Hopefully they gave some corroborating evidence of that. I have seen some abismally researched data come out of some of those trees on Ancestry.com.
Just the other day I saw that someone had a Fiske who was reportedly born in 1618 in Sudbury, Massachusetts...
I was like, how historically ignorant would you have to be to think that was a valid birth location...? The submitter never noticed that their original source information had this person born in Massachusetts, two years before the Pilgrims even landed?
I've seen trees where the submitter had the children born to parents, who their own records showed, were already dead, not born yet or under ten years old.
Bottom line, unless you personally see a vital record be suspicious about whatever you find or are given. I always try to confirm with another printed source or record anything that I have been searching for.
Hopefully I didn't take the wind out of your sail but I couldn't pass up a chance to vent over the horrible "personal data files" some people have posted on that site.
P.S. One of my ancestors has been wrongly listed as being a certain Sarah Langhorne born in 1649 when the correct Sarah Langhorne was actually born to different parents in 1660. I would have thought that it would have been obvious to the people that copied the data that something was wrong when they copied the part where her last two children were born when the wrong Sarah would have been 52 and 57 years old. The sad thing is 22 seperate "submitters" have sent in the bad data as being fact, that's just wrong.