Does everyone know the purpose of a profile manager? [closed]

Question

Recently I have come across a lot of members who had a lot of profiles they adopted and did nothing to improve the profile.   I asked why they adopted the profile and they indicated, "because it is an ancestor of mine".   So, don't you want you ancestor's profiles to be accurate? 

Let's remember that The Profile Manager has primary responsibility for a WikiTree profile, and for older profiles, the manager is a leader for the genealogical collaboration.   I think that means you have the responsibility to DO SOMETHING when a question is asked, a merge is proposed or a problem is identified.   Now, if you want to have all your ancestors on your watchlist, but, don't want the leadership responsibility, then, just remove yourself as manager, but stay on the trusted list.

Any other thoughts or discussions?

Comments

sure makes a lot of sense to me!  THANX for verbalizing it and - even more - for disseminating it!

---

Excellent post Robin.

---

I am new to the process and am probably doing the same thing. However, I am verifying all research to make sure those I list has verified information.  Learning as I go.

---

On the occasions that I have adopted orphan profiles

I take the information available and build a independent tree and wait for hints to develop, Most times the results have been positive.  

I then monitor those profiles and if there are requests for inclusion to the profile management list.  

I will also consider recusing myself in favour of the applicant profile manager.

It really is educational and rewarding sifting through European, and English history, the various regional colloquial differences and spelling of family's Surnames in historical records.

---

Thanks for the reminder! I have adopted some profiles but set them aside because I was working on something else at the time. Eventually, I forget to go back to them. So, I'm on it! Cari Yocom

---

What you write make perfect sense to me. That is exactly what i do: when i adopt a profile, i proceed to improve it. I only adopt profiles that i come across in connexion with a profile that i am already working on, and i only adopt profiles that i intend to clean-up, correct, add to and beautify. They are always profiles of persons somehow related too me, usually very distantly. But i do not go looking for adoptable ancestral profiles merely to become their manager: there are too many, and it is useless, as you have pointed out, to become manager of a profile that you then forget about. I check merge requests nearly every day.Adoption carries responsibility with it!

---

great answer!

---

Hi - Kudos as you are doing exactly what a Profile Manager should do - review the profiles and verify that the information is as accurate as possible and that there are some Sources for it (whenever possible!).  Thank you for sharing!

---

Well said Robin!  Thank you for doing so. I empathize with those that are "managers" of several hundreds of profiles. But I would like to make a suggestion to them.  Post a comment that you're managing too many to keep up with in a timely manner, which you regret, and then ask others for help in doing so.  People then for the most part will know you're trying to be attentive and will probably be more patient and understanding... AND you'll probably have more people willing to step in and be a co-manager or at least help with the one profile. I hope this suggestion helps!

---

I would like to add new profiles but i think that it is better to work on the 214 that i have uploaded via the Gedcom. Going through this Gedcom here has shown me some errors that need to be addressed so i will be doing that first.

Answer 1

I am so trying for best answer here.

Robin, this is just great! Thanks very much for the post!

Mags, Robins Lee's Biggest Fan

 

Answer 2

I am too slow? I have several profiles that I have not improved yet. Being manager for a profile does not hinder collaboration. Not having improved a profile yet does not mean that I am not willing to take a leadership role for that profile. I have about 15 hundred profiles on my watchlist. Is that a lot? It is to me, and I am working on getting it down to maybe 10 hundred. I do not know how many profiles I manage or co-manage, but would like to get it down to maybe 250. Is that a lot? Is there really a problem or is it impatience? When is a work-in-progress complete?

Comments

I agree with every thing you say James...it's easy for someone else to pop in and make an assumption on a profile you manage...but they don't  walk in you shoes or know what your plan is

---

James, I think that you are fine, as long as you are keeping up with any questions/comments/merge requests etc for those profiles you haven't improved yet.  

The ideal would be to only have a few unimproved profiles that we could manage in a short time period, but the reality is that Wikitreeers are almost all volunteers, who do have some aspects of their lives/work/interests outside of Wikitree and our anticipated time to work on a profile is almost always a huge underestimation.  (At least that's my experience).

**I'm hoping I'm right in this, as I am in much the same situation as you, only 10 times worse (or better)**  :)

---

Hi John...I think you have it right

---

James --

I think what Robin is referring to is when a profile manager doesn't take responsibility for the profiles they're managing. In other words, they don't respond to requests for merges or Trusted List additions, etc. Have you ever posted a message to a profile and then waited forever for the manager to respond?

Many of us have large watchlists, and there is no way to improve all the profiles at once. It's like the old adage says, "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time." Genealogy is a hobby, and no one is expected to spend all of their free time here, but we do expect Profile Managers to respond when they're contacted.

By the way, you probably aren't aware of the amount of time and work Robin puts into Wikitree. She is the leader of our Arborists project. You should check it out! It's a great project with a lot of hard-working volunteers, and we always need more.

Respectfully,

Julie

---

James,

I think some others covered it, but, yes, I understand it takes time and I still have unsourced profiles on my watchlist.   But, I also have notes about why they are unsourced or notes about theories and whenever someone posts a potential "lead" in my search, I do something.   NOT immediately, and when someone offers to help out with an ancestor, I jump on the opportunity to have help.   I was really pointing out the people who put merges in a matched state and have done nothing after a year or so, or adopt 100 profiles and have done nothing for a year....

James, just by responding to this post the way you did....you are a responsible profile manager....

Answer 3

I seem to have adopted a handful of profiles that are pre-1500 so can't touch them yet.

Comments

You can always add the sources and information you have found in the comments on a profile even if you cannot edit the profile.   This is true with other profiles that are not "open", not just pre-1500.

---

I do, but it's not hard to hit the daily anti-spam limit that way.

---

Thanks, Robin, I'll see if I can flesh them out a bit that way for now, then come back to them later.

---

RJ Horace...not sure what limit you are talking about....you can post an unlimited number of comments on profiles.   I think you are thinking about sending private messages.

---

Public comments are counted the same as private emails.  See complaint by Philip on a separate thread.  I think this includes merge messages as well.  You lose if you've already posted 20 in 24 hours.

Various badge-holders are exempted, including arborists, as well as Leaders obviously.  But there are dire warnings to those people about the dangers of sending too many similar messages.

In fact I recently discovered a bunch of emails from WikiTree dropped in my Spam box by Yahoo.  I've no idea how many I might have missed.

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Daily_limits_on_messages

 

Answer 4

My impression is that the Wikitree "powers that be" would prefer profiles to have a profile manager versus not. That impression comes from the multiple mentions and encouragements to adopt profiles included in many of the FAQ and help pages.  This makes some sense to me, so there is an identified point person who is willing to "take responsibility" for any issues that arise around a profile (even if that responsibility consists of being a soundboard or finding an approprpriate Wikitree person to provide an answer to the issue). And, of course, being a profile manager doesn't necessarily mean that others can't update or correct a profile - that's a matter of profile security settings.

But I would be concerned if anyone adopted a profile and then ramped up the security settings to keep others from updating the profile. Is that what you're talking about? I haven't noticed instances of that occurring, but I obviously don't have a full view of all Wikitree activity.

Comments

Actually Stuart, just the opposite.   I see people adopt profiles and not even approve merges proposed.   When you adopt a profile, I would think that you would want to make it better, by adding sources, cleaning up the text, etc.

---

Makes no sense to me.  If an Open profile has a manager, the manager can do various things.  But if it hasn't, anybody can do those things.

The only function of the manager is to be an obstacle - to obstruct, block, say no.

Why do people complain when managers do what they're for?  If they didn't do that, they wouldn't be doing anything, as managers.  Stuff they could equally do with an orphan doesn't count as PM work obviously.

---

Yeah, that sucks, I completely agree.  And I *have* had that occur to me, that proposed mergers are just ignored.
I suspect that frequently occurs when the profile manager has lost interest in Wikipedia and is no longer checking in (and/or turned off their notifications settings).  What happens when a WT participant drifts away? (or dies?) I know that there is a process in place to override when a PM fails to respond to requests (thanks, WT!), but it would also seem prudent to remove a participant from their PM roles when they have not been active on WT for some period of time.  Maybe that does happen, but I haven't seen any posted policy about it...