I have noted some talk in G2G recently about the pro's and con's of leaving in the "Information as remembered by..." or the "WikiTree profile created by import of..." comments in the body of the bio section or as a source.
It's is very clear what is acceptable by WikiTrees standards and our honor code:
WikiTree's nine-point Honor Code includes these two points:
- VII. We give credit. Although most genealogy isn't copyrighted, researchers deserve credit for the work they've done.
- VIII. We cite sources. Without sources we can't objectively resolve conflicting information.
Oh I know no one born in 1960 could possible have first hand knowledge of anyone born in the 1700's, and yes, I know that WikiTree used to post a similar comment automatically to profiles. When I come across comments like these, I turn them into a source (no the poster is not a primary source unless they new the subject of the profile) - "Information as entered by", instead of first hand knowledge or as remembered by. Or I create an Acknowledgments section and copy the statement - with the updated words, "Information as entered by..." to a spot below the Sources.
The "WikiTree profile created by import of..." statement, doesn't help in the realm of WikiTree per sae because you can't go back to the server and pull-up the GEDCOM. But you can go back to the original poster (if they are still active) and ask them to review their files for the specific GEDCOM from which you want information.
As to keeping the information about who created the information from merged-in profiles, I personally keep them in an acknowledgements section. You don't have to because the changes feed keeps track of them as well as any edits you do to the profile. "...if a significant amount of work was done by a WikiTree member other than yourself and you feel that the depth and importance of their contributions may be overlooked in the Changes feed."
For more information on how we give credit, look at the help page on Acknowlegdments.
Mags
WikiTree chief Acknowledger
