ROOTS & BRANCHES

As I close in on a quarter of a century of writing “Roots & Branches” for various newspapers and my own blog, I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I’ve strayed into political territory … and this column won’t add to that count.

I will occasionally say, both in my role as interim executive director at Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania as well as a researcher, lecturer, and writer, that even if something goes wrong it’s important to remember: Nobody died.

There are a lot of challenges in the 21^st century and as I write this after another week of extreme weather and persistent shootings in schools, I can take solace that my genealogy role offers far less in the way of life-or-death consequences.

While the addition of DNA and genetic genealogy have certainly made surprises a lot more common (and irrefutable!) in the family history world—and perhaps may have occasionally led to some sort of domestic discord—the proper preparation for such revelations can make them less likely to become “what could possibly go wrong?” situations.

One of genealogy’s canons of sharing information is not to share information about living people without their permission. While certainly there are some folks who play fast and loose with this standard, I’d overall give the community good marks in understanding and adhering to it.

Probably less so, as tackled a couple columns ago, are the number of people who understand that everything on the Internet about deceased people isn’t necessary free for the plucking.

And not just from the ethical standpoint of not sharing without permission work done by others, but from the vantage of wanting to make sure what you’re sharing is … actually factual! (When I think back to my early days as a hobbyist and how many times I copied what I thought were facts, I realize how many people have been seduced by the pull of wrong information).

Some people have developed citations of sources for facts to the level of fetishization. Others completely omit those citations!

I used to hear a fair bit of griping among the professional genealogy lecturer corps the phrase “Well, you know, so-and-so stole my talk.” While I’m not saying it never happens—there are some legit times when there should have been a crime on the books “Grand Theft / Lecture”—it’s a lot more common that people have merely developed talks on the same topic without copying one from the other.

Good genealogists also recognize the importance of building a case for generational connection with several pieces of indirect evidence—properly weighted and sifted through—rather than a single document of direct evidence that might be simply wrong.

That’s right, genealogists, I think what we do is important and you probably do, too. But here’s another reminder: No matter what, nobody died over it.