The crux would seem to be: Define "corrupted". Exactly what one means by "corrupted" affects the amount of QC that constitutes "sufficient". From my POV, you "corrupted" the data by changing a middle name from Greitzner to Gerstell; from your POV, you "corrected" my error.
Then too, you can encounter things like, my sysclock says 9:12pm Thursday 28 Nov. I'll betcha anything you'd like, it isn't 9:xx pm Thursday 28 Nov in London at this very minute. Cheryl Ron Ferguson wrote: > Mike, > > That is pretty much what I am politely(?) trying to say. > > The powers that be seem to think that there are sufficient controls in place > to ensure their data is not corrupted. I am less than convinced. > > Ron Ferguson > http://www.fergys.co.uk/ > > Mike Fry<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2013/11/28 01:19, Ron Ferguson wrote: >> >>> Whilst Family Search is based on user submitted data, with all the problems >>> that brings, we can now also amend that data, and with the best will in the >>> world I cannot but see how this is not going to worsen the quality of the >>> data. >> >> Don't you think that facilities like this, improperly used, will only add to >> the >> mess that was the IGI? After all, the FamilySearch database does include a >> lot >> of what was in the IGI. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
