Genealogists strive for accuracy. We search for records, evaluate evidence, and correct errors. But I've come to believe that no family tree will ever be 100% accurate and complete. The problem isn't simply missing records or incorrect information. It's how we define family.
I believe there are two schools of thought about family trees. The first is biological: Who begat whom? If we had DNA from every person who ever lived, we could theoretically reconstruct biological ancestry far more completely than we can today. That would be invaluable, particularly for understanding inherited medical conditions. It could also be dangerous, think Harry Potter pure bloods.
The second is social: Who actually functioned as family?
A child might have biological parents, adoptive parents, stepparents, or guardians. An aunt might have raised a nephew. A neighbor might have taken in an orphan. These relationships shaped lives, yet traditional family trees rarely show them all.
Most genealogy software allows us to identify different parental relationships, but when we view a pedigree chart, we generally see only one set of parents. The other relationships may be recorded, but they aren't readily visible. We're left with a picture that doesn't tell the whole story.
Then there's the problem of conflicting evidence. One source identifies a particular father; another names someone else. Our software generally expects us to choose, even when the evidence doesn't justify a conclusion.
Recently, I learned about a new genealogy platform called Human Lineage, developed by Michał Kurasiński. Intrigued, I contacted him to ask how it handles conflicting information and erroneous relationships.
Kurasiński explained that his project combines genealogical information from existing databases, currently WikiTree and Wikidata. When sources disagree, Human Lineage presents the conflicting information with references rather than deciding which is correct. Researchers make their own determinations.
He was equally candid about its limitations. The platform doesn't independently verify information, so errors in the original databases can appear in Human Lineage. Corrections must originate with those sources.
I haven't independently tested the platform, but I appreciate the concept. Instead of insisting on a single answer, it allows researchers to consider competing claims. This is what I attempted to do with my upcoming book series Echoes in Britannia but my approach was discovery through my own research followed by my decision after weighing the evidence.
I'd like to see genealogy software take that thinking further. Imagine viewing biological relationships alongside adoptive, foster, and other meaningful family connections. Imagine seeing disputed parentage clearly identified rather than hidden behind a solid line connecting two people.
We should never stop striving for accuracy. But we also need to recognize that our family trees are interpretations of available evidence, not necessarily complete representations of the past.
Perhaps the greatest limitation of our family trees isn't the mistakes we've made. It's the people and relationships we've left out.
After all, the people who gave our ancestors life weren't always the people who shaped their lives.
Source note: Michał Kurasiński, email correspondence with author, 10 November 2026. The description of Human Lineage is based on his statements, not independent testing. Michał is willing to respond to any questions so please contact him at hello@humanlineage.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment