Proposal: Not pre-1500-certified? Don't adopt pre-1500 profiles [closed]

Question

Currently you can adopt any profile that has no profile manager.  But if you are not "pre-1500 certified" - why adopt a pre-1500 profile?  You won't be able to edit it.  You'll end up posting to G2G asking someone else to stop what they're doing and do it. (Although most will very kindly do so.)

So why don't we make a ruling?  If you haven't got the pre-1500 badge, you can't adopt a pre-1500 profile.  End of story.

UPDATE: it's a no-no :o(

Comments

Good idea!

---

Caveat: project accounts cannot be pre-1500 certified (not even pre-1700, in fact) but may be required to manage pre-1500 profiles (Euro Aristo, Magna Carta, Scottish Clans, England, many Roots projects...).

That little problem aside, I agree.

---

Good idea Ros. It would make sense. Isabelle is right though, right now that would prohibit project accounts. If that could be worked around it would be great.

Answer 1

Hi Ros,

One reason we still allow this is that even though someone is not able to edit the profile, they still want to be part of the activity and decision making on the profile. Being on the trusted list means you get updates to when things happen to the profile; it isn't just about being able to edit it. I have quite a few profiles, in fact, that I am on the trusted list on solely to see what happens with them. I don't really do much editing.

We do not separate between being able to be on a trusted list or being a manager. I am not sure this change is something we'd pursue, since it would take away that following activity feature.

Comments

So is this now the "official" answer to my proposal? :o(

---

This answer means it is an attempt to make people happy in a way which will inevitably make people quite rightfully annoyed. Makes no sense at all? It is a trick, but not even a clever trick?

---

Abby, I don't see any reason why there can't be a distinction between being a Profile Manager versus being on the trusted list.  I think most everyone would be fine with moving those non-certified  managers to the trusted list.  They do not need to be removed entirely.

The pre-1500 certification has been in place for a long time now.  As it stands now, there is frustration by PMs who get notices but cannot help work on the profiles.  And there is frustration by the certified wikitree members who find their work blocked or greatly slowed down by PMs who can't help.  

We get requests all the time from members to be added to a trusted list just so they can follow a profile, so there already is a process in place for those who aren't certified to follow or watch a profile.  You said it yourself -   "I am on the trusted list on solely to see what happens with them"   You didn't say you were a PM on all those profiles solely to follow them, much less a PM who is unable to work on a profile.

Allowing non-certified members to adopt or remain a PM is a bad policy, which is making it more difficult for those who are certified to improve wikitree.  It is something which just isn't common sense.

---

It isn't a trick at all. Many members want to know what is happening, even if they cannot actively make changes. They can still voice concerns, or post comments on the profile when they see something happening. Being on the trusted list only, they will not get merge requests. There are some of the biggest changes. They also will not get comments emailed to them. They'll only see those in their Weekly Family newsletter. Being manager means they can still see things in real time in order to be a part of the process even if they cannot make changes.

I am not saying we can't consider the change, but there are valid reasons for keeping it the way we have.

---

By "trick" I thought it would be clear that I mean the following.

The idea is clearly to give a feeling of power, but no real power until they try to use it. (This is just an "ugly way" of saying the same thing you are saying.) What us pre-1500 people are seeing, and sympathizing with, is that this feels like a trick the moment that such editors realize that they do not really have that power. We do not want that conflict and frustration anymore than anyone else.

It has been pointed out by others that if observation and limited powers are the aim, then there are other ways to do it, which we all surely realize. That makes it all the more look like deliberate deception. Why not make a more transparent and distinct policy?

This is annoying people more than it needs to annoy people, for obvious and quite intention reasons, and it is important this does not unfairly undercut the pre-1500 certification system which has had really good results (if quality is the aim of Wikitree).

---

What if adopting put you on the trusted list only if you are not pre-1500 certified?

Answer 2

I fully support this.

Comments

Yes, as long as project accounts can be exceptions.

Answer 3

I fully support this if the project accounts can be the exception.

Answer 4

I would definitely be in favor of a rule restricting the adoption of pre-1500 profiles by those members not certified. A rule has recently been put in place to prevent Guests from adopting profiles, so it should be possible to adopt something similar here.

Project accounts are often required to manage pre-1700 and pre-1500 profiles. I'm not sure about pre-1500, but I do know they can be pre-1700 certified and I think also pre-1500. Otherwise they could not manage these profiles, edit them, agree to merges, etc. So any rule which prohibited members not pre-1500 certified from adopting these profiles would not apply to project accounts.

Answer 5

I totally agree that it does not make much sense for members that are not pre-1500 Certified to be able to adopt pre-1500 profiles that they then cannot edit or work on.

As for Project Accounts, either they can be mass-pre-1500 approved (all it takes is a Leader to do that, unless the procedure has changed) or they can be exempted.  New project accounts can be automatically approved if more are created later.

I am not a software person but I think one or the other of these solutions will work and could be implemented right away.

Please, if there are members reading this who believe that the present system where any member can adopt any orphaned profile, has merit, give us your reasoning here.  I do not accept that one is "preparing for future certification" this way, as that is a disguised way to put pressure on the Leaders who make these decisions and I don't think that is right.  First get the certification and then adopt the profiles IMHO.

Comments

Testing the waters and rocking the boat I admit I did used to think it strange that Pre 1700 & Pre 1500 Profiles could have Managers who could not edit them. Now I am thinking along quite a different line and asking why we have to be certified at all? WikiTree is for all of us. Normal rules about not making edits without adequate Sources should logically be sufficient along with courtesy and respect for unresolved disputes.

-Gilly

Answer 6

I totally agree. I was very surprised to find that this wasn't the case already. It seems like the sort of thing that would have been dealt with at the time that the pre-1500 certification was set up.

As Chet mentioned, there must surely be ways to solve the problem for project accounts.