First off, THANK YOU for the time you're devoting to try to address this challenge, Chris. I know how busy you are, and I appreciate that you're investing the time in this. That said, Chris, I have MANY problems with this new draft policy.
"Never enter information on WikiTree, even uncertain information, without including your source."
This implies that any information on a profile that does not have a source should be removed. Is that what you intended?
"What are examples of uncertain sources?"
You've now switched from "uncertain information" to "uncertain sources". This is REALLY problematic. It introduces a new concept not currently present in genealogical research circles. There is sufficient confusion already about types of sources; you're making it worse by creating a new category: "uncertain sources" Sources are either ORIGINAL or DERIVATIVE. Please, please, please do not make matters worse by introducing a new concept "uncertain sources".
"Here are some sources that should be considered uncertain:..."
The sources you list are DERIVATIVE sources, not "uncertain".
"Here are examples of reliable sources:"
Again, you're now introducing a new term: "reliable sources". PLEASE do not make it even more confusing for people. We need to be encouraging people to use existing standards for these terms, not creating new ones.
"WikiTree is designed for genealogy collaboration, not just genealogy publishing."
Whether you intend this or not, this conveys that wikitree values "uncertain" research as much as it does published research that has demonstrated serious evidence analysis. IF YOU GO THIS ROUTE, you will lose qualified genealogists. You will make wikitree an unreliable place to go. You will make wikitree no better than "unsourced family trees" on ancestry.com.
"Adding unproven genealogy and trying to prove or disprove it is part of the improvement process."
But then, what do we do once "proven"? Your text earlier, above, implies that proven, published genealogy shouldn't be the standard here. At least, that's how I'm reading what you've written.
"To encourage collaboration, we want members to say what they think they know and why they think they know it. Then we can discuss the validity of the sources."
I'd like to think that projects like PGM are doing this very thing. But as I read the rest of your policy, you're giving "uncertain" parents as much weight as you're giving the analysis of experts such as Robert Charles Anderson.
"It's true that in many cases there is no ongoing research. Sometimes all the available sources have been recorded and fully examined by good genealogists and no reliable conclusions can be made. However, additional evidence may be discovered, even for very early ancestors."
This implies that even if Robert Charles Anderson has provided pretty much "the final word," that it's still okay to attach parents that he's concluded are not proven, because hey, maybe there's something else out there that might disprove Anderson. Is that really what you intend?
"If, however, you estimate a birth date, use Smith as the last name and mark it as Uncertain, and enter John Smith as her father and enter him as Uncertain, you're much more likely to find possible matches. (Note that our search tools don't currently use relationships as a matching factor but they will someday soon.) [and the later stuff about Cousin Bait...] "
So we should retain shoddy connections so that the search engine works? And we should keep "uncertain connections" so that people who believe they have ancestors who have been disproven by serious researchers will still find the wikitree profiles? You say the following, but it seems to contradict what you just said. At a minimum, I'm totally confused...
"To be clear, we wouldn't ever want to enter incorrect or disproven facts in our database fields just to attract distant cousins who may be searching for it. This would destroy the integrity of our database. Database fields need to be used according to set standards, i.e. only uncertain information should be marked as Uncertain... "
You then write:
"Generally speaking, any Wiki Genealogist can enter any uncertain information that they believe might be true. It just needs to be marked as Uncertain, sourced, and explained, as described at the top of this page."
This implies that someone can come to a PGM profile, attach uncertain parents, despite what Anderson has published. PGM volunteers have spent HOURS and HOURS and HOURS trying to improve the profiles of these old ancestors. The above implies that someone can come along and attach "uncertain" parents, and be supported by policy, after much time and attention has been paid to DETACHING unproven parents.
"There is a "preponderance of evidence" standard for replacing the data in name, date, and relationship fields. If there is more evidence for one set of facts over another, the information should be replaced. "
The organization that certifies genealogists gave up on "preponderance of evidence" decades ago. See http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/prepond.html. If wikitree insists on using this phrase, it is moving away from quality genealogical research, and will be considered by anyone doing serious genealogical research to be bogus and not worth the time invested.
"Even though it can lead to conflicts, please improve upon information when you can. Resolving conflicting information is the height of genealogy collaboration on WikiTree. It's what our community is all about. Remember that the other member has also signed the Honor Code that says, among other relevant points..."
While this sounds really good, and I would concur with it, it seems totally contradictory to the rest of what you've posted.
"You should not remove uncertain information added by another member unless it's almost-certainly incorrect or other facts are more likely. Believing that it's more likely to be incorrect than correct is not enough unless there is better information."
This is what analysis of evidence is all about. Sometimes such analysis concludes "it's more likely to be incorrect". This includes research conclusions published by Anderson. But you're saying that such would be insufficient to detach "likely to be incorrect" parents.
Unless I am totally mis-interpreting what you've written, Chris, what you're proposing is a HUGE deterrent to my continued participation at Wikitree.
