Is "Confirmed With DNA" too specific considering current privacy concerns?

+20 votes
428 views
The "confirmed with DNA" tag seems to generate a good deal of controversy and privacy concerns, mostly in terms of documentation. Might it be better to amend the tag to instead be two tags, "supported by DNA" and "not supported by DNA"?

Both "supported by" and "not supported by" would require the presence of actual DNA tests connected to the profile (is it possible that selecting one of these tags would trigger a mandatory source selection?).

Using "supported by" rather than "confirmed with" would maybe loosen the criteria of documentation to a more comfortable level for both the concerned with privacy population and the documentation police (meant respectfully). Adding the "not supported by" tag might be useful if/when conflicting test results impact a profile.

In my opinion, only next gen level Y DNA tests such as FTDNA's Big Y can actually be said to "confirm with DNA", autosomal and mtDNA tests are just too non-specific (mtDNA may be specific enough for a few generations but not for distant relationships, autosomal only supports but cannot be said to confirm specific relationships).

Watching the "New Genealogists" in the WikiTree Genealogy Feed the vast majority of individuals are adding the DNA tag, it would be nice to have a more comfortable style policy for everyone to use. Not sure if this suggestion fits the bill, but maybe it'll knock a few cents off it.
in Policy and Style by John Beardsley G2G6 Mach 4 (44.1k points)

Hello John,

Thanks for your question.  You say "...mtDNA may be specific enough for a few generations but not for distant relationships..."  You can find 14th cousins twice removed who are confirmed by mtDNA by going to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree_Tops and scrolling down to this section:

Direct maternal line with the most number of generations confirmed by matching mtDNA of distant cousins

  1. 19 generations from Duldig-2 to Neville-219 confirmed by the matching mtDNA of Duldig-2 and York-1245

The two cousins are Duldig-2 and Ibsen-35 and their most recent direct maternal line ancestor is Manners-17

Please let me know how that is not specific enough for distant relationships?

Thanks and sincerely,

Hi Peter,

I am haplogroup H1A1 according to my FTDNA tests. I've tested mtDNA as far as I can go. Haplogroup H as I understand it is the largest of the mtDNA, similar to R1b for the Y DNA. The problem is that, unlike the Y DNA, there is no way to further refine the haplogroup and narrow down the matches.

I have 626 zero or one step "matches" in FTDNA's database. To date I have not been able to find a common ancestor with any of them.  While the test results do suggest all of those matches are related to me at some point in history, there is no method I am aware of to use the mtDNA results to narrow the degree of relationship to any of the matches. Both Y and autosomal testing can narrow down the degree on the other hand.

In the example you gave, you state the relationship has been "confirmed" by matching mtDNA, I don't think that is correct (I'm number eight on that list BTW). If the two individuals can build a strong paper trail back to Neville-9 it can be said accurately that the mtDNA "supports" the paper trail but it is a semantic stretch to say the trail has been confirmed.

I have several matches but they're not on wikitree they're with people on ancestry from gedmatch . One my first cousin I put on our mutual grandparents pages but don't know how to get the confirmed with DNA tag to work, I've tried several times. with1170 cms of match, its definitely confirmed we're first cousins. What am I doing wrong or not doing?

Hi John,  Nice to hear from you!

I agree that you have hit upon a big issue, comfort level.  I am not comfortable with the documentation process required for "confirmed with DNA".  I have lots of occasions where I have matching tests, but I do not have permission to publicly connect test participant names and kit numbers.  I would like to see "Confirmed with DNA" changed to "Supported with DNA".

I do not really see much application of the "not supported by DNA" notation.  Sometimes it takes years for a genetic cousin to do a DNA test. A not supported note would end up on millions of profiles.  I think it it safe to assume that if a profile is not marked supported, it is unsupported.  

Because I do not have permission of link names and kit numbers, I usually post a note in the Biography at says something like:

=== DNA ===

Descendant of yDNA group NE18 brother [[Smith-1807|Joseph Smith-1807]] (c1629 ENG-1690 CT) m [[Huit-1|Lydia Huit-1]]. See SmithConnections Northeastern DNA Project.<ref>[https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/smith-connections/links SmithConnections Northeastern DNA Project], haplogroup Rb1 NE18 [[Smith-27264|Christopher Smith-27264]] (imm. from Stratford-Upon-Avon). Via Kit #133242, #163271, #232155, #256184, #346482, #724339, & #N74787</ref>

It would be nice to be able to use the "supported with DNA" note and get the little yellow-orange DNA stamp on the profile name, etc.  But, this has been discussed often before. 

The "not supported by DNA" as I envisioned it would only be used when conflicting DNA results occur Kitty. That would (should?) make its use a rare occurrence.

As Derrick Watson notes in his answer "confirmed by" is factually incorrect in that it implies the DNA proves the connection, which it does not. "Supported by" is more accurate scientifically and may leave some comfort room for researchers who do not trust the science yet. "Supported by" is also more the more linguistically correct terminology.

I am a DNA first person, I trust DNA data over paper trails 99.9% of the time so this is not a case of someone being resistant to the new science. That said, we need to be careful and accurate about how we present DNA data both in presentation of the data and the language used describing its application.

"That said, we need to be careful and accurate about how we present DNA data both in presentation of the data and the language used describing its application."

Hard to argue with that, particularly given that WikiTree's mission statement is: "Our mission is to grow an accurate single family tree that connects us all and is freely available to us all." If we err, I think it should be 100% of the time on the side of accuracy and clarity, not on the side of convenience, good feelings, or wishful family histories. There are enough bogus trees out there to keep the internet busy for decades. It was that word "accurate" that first drew me to WikiTree.

6 Answers

+11 votes
Hi John,

I like the open feel of Wikitree that you can always ask polite questions. If you see a DNA confirmation that you find is not quite right, you can ask how could that be possible due to the fact you can only go so far back with certain tests.  Just like other data entries in wikitree we are all here to help each other find out the truth about our ancestors.  I have no problem with some leaving a message for me regarding a questionable event or source.

fellow wikitreer : )

Lisa
by Lisa Ryals G2G6 Mach 1 (10.6k points)
+7 votes
Good idea John. I would feel more comfortable with that. With the current confirmation requirements I am unlikely to be able to make use on Wikitree of the many family DNA tests I manage.
by Lynda Crackett G2G6 Pilot (666k points)
+11 votes

Similar suggestions have not gone very far in the past.  IMO, the reason for this is that Wikitree decided to use DNA as a level above confident and then treat it like any other evidence.  An analogy would be requiring I make my birth certificate public to confirm the parents of my great-grandfather.

No other site does this.  IMO, the most significant problem is requiring that we connect the DNA test to an identifiable person and until this changes, no real solutions are possible.

Guidelines are set up to help us make decisions and prioritize. What is more important in the following example.

An FTDNA project leader has about 500 people who have joined a particular surname project.  He has asked for and received family trees from most of them.  He is prohibited from connecting the DNA test to a particular person, but he could tell indicate that the decedents of a particular ancestor have DNA tests that are consistent with the existing trees.

Is it more important to know that these tests exist and that a contactable person may be able to provide some additional information to help those trying to narrow down their own connection; or is it better to have no information, because of the unwillingness of the FTNDA project manager to identify the DNA Tester?  Wikitree chooses it’s better not to know. I would prefer we did know.

I have about 25 identifiable DNA cousins. I don’t have the privacy concerns that most of them do.  When the recommendation to them is that if they have a privacy concern, then just don’t participate.  There must be a better solution.  I have removed all my DNA confirmations because I just don’t see the upside of having to negotiate with family just to display an icon.

I believe that most Wikitree users would prefer to see a list of every cousin who has taken an autosomal DNA Test and work to see if there is some useful information than only to see those that 3rd cousins or closer that have taken a test and have already been confirmed. 

The focus should be on providing information helpful to the mapping process, using accepted mapping practices. The primary purpose of mapping is to help find connections that have not already been made.  This process will by its very nature identify parent/child relationships that DNA further supports.

Just my Opinion.

by Ken Sargent G2G6 Mach 6 (61.6k points)
+10 votes
I like the idea of an ADDITIONAL status to augment (rather than replace) the 'confirmed by DNA' and have recommended a 'suggested by DNA' status in the past.  To some, 'suggested' and 'supported' might seem synonymous but it is really the words 'supported' and 'confirmed' that are synonymous - at least this is the case if by 'supported' on means supported by evidence.  Some infer that 'confirmed' means proved, but confirmation is simply corroboration not proof, i.e. it supports other evidence.

It is important here to stress the importance of what you said about having a more comfortable style and perhaps we can show the 'confirmed with DNA' using the current GOLD standard (double entrendre intended) and adopt a SILVER standard for 'suggested by DNA' to enable this more relaxed style.

My wish list would be to see this 'suggested' option and the current 'confirmed' option augmented with some capability to write the supporting statement once without regard to paternal or maternal  (you know, then one that says Fred matches Nancy on chr. 7 for 8.1273456 cM, yada, yada) and have it auto-magically applied to the relevant path and automagicallly flip appropriate maternal or paternal confirmed flag to either 'suggested' or 'confirmed' (or from 'suggested' to confirmed) based on a rule filter that applies considerations for the type of test (y,mt, au, x), the distance between the testees, and the amount of the match (cM count or predicted relationship of test provider).

What the relaxed rules would look like, is a whole subject in itself and I will not try to enumerate them but will give one example:  In building a triangulation group, one has a series of matches that are above 7 cM but unless and until there are three testees more distant than 3c, there is nothing to show the relationship (without looking at the bio to see if a statement is included in there somewhere).  With a silver standard in place, one can publicize that there is a valid relationship that could be built upon to hopefully achieve the gold standard at some future point.  Users could look at DNA ancestry and DNA descendant charts and quickly see opportunities and get direction on which cousins might need to be tested to turn silver into gold (WikiTree can redefine alchemy).
by Living Anderson G2G6 Mach 7 (78.7k points)
+8 votes
I think you are spot on with your suggestion. The current terminology of "Confirmed by DNA" is scientifically incorrect and potentially misleading.

An extreme example:

I can confirm with certainty that my brother is my brother using autosomal DNA. That means that we share the same father - it does not confirm the name of our father or that he was the person who is named on both our birth certificates. As you suggest, that person is supported by the DNA evidence, but not "Confirmed" by it.

I personally prefer the idea of "Consistent with DNA", If we were to make that one small change I think it would remove a lot of confusion and perhaps open up some new possibilities (4th cousins can be consistent with DNA, but on wikitree rules cannot be confirmed by it).
by Derrick Watson G2G6 Mach 4 (48.5k points)
+6 votes
Yes! It would be nice to show what we find on Ancestry, and 23 and me etc. the common ancestors and paths, Suggested, consistent, supported, whatever. I believe the Wikitree triangulation requires 11 cM on the same place on the same chromosome, which is almost never going to happen for 3 people at above the 3rd cousin level (how many are there so far?). There are lots of people who tested but never put it on GEDmatch, but they still show as cousins on Ancestry. You could list the cM match on any pair.

Also I would like to have a way to mark people that show as cousins where we haven't found the link yet!!! We could have a DNAcousins category or sticker that we could put on our profiles. That would be an interesting project to link matched people!
by Sue Hall G2G6 Pilot (167k points)
edited by Sue Hall

Related questions

+19 votes
1 answer
+18 votes
3 answers
369 views asked Feb 25, 2018 in Policy and Style by Ken Sargent G2G6 Mach 6 (61.6k points)
+12 votes
1 answer
0 votes
1 answer
228 views asked Dec 10, 2016 in The Tree House by Tim Perry G2G6 Mach 3 (35.2k points)
+6 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
1 answer
+21 votes
4 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...