Honor code - citing sources

Question

Can we perhaps move that part about citing sources, which is presently VIII on the list to say III on the list - indicating it is kind of important?

I'm unsure why we can still manually create profiles without adding a source. I thought there would be something in the algorithm now to avoid this.

Any chance of a change in process in the future?

Answer 1

You are right about the creation of a profile from scratch, but trying to ask someone to write code (taking all potential languages into consideration) that will somehow validate all the people by checking them against databases (that are often wrong anyway and take human effort to find a solution). Artificial intelligence often fails and OCR often misreads.

I would agree that some "sign" the Honor Code as easily as they use a gift card (without thinking) and it's a problem. They may come from the "click a leaf" site that gives you the answers without research, and maybe the idea of spending a half hour or more looking for a source isn't realistic for them, so they "shortcut" the process. They may not realize that they can cause a domino effect of mistakes. I think people should understand sourcing can be a time-consuming process. I myself would rather not see a source at all, rather than a bad source that leads me down the wrong road.

Comments

I rather like to see a "bad" source, which can be later confirmed elsewhere than no source. Yes, sourcing is time consuming, but it is the foundation. And remember, "aunt Elizabeth" who told you stories about her siblings and cousins when you had a lunch with her, is considered a source here.

---

But I'm not asking anyone to write code. Most people can copy and paste and if little else, they can type (even with a couple of fingers) - or they wouldn't have been able to start a profile.

I do agree that sometimes the sources are wrong too - meaning that the particulars that are referenced may be misinterpreted, or mis-typed. I've seen that quite a lot with census transcripts. The writing might have been very hard to read.

But I'm not asking about either of those things....just can someone add a link, or a bit of detail about some of the information they're providing? It's part of our honor code. I'm not worried about the format, but referencing an entire database with very little else to go on can be time consuming. A couple more clues would be helpful. I've also come across profiles where I can see WHY they had trouble locating anything to support it - I don't question that when I can see it's difficult. I also don't question it when I see some of the data was wrong to begin with, (through no fault of the profile manager's, because sometimes it's helpful to have another set of eyes to be objective).

Perhaps that's the aim - unsourced so someone else can be objective when adding sources and help validate the information? Hey, it takes me a while to get to another angle sometimes :)

---

In the honor code under II. it says we care about accuracy. In III. of the honor code, it states that "we assume that mistakes are unintentional". While mistakes are inevitable, as it states...I personally think we should try our best to avoid them. In VIII. of the honor code it discusses sourcing, though not in detail, nor should it need to be. When it mentions "resolving conflicting information", I would hope that a person wouldn't misunderstand the intent. A source is sometimes as good as the effort put into the profile. I know you're not advocating for poor sourcing, I would hope that we don't get complacent by accepting everything on the plate just because it's there. I think the data doctors are busy enough...

Answer 2

" I thought there would be something in the algorithm now to avoid this."

The old computer term GIRO (Garbage In Rubbish Out) comes to mind. There is no algorithm that can tell the difference between a source, and 'Family Bible' or 'Tree passed down to me' Or, the ones that just click the box, and leave the profile with the imortal words.. 'Source will be added by xxxxx 31st February 1922'

Comments

I can't disagree with that.

---

At least we finally got rid of "personal knowledge of xxxx" as the system generated source for hundreds of years old people.  As I recall, that took several years of frequent begging to happen, though, before it was replaced with the "source will be added by ...".

---

I'm still coming across those at times. I laugh....must be an immortal!

---

I recently encountered a whole family whose source was “Google Chrome.”

---

Kathie - another one showing up on recently created profiles is "internet records"

Dave - interesting point on algorithm.... the BioCheck app algorithm is find all the "not a source" then see if anything else is left.