the documentation.

It's much more time-effective to worry about the links that are actually wrong.

There are so many people who complain about the overall quality, but in the medieval and ancient trees I see very few of them actually doing research or working to improve the information.

Philosophical debates are interesting, but in a collaborative tree we're not going to get perfect agreement. At some point it's better to stop the chatter and get back to work ;)

I agree with Justin. Its much better to use time on correcting and improving genealogy that we know is wrong. And the source tab should have a much more prominent and user friendly layout.. If only people could show their sources...

YES, JUSTIN AND DAVID - this is the way to get the whole thing more genealogic. And we all can continuing our family researching. Geni is only a place we all put all we find about our relatives.

Now let us come more foreward.

One thing Harald does that works very nicely is this. He looks for a connection to someone where he knows the path has to be fake. Then he finds the weak link and starts a public discussion about sources.

That gives everyone a chance to look at their sources to see if we really have good evidence for the link. If there is no good evidence we can cut it. Right away our shared tree is much healthier.

Here's an example: http://www.geni.com/discussions/135859

HOLD IT!!!!!!
Who is to say and prove what are weak links or not? Can you all read and understand every language that is used here on Geni - or scripts?

Of all the sources I have to support my tree centuries back - you would probably not understand a word that is written in them - nor can you access them.

So my conclusion is that you are stretching a bit to far in your demands for proof since the majority of registrars won't even bother to note down where they got their sources from. Or do you all read Icelandic - or can you access the Icelandic church books or our manuscripts? Or can you read the Chinese? - Japanese? - Russian letters for example?

Private User that, for me, is a beautiful thing about Geni - if I wonder where you got the information from, even if you choose not to enter it, I have your name right there and can ask you.
Or I can reach out to another Icelander, or start a discussion on the profile - where many people who know what I don't can participate.
It is easiest to resolve doubts and conflicting sources if everyone notes where their information is from, of course. But Geni allows us to reach each other and ask!

@Harald Tveit Alvestrand and are you sure you would benefit from it? I could tell you what source I am using - and the same source is unreliable - and you would just have to believe me - cause you can't prove me wrong ;)

What I am trying to point out is that you would have to know what sources we are referring to in order to evaluate the credibility of the source in question.

Private User I am sure I would benefit - if only by knowing I have a name for a source that I can share with another Icelander, or someone else who really knows the field, and find that you both are referring to the same source - or maybe to different sources. Just knowing that you're willing to identify your sources helps me have confidence in what you're telling me.

So even when I can't read the sources myself - knowing their names is a Good Thing.

@Harald Tveit Alvestrand - where I come from - your methods are considered academically a poor methodology. And how are you going to sort out which one of your sources is credible or not?

And are you sure the someone you claim that you can ask for information's is willing to give them to you - or is trustworthy?

Some researchers ask for payment for their work for example - and if you can't get the info's you are asking for - you are still going to dismiss the credibility of the source - even though it is correct - but you can't prove it wrong or right?

To Anna Kristin Petursdottir: Take it easy. Harald is all right. He is not any wrong person. He is just a another genealogist.

Language isn't such a barrier in the modern world. And Icelandic isn't as exotic as you might think. I live in backwoods America, and even I have friends who speak Icelandic (and Old Norse), and some who can read different runic alphabets.

Anyway, in ancient and medieval history and genealogy scholarship is international. If you speak one of the modern European languages, there are probably experts writing in your own language.

@Arnfred I am just pointing out that when discussing such serious things as challenging others and their work, you have to be prepared to argue your case and explain what is the point of deleting out what others have been doing.

I personally do not want to go further than to merge together individuals who are registered more than once in the database and ask the person who is responsible for the entries that are not correct to correct the errors themselves.

What you do on Geni, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, also reflects how you do your genealogy in general. I don't see any difference in working on the software Geni, compared to other softwares except that several people contribute to the same profiles, but I'm also getting similar big contributions from all the genealogical forums I'm on. Really not much difference.

When adding something to the tree and profiles on Geni you are publishing the information, and Geni is the platform you are publishing it on. Not different from a genealogical homepage or familyhistory book.

And, yes, Justin, if the weak links aren't contraticted by anything I can maybe agree, but a lot of the times they are in fact already contradicted, but they are still shown as valid on Geni. The contradictions though, are not in online sources, but on written papers, which makes them a bit harder to find. When these contradictions are pinpointed, they usually aren't believed in because the admins are loosing their link back to kingship or whoever.

David, it would also save time if we didn't add speculative links first and then try to find the evidence afterwood instead of doing it the other way around. While we are discussing if the added link is valid or not, the link has already been copied to several other places offline and online.

Arnfred, we shouldn't be adding all we find on Geni without researching whether what we find is correct or not. Because when a link is added to Geni it will be copied to other trees pretty fast.

Yes, Justin, Harald starts a few discussions, but he is also adding speculative links where the sources hardly are primary. And to me that is not good work. In my view he should start these discussions from profiles that are more certain with better sources and then discuss if the postulated lnks can be correct or not before adding them to the tree.

To me it is sad that he doesn't see this as a problem, since it is actually adding to the skepticism that already excist regarding Geni. And this I know as a fact since I get comments about this from the genealogical community I'm involved in almost every week.

Here are som examples from one of the Norwegian genealogical forums (in Norwegian):

http://forum.arkivverket.no/topic/182358-til-nye-slektsgranskere-he...

http://forum.arkivverket.no/topic/176248-genicom-og-kildekritikk/

And specifically these profiles are commented here (still in Norwegian), http://forum.arkivverket.no/topic/176248-genicom-og-kildekritikk/pa..., it would be better to get these correct than working in the nonprovable era of Ragnar Lodbrok.

Remi, I disagree. Very strongly. You miss some very key points.

First, Geni is a collaborative site. That means every link is essentially or potentially a negotiation. Geni will never be, can never be, anyone's perfect tree. If you need perfect control, with every datum approved by you before it can appear, Geni is the wrong site for you. You would do better to build your online reputation by publishing your data some place where no one can ever argue with you.

Second, Geni has users with many levels of experience and education. I doubt that users spot a link and think to themselves, "Oooo, this is fake. I think I'll add it to Geni!" ;) I think it's much more common that they don't know it has been disproved. So, we need users who do the work of documenting and cutting.

(We really, really need more of those. If you're hanging around with nothing to do, I can give you a list of several hundred connections on my hit list and you can spend the next few years getting them corrected on Geni).

Third, we could spin off an entire debate around your comment that Harald adds info not from primary sources. That is a very misleading comment, because in the absence of primary sources there are very legitimate sources of historical information, including quality secondary sources compiled from primary that no longer exist, indirect evidence, etc.

Fourth, I most definitely work differently on Geni than I do in my own database. In my database I'm not afraid to experiment with links. What would this family look like if I accept this source? What would it look like if I reject that source? I'm not afraid to make notes with rude comments. But on Geni -- that's very different. I want to be much more cautious. I want to always remember that I don't automatically win every argument on Geni the way I win when it's just me. I ask, Could a reasonable person accept this link? Is there room for debate? Is my evidence really so good that anyone who disagrees is an idiot?

And finally, I'm just not as injured as you are by opinions and comments on other sites. I see the same kinds of comments on some English-language websites. Geni would probably remove me as a curator if I told you my honest opinion, but I think I can safely tell you that I have no very high opinion of that perspective. Too narrow. I'm perfectly happy for those people to go have their own "perfect tree" somewhere else, while I participate in real genealogy. I looked for years for a way to share my data. When I found Geni, I knew this was it.

Oh, give me a break, Justin.

I'm not saying I need or want perfect control, your black or white argument is terrible. If you want that kind of discussion do it somewhere else.

Users find a homepage with a familyhistory on it and add it to Geni the same way the find links on Geni and add it to their own familyhistory. Ofcourse they don't think "Oooo, this is fake, I'll think I'll add it to Geni", instead they think "Oooo, this is magnificent, I finally found my long lost ...., I add it to my tree" and then adding it to both Geni and other sites without prejudice. And since it is now published on Geni or somewhere else the virus is spreading.... We need users who check sources before adding.

The examples was for Harald, so he can get something really needed to do, instead of adding maybees.... I have plenty to do, allthough I do most of it on my own personal software when I'm not helping others.

For your third comment maybe you should read true what the Norwegian medieval genealogists are commenting, it could blow your mind.... (Hint: They don't agree with your or Haralds opinions.)

I do definitely not work different on Geni than I do in my own database, I do not experiment with links in either software. My experimentation is in textfiles and discussions where I think they belong. I'm not asking "could a reasonable person accept this link", instead I'm asking "how good are the sources supporting this link", no difference between Geni or private software. When discussing a link I'm using sources and their trustworthyness, it's not a debate whether I win an argument or not, it's about the sources. There is allways room for debate unless there are primary sources about the event (and yes, I know even those sometimes can be wrong). If the sources mentioning a link isn't trustworthy enough, it is not added as a link, not on Geni and not in my personal database. It is instead mentioned in my "Work in progress" in my database, and in the biography on Geni because of lack of better place to put it.

Maybe people that fancy having maybees in their tree should do it privately, so the rest of us could try to have a correct a tree as possible using the best sources available to us (which is what you call a "perfect tree"), and that is what I call real genealogy.

I have also looked for a place to share genealogical data, but I want a correct one. Those that want fictional genalogy should do it somewhere else.

No need to be rude, Remi. I think you could find a way to be polite to both Harald and me even though you disagree.

Your message demonstrates my points perfectly. You are the one trying to make black and white arguments. You are saying every link is good or bad, and you can tell the difference. If anyone disagrees with you, they are wrong and also evil.

In fact, every genealogical link is a judgment call. We don't always notice that because some are so clear to us that we don't think about why. However, genealogy is not a science. We can't do controlled, repeatable experiments. What we do instead is look at the evidence and draw a conclusion.

Any time you have different people looking at the evidence, you can have different conclusions. Some people will say Yes, some will say No, some will have a qualified Yes or a qualified No.

You say, "If the sources mentioning a link isn't trustworthy enough, it is not added as a link". That shows me you do understand the part played by your own opinion, even though you downplay it.

I can tell you that every modern historian understands that evidence is "shades of gray". If you are seriously telling me that you are relying on the opinions of medievalists who don't understand History 101, I have to warn you that historical methodology has moved forward since the 19th century.

It sounds like you are very unhappy with Geni. You want the site to be something different than it is, and you want to start by making the users be something different than they are.

I wonder if it would be possible to simply do more of what's been proposed & seems to work pretty well?

- identify a questionable spot
- raise a discussion from the profile
- ensure that the profile is documented

I had the same question, Erica. See above. Anna didn't seem to like it, although I might be mis-reading her comments. Still, I think it's the only possible way to improve the info on Geni.

Remi Trygve Pedersen, I loved to see your argument in the third debate you linked to.
I see the debate, and I see participants that make your viewpoint look moderate. I don't agree with those people either, for all the same reasons I don't agree with the arguments you've presented here.
If we can treat each other with respect, and respect that other people hold opinions we don't agree with, and STILL manage to work together - I think we can get somewhere.

Justin, I'm sorry you think I'm rude, but I think I'm not more rude than you are to me.

But never mind, you are not getting my point at all and to me it looks like you don't understand what I'm saying. To me it looks like you have made up your mind that what I'm saying is that I know best, I'm allways right, and the data will be changed no matter what you think.

I have now tried to get you to understand what I'm saying, and you're not willing to listen. Your last paragraphs demonstrates that perfectly. I'm tired of it, and give up.

At least Harald understands, he just don't agree. To bad, Harald, that you don't agree with them either, because in that discussion there are atleast one of Norwegians best medieval genealogists, Mr. Setsaas, he should be listened to, and don't worry, Justin, he knows his medieval history, he knows his history 101, probably alot better than both of us.

Remi, I am hearing what you say and it is the core of our disagreement. We do not agree about certainty in genealogy and we do not agree about what to do about it.

Your argument depends on the idea that we can look at the sources then decide whether there is enough evidence or not. My argument is that different people can come to different conclusions about whether the evidence is "good enough".

Here's an example from my research. I have a long running debate with a woman working on the same line. There is a man in 17th century Switzerland. The local records say he was a brother of two women in the same hamlet. Those woman were daughters of a man in a neighboring village. Records in that village show the parents could not have had any other marriages.

My research buddy and I disagree strongly. I say if the man was the brother of the women then he had the same parents. She says it is contrary to genealogical practice to make that leap. If the records don't say directly that he was the son of the man in the neighboring village, then his ancestry is still unknown. She is very upset that my version is published all over the Internet because "there isn't enough evidence".

I think we're all familiar with this kind of problem. Reasonable people can disagree.

It's the same when we look at saga lines. There is an academic debate about how reliable the information can be. It's clear that in an oral culture, like the Old Norse, information can be preserved for many more generations than in a culture that relies on writing. That's particularly true of cultures, like the Old Norse, that use an elaborate metrical structure for their poetry. But, it's also clear that during the transition from an oral culture to a written culture the traditions are vulnerable to political manipulation.

So, how much do we trust uncontested information in a saga? Some people would say (reasonably) that we can trust it for many generations back. Other people would say (also reasonably) that we can't trust it past for more than a generation past the time it was written down, and maybe not even that far.

We could call this debate "When Genealogy Collides With History". No trained historian would make the methodological mistake of trying to find a bright line where some of these lines could be cut. But, there are many genealogists who think they can do it. They know the sources, but they don't have good historical training to know how to interpret the sources or how to put the disputes into perspective. Wanting to find a place to cut, they find an arbitrary place to do it even if it makes no sense and even if it means ignoring reasonable debate.

That's my perspective. I understand that you disagree, but in all of your arguments I don't get the sense that you've thought about these problems. You want it to be simple black and white, but I don't think it can ever be that. You want genealogy to be a science where we can know that an ancient source is either right or wrong, but I want genealogy to be a branch of history so I don't think it can ever be that simple.

There does seem to be a "closed loop" of information sharing among amateur genealogists on family history websites.

Bad information goes around the world and back again on the web very quickly, and it seems that for every 1 person trying to remove the bad information there are 100 people re-adding it back into the loop.

And in The Big Tree too . . .it seems like for every duplicate that gets merged, a hundred more duplicates are added.
We are always going backwards . . .getting nowhere.

So I agree that "truth and fact" are important, and that Fiction should be clearly labeled.

GENI has made fools of many people who have been led down paths that are not real, to an ancestry that is not true.

How embarrassing for the amateurs who proudly share the connections to Ancient Kings that they find here . . .only to find out later that GENI's one world tree is full of BS.

I was once connected to Harald 'Klak' Halfdansson, king in Jutland in a direct male line, and in my innocence I was awed by the deep history connection and shared it.

Imagine my shame when I realized what a fool I'd been.

GENI should be more responsible, using disclaimers and making sure that people understand that most of this website is BS.

In a perfect world the tree would be perfect.
In an imperfect world the lines that are not real should be labeled as being not real, or just deleted.

What is the point of connecting to the big tree at all, if all you are really connecting yourself to is a gigantic web of lies and deceit that will make you look like a fool when you share what you've found?

I have the same problem I have 100's of birth certificates photos death certificates and other records you will not believe on how many times my great grandparents have became my uncles and my cousin due to people merging things without paying attention and added children to my grandparents because they read it on the internet and it was on a census sometimes a person in someone's house might be their brothers kid with the same last name I come from the Frey's Tibbals Lounsbury Sterling Guffey Rabourn Bradford and everyday I have to fix someone else's mistakes and it takes hours we need a way to undo merges

It's an interesting problem, but the real issue (I think) is whether users understand that they are looking at information entered by other users or whether they think Geni is somehow responsible for vetting the lines.

If you really understand that the information is entered by users and maintained by users then you won't give it any more credence than any other website until you investigate for yourself.

I don't understand why or how mistakes and errors are "shameful."

I trained as an artist, and the lesson that's stuck is:

All great art is a result of imitating life, badly.

:)