Do you agree with this policy page on recently-deceased strangers?

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Some of you followed this discussion initiated by Robin Lee: "Should this become the official WikiTree policy on creating profiles for recently deceased people?"

There have been conflicts between members regarding profiles of people who have died in recent tragedies. Without a clear policy page it has been hard to resolve these conflicts. For more on the conflict resolution aspect of this, see Finding the Question in a Conflict.

We need a clear answer to this question: "When is it acceptable to create a profile for a recently-deceased person who is not a close relative?"

I am inclined to think we don't need any new rules. I think this question can be answered by elaborating on the implications of our Honor Code and other policies. With that in mind and with the help of some of the participants in the previous discussion I have put together this help page:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Recently_Deceased_Strangers

Do you think that this page accurately reflects the implications of our existing rules and policies? If so, we can finalize the page very quickly. If members feel that we need a more formal new rule we can talk about it some more.

If you think the page is basically on target but could suggest improvements in the wording, please post your suggested changes here.

If you're not sure how you would apply the policy, ask. Perhaps we could talk about some specific examples. Robin didn't want to make an example of any one member's profiles in the previous discussion, but if a member wants to volunteer a profile they created as an example that would be great.

Thanks,

Chris

Comments

I very much appreciate the time that all members put into this discussion and the effort that you and the team have taken to address this issue that many of us find to be very important.  While I understand that some people are willing to list anything and everything on the internet, not everyone is so open with their personal lives.  Being sensitive to the wishes of others is important and makes WikiTree a good online neighbor.

I believe that the help page is the perfect answer to this issue.

---

Thank you, Chris, for giving time to this sensitive issue. I am very happy with what you are proposing.

---

Looks fine, a due clarification!

---

Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion. We will call this an official policy page now. Of course, as with all policies, changes can be proposed and discussed in the future.

---

Chris, I just left this comment on the other discussion but it really belongs here,

"I echo that this is a nicely written policy, although I had to hunt around to find out that it is policy; this was closed with the note that it was still a "draft". This needs to get more visibility, in particular, it's not linked from the Honor Code or from "Help:Privacy" or any of the obvious places; I really only find it under the Styles and Standards category. I think it should at least be mentioned and linked in the honor code and summarized and linked on Help:Privacy.

I also think there ought to be a way to get significant policy changes out to users. This was more or less done (if perhaps a bit belatedly) with the GDPR changes, and in any event the consequences of that became obvious. Perhaps there should be a 1-time clickthrough on login when there's policy changes that users need to be aware of?

This is a good and important common sense policy but I'm afraid that after a few months it's still not visible to exactly the folks that need to see it."

I understand from this discussion that it's didn't end up being a policy change so much as an elaboration, but as an official expression of policy it ought to get a little more exposure.

Answer 1

Chris, thank you for posting this question again.  I am going to copy part of one of my last responses to the previous question here:

...I'll be clear, as I have already.  I oppose any such policy.  I think that anything that limits the free exchange of information, beyond keeping living people private, is going in the wrong direction.  The more we limit information on WikiTree, the less relevant and useful we become.

Comments

I beg to differ Julie, we are about GENEALOGY.  While a recently deceased person is obviously somebody's child first, and may have spouse and descent, the descent they have, unless a centenarian, is likely limited to 1 to 3 generations.  

Their ancestry is more interesting to us on principle, where did this person stem from?

As far as the ''free exchange of information'', I will have you note that most countries have legislation which covers both access to information and privacy.  When we deal with living or recently deceased people, we are balancing on a fine line between the two.

---

I am all too aware of that, Danielle.  It has been obvious from the start of this debate, and from other debates in the past, that there is a difference, in general, between European and American attitudes.  Before anyone jumps down my throat for that statement, allow me to say that I know there are exceptions to the generalization.

There is also a difference between European and American laws.  I am not going to comment further because I don't want the discussion to degenerate into something yet more acrimonious.

Answer 2

Chris, I think the help page is sensitive and respectful.Thanks for putting so much time into progressing this issue.

Comments

I agree with Gillian. Well done, Chris! Thank you!

---

I echo Gillian's sentiments.  This is a respectful way to handle a complicated and difficult issue.  Well done! To Robin, and Team for putting it together.. Thank you!

Answer 3

I believe Chris's suggestion regarding family privacy is spot on. As in all things, the golden rule policy solves most problems. In general, someone not a close relative of a recently deceased person will not know much more than what is already public record - possible only date of death. Other facts about a person, unless there is an obituary, likely remain unknown - possibly even birth date, names of other family members, and so on. I believe it would be easy to intrude into the privacy desires of the family without meaning to, or understanding what one has done.

My personal approach would be to just leave those matters alone. There are millions of unsourced profiles which we can add value to. I doubt that creating a profile for a non-family recent decedent would be adding much value.

Comments

So as long as there are unsourced profiles we can add value to (and there surely always will be, because more are being created daily), we shouldn't create new ones?

---

"So as long as there are unsourced profiles we can add value to ... we shouldn't create new ones?"

That is not what he said.  Please, lets try to be accurate when we repeat what someone said; we shouldn't be taking what they say out of context - it isn't accurate or fair.

edit: spelling correction

---

All the words are right there on the page.  I'll let people decide for themselves what was said.

Answer 4

I appreciate the thought, time and effort invested in this subject. I feel the proposed policy is fine as it is currently drafted.

My thought on profiles for the recently deceased is this: "recently deceased" means there are those who are "recently bereaved." Consider the spouse, child, grandchild who will stumble upon a profile for their beloved family member. Remember the first death in your own family and try to recall the pain you felt every time you thought of them being gone from your world. We don't need to add to that pain.

Comments

For the record, I stumbled across my mother’s Find A Grave memorial when I accidentally stumbled across Find A Grave. Then I realized what a gold mine I had stumbled across. Then I used it along with newspapers.com to make the hints in Ancestry come alive. I’ve got so many hints (sources) in Ancestry that’s it is laughable when WikiTree blows them off for FREE sources.

---

For the record, I stumbled across my father’s Find A Grave memorial which was created the day after he died and a customer of my family business left a thank you note on the memorial the next day. The funeral and burial was two days after that.  The memorial was created by a total stranger.  I have no clue who the person is. I have no clue who the person is that created my mother’s memorial.  But at least they were created and someone who new my father was able to leave a comment.

---

"I believe it highly unlikely that those who read the question didn't vote or that the votes cast did not match with the overall sentiment of the community."

Based on what, SJ? A mere 90 people cared enough to vote. There were 493 Club 1000 badges awarded in March, and 2175 Club 100 badges awarded. Thousands more would have been active and made less than 100 contributions. 

---

I read the comments nine days ago and held my tongue (fingers) hoping this would blow over. I didn’t think Chris was going to resurrect it nine days (10 days now) later.

---

For the record, I stumbled across my great nephew’s Find A Grave memorial last month as I was waiting the details for his funeral. I just happened to type in Buch and 2020 for death date to see how many Buchs had passed away so far this year and BAM there was my nephew’s memorial.

---

Yes, Leandra, and the post had 1.7k views.

---

I am currently eyeing a Buch person who passed away in Oct 2019 that I found on Find A Grave, that was born in the same town as my paternal g grandfather.  I know absolutely nothing about this person except for what his bio on Find A Grave says and what I might discover thru newspapers.com and what record hints come up on Ancestry.com.

I was thinking it would be great to use WikiTree to build out his tree. But now I am being discouraged by all this emotional talk. Two months and five days on WikiTree and after all this discussion, I’m thinking I should just go back to Ancestry and build out my newly discovered 2000+ DNA matches and leave all this censorship and emotional talk behind.

---

I understand the feeling, Tommy.  

For the record, I want to say that I've always respected the wishes of my family members.  When I wrote my mother's obituary, I listed living people.  I asked each of her sisters and her children if they wished to be mentioned.  My brother then added his own children's names to the obituary.  Everyone was fine with their names being public.  Likewise, when I add relatives to GEDmatch (because I manage their DNA), most of my relatives are quite comfortable with using their own real names.  I don't think I really understood, when I joined, that WikiTree would wish to suppress any mention of living people.  The Honor Code does not seem to explicitly say that.  I'm fine with living people's profiles being private, as they are on Ancestry, but beyond that, I think profiles should be public.  I want WikiTree to be about information for the use of everyone, not about indulging a few people's feelings.

And are we to edit the 1940 census too?

---

Tommy, re-read the discussion please, it is NOT about family members but about total strangers, and the phenomenon of someone creating bunches of profiles of unrelated people who were victims of a single cause of death/event (in this case covid-19 started the discussion).  

If you are related to a person you are justified in creating their profile.  If you aren't, and they died recently, then exactly why are you doing so?  If they are Notable, then there's a project for that, with their own criteria and guidelines.

We're not a news service, nor are we Wikipedia, we are WikiTree.  But the bottom line of this discussion is respect.  Unless one knows the people personally, it is bordering on something unspeakable to assume one should create profiles for them just because they died of x cause.

---

Danielle (and I'm not speaking for Tommy), we are reaching the point of saying the same things over and over.  The policy  does not explicitly limit itself to bunches of profiles or single causes of death.  You really should not label someone else's motives for creating profiles as "unspeakable," or even bordering on unspeakable.

I work with information about living people all the time when doing genealogy.  Among other reasons, how else are we to evaluate our DNA matches?

Each time we limit the information that WikiTree can provide, we degrade its value as a research tool.

Answer 5

From a personal perspective, profiles should not be created as "stand alone" profiles. An effort should be made to form a complete-as-possible genealogy. I say this because when my mother Roberta died in 2011, I knew next to nothing about my King family. I grew up in foster care and had little contact with them.

Many don't delve into their backgrounds until it's too late and the older generations of their families have passed. Then, sometimes, with a recent death, they begin to wonder about their roots. A judiciously done profile with the past family lines presented can be a comfort, can begin to answer the questions about where their people came from.

We all want to belong to something/someone more than ourselves. It would be a compassionate thing to help others to belong too.

Comments

Dale, were they the Four Dead in Ohio?

---

Looks like it, Ellen. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Scheuer-124

---

Dale, Those are wonderful memorials to the young students. Had they been done at the time of their deaths, I would think that far less attention would have been paid to their lives, and more to the method of their deaths, and would have been more politicized as well. Thank you for putting so much effort into them. For additional sources, would it be plausible to contact the May 4 Center when they reopen?

---

Bobbie, I am a Kent State Alumni and was in fact attending classes on that fateful day. As you mention I could possibly find more after this current crisis is over but I think that is the best I can do for now.

Ellen Yes.

The profiles I mention are,

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Scheuer-124

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Miller-73663

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Schroeder-3910

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Krause-2059

I hope to get back to them soon.

---

Nice initiative, Dale!!!

---

Yes, nice work, Dale. I found some articles about Mr. Scheuer, who remained an active voice in the court system for many years after the events of 1970, and when KS was going to erect a building on the grounds, he was right there protesting and was arrested. (I think this was 1977 or 1978).

I can't imagine what it must have been like on campus in those following days. My family had just moved from Ohio to Pennsylvania in 1969, and I was 12 when the shootings occured. I remember feeling sad for Ohio.

---

Natalie, Let's just say that blanket hill, where the shooting took place, was the center of campus life before the shooting and many there during this tragedy were not involved in the protests, including 2 of those killed and at least one wounded that I know about, but after that day there were almost no students using that area right up to the present day. I am sorry that the events planned for this year had to cancelled because several others that were on campus that day planned to return including Joe Walsh.

---

Also if memory serves Sandra was killed on her parents wedding anniversary.

---

I have a friend who also was a student at Kent State then. She says that the events of that day did not affect her directly (other than ending the semester prematurely), and she did not think the event had a big impact on her. However, some time in the last couple of years she visited the campus for the first time in eons, and when she went to the shooting site she broke down in tears. That day had a profound impact on many of us youth, particularly those of you who were on campus that day.

---

Ellen, I was either fortunate or unfortunate depending on how you look at it because I was actually a student from the Geauga campus. Part of my "job" was to run AV equipment between campuses so when they closed the main campus my classes at the other branches were unaffected. I had to finish that semester at my "home" campus. Kent has always maintained the policy that regardless of where your home branch is you can enroll in classes at any branch. We had some protests at my home campus as well after the shooting and I had to help set up the audio equipment for some of the meetings about those.

Answer 6

Robin's stated intent for bringing up this subject was that she didn't think wikitree needed empty profiles with no bios. This is not a new problem and has been going on for a long time. I agree that profiles with bios are much more useful to wikitree members. I do not think we need a new rule about recently deceased profiles. I can agree with Chris Written's proposal.

However I would like it to include that this suggestion does NOT apply to the profiles of Notables. Notables are a special category that do not require privacy because they have achieved fame and their grieving relatives realize that there will be world wide mention made in numerous places about their relative, and there is nothing they can do about that.

I have already run into a problem with a recently deceased Notable profile hiding the bio, and when asked why, the reply was that it was done because of the controversy expressed in Robin's G2G posting. So this is going directly against Robin's expressed wishes to avoid empty profiles on wikitree.

I also think that Chris' proposal about recently deceased people, should contain a reminder NOT to include info on living people. The recently deceased Notable profile I mentioned above, had a bio that included info on the living husband and living mother who's names were actually hidden on their own wikitree profiles.

I do not think a new rule is needed. Instead of trying to restrict the creation of new profiles to the Wikitree WORLD tree, we should try harder to encourage that ALL wikitree profiles SHOULD have bios and research attempts should be made to try and link the profiles to our world tree.

So my suggestion for amending Chris' proposal would be ...

All Notable Wikitree profiles are exempted from this suggestion, but please remember NOT to include any names of their living relatives in the bios.

Comments

“but please remember NOT to include any names of their living relatives in the bios.”

Are we now censoring the obituaries???

---

Obituaries with living people should not have the living people's names included, if obituary is being copy / pasted into a profile!!

---

If I'm not mistaken, we're not to be copying and pasting obituaries at all? 

---

Whether we are or not,  I see obituaries on plenty of profiles, as well as on Find a Grave.  Unfortunately, people are trying to put information about the person into a profile and they forget that living people are usually mentioned on somewhat recent deaths.

---

quote> Are we now censoring the obituaries???

YES!

I wish it was not so for Notables :(

I heard that Wikitree used to have info on living Nobables.

But when those Eupopean rules came out that banned info on the internet about any living strangers, Wikitree adopted the new policy that this site should no longer have info on living people. The only exception was that a person could provide their own personal info - such as a wikitree menber could choose to to if they wished.

What I have seen the Notable project do before is remove the info or replace the living person's name with the word PRIVATE.

---

quote> I see obituaries on plenty of profiles, as well as on Find a Grave

Yes unfortunately there exist many profiles that do no comply with wikitree standards.

When wikitree changed their policy to ban info on living strangers, admin relied on wikitree profile managers to go through the profiles they managed and make any necessary corrections. Unfortunatley, not all PMs complied ... and of course, there were many profiles with inactive PMs that never got fixed either. And it also appears that there are still some wikitree members who do not know that living stranger info should not be on the wikitree site.

---

So how can you put a link to an obituary that lists living people? Do you think a link removes the issue?

So, you can’t put a link to anything that list living people.

So, basically, this is a dead person information only website, BUT NOT for the recently dead unless an affidavit is obtained from the family or next of kin or close friends, etc. of the deceased person.

Wow! I didn’t know that when I signed up!

---

No ... links ARE allowed.

Not too long ago, Wikitree used to have lots of living people info. But since the new law recently enacted by Euopreans, everything changed. It would appear that Wikitree feared legal reprisals and acted conservatively. So Wikitree administration enacted a policy ON THIS WEBSITE banning info on living strangers, in order to absolve ITSELF (wikitree) from any legal liablility ... ie: wikitree admin did not want to get sued and have to be involved in an expensive court battle fighting for the right to publish living people info on the internet.

But Wikitree has no legal responsibility for what other websites do ! If other internet sites do not think that the law has serious consequences for themselves, or are unafraid or willing to take to take a chance, those internet sites can go ahead and do what they want ... and Wikitree has no right to tell them what to do or not to do. Anyone posting a link does not imply that that person has any kind of control over what that link publishes.

I personally have not heard whether this Eupoean law has had any legal complications for any North Americans ... but that doesn't mean there hasn't been. Again, Wikitree acted quite conservatively. Many other websites chose to act much more liberally.

I have never heard anyone on wikitree ask for affidavits and the like. I think that is fake news :)

---

"Robin's stated intent for bringing up this subject was that she didn't think wikitree needed empty profiles with no bios."

We should always strive to accurately reflect the whole of what someone said, not take single thoughts out of context.  To do this misrepresents what they said.

What Robyn said was:

A lot of discussion has been happening around the creation for profiles/categories for people who have recently died due to some catastrophe, be it a fire, earthquake, or now, Covid-19.   Many people feel it is very insensitive for a stranger to create a profile of a recently deceased person, include no bio or include only hearsay from a newspaper; and then orphan the profile.

---

I also communicated with Robin privately about this topic and about which profiles caused her to write her G2G post. And as an example, she pointed out a recently deceased profile to me with no bio. Since I created a biography for that profile, that's what stuck with me.

---

You have impied that Robin started this effort to solely to halt the creation of empty profiles with no bios.  This is not what she said.  She said that she is opposed to strangers:

* creating profiles of people who are recently deceased,
* when the profile creator doesn't have even the basic info to make a complete profile,
* doesn't have any idea of the family's desires,
* doesn't take the time to write a simple bio,
* makes no effort to connect the profile to the tree,
* and then orphans the profile.

---

I am recalling a recent incident to the best of my knowledge. To clear it up for yourself with more details, you can ask her yourself what her motive was.

As I recall it, she told me in a private message that she wanted to stop the creation of recently deceased stranger profiles with no bios and no links. I tried to help by creating a profile bio. Later she told me that she had not realized that this is not a new problem, but an old ongoing problem.

---

"Robin's stated intent for bringing up this subject was that she didn't think wikitree needed empty profiles with no bios."

"She told me in a private message that she wanted to stop the creation of recently deceased stranger profiles with no bios and no links."

These two statements say different things.  The first statement, by omission, misrepresents what Robin said in her G2G question. We should keep this discussion to what is written in the G2G thread.  If you have a private conversation with someone, I'd recommend that you keep it private.  If you are going to inject off-line conversations, and you aren't going to violate someone else's privacy or trust, please give some context here when you post about it.  

There is a big difference between creating profiles that are only disconnected and those that fit the bullet points I listed above.  Say what you mean, mean what you say.

---

Gee your nitpickiness or bullying discourages me from contributing at all ! It seems some wikitree members do not want others to speak their opinions. So having already added my votes, I have now been pushed into the deep background of silence.

Answer 7

I think the new Help Page is well written, except for one part.  Under Family Privacy, the 3th bullet phrase doesn't 'read' properly.  

"Is the information in an obituary that appears to be written by family members or close friends of the deceased? "

I am not sure the meaning of that question.  Should it be "Does the information in an obituary appear to be written by family members or close friends of the deceased?"

Aren't obituaries written by family members or close friends, if it is the actual obituary? What is written in an obituary, I agree, is what they want publicized, but many times it is just 'one' person making that decision and the rest of the family does not necessarily agree with an obituary on what is publicized and what wasn't publicized, also.  

There can be stories written about people by media, but those are usually compilations of information and would probably be considered a Notable anyway.  

I agree that profiles of recently deceased people should only be created by close family members, unless those family members have personally agreed to have someone else create the profile.  Just because we see someone's death in a newspaper or on the news doesn't mean that we should be creating a profile.  Most people don't think of genealogy as 'recently deceased people' and 'genealogy' is the focus of wikitree. 

Comments

"Is the information in an obituary that appears to be written by family members or close friends of the deceased? "

I am not sure the meaning of that question.  Should it be "Does the information in an obituary appear to be written by family members or close friends of the deceased?"

answered by Linda Peterson

.

There's nothing wrong with it as written.  You just need to parse it.

 "Is the information in an obituary .. an obituary appearing to have been written by family, or close friends?"

or

 "Is the information in an obituary? .. with the obituary appearing to have been written by family, or close friends?"

or (with between the lines)

"Is the information you intend to use found in an obituary that appears to have been written by the family, or close friends of the deceased?"

---

Is every piece of information on this site being scrutinized for truth before it is being added to profiles?

Now, you are debating who writes the obituary.

Why not just go full throttle and get a signed affidavit from the family on whatever information they will allow you to post?

---

Is every piece of information on this site being scrutinized for truth before it is being added to profiles?

commented by Tommy Buch

.

All signers of the Honor Code should already be doing this.   None of us is to be propagating myths and untruths in the biographies we write.

If we have outright speculation, that we think may have shreds of truth, it belongs under a == Research Notes == header above the == Sources == header.

---

So, how are all of these sources be added to the profiles without scrutinizing the data that the sources are referencing?

---

Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone has a right to privacy too. Wikitree aims to be accurate (using sources and citing them). It is not our aim to be distressing people who are grieving. 

The help page is designed to be followed when creating a profile for a person recently deceased and NOT a family member of the person creating it.

---

I agree with your assessment of that sentence, Linda.

In my opinion, what we want to ask/should ask with that sentence is if the main/only information source for the profile is an obituary, as opposed to other types of sources.

Whether or not the obituary was written by a family member or by another party, to me, would not be relevant to the issue at hand. Unless the author is specifically stated, we would only be presuming that a family member wrote it.

By extension, we would also be presuming any comfort/discomfort level with public mention by the various family members. And without actual knowledge of the family members' feelings, we should always err on the side of courtesy, compassion, and respect.

Answer 8

This is actually something that I have had to consider personally and so I think I have something of value to offer as an opinion. My Dad and uncle died in a car accident when I was a child. My cousins were a lot youger than me, and I know from past experience outside of wikitree that privacy is a very important issue that needs to be considered.

Although they died 25 years ago, because they died in a car accident, certain information made public would upset my cousins. I wanted to create profiles for them, but not hurt my cousins in the process. For that reason I have added the category for motor vehicle accidents, but no newspaper clippings or details in the biography. I have actually left my Uncle's very bare, opposed to my Dad's yet still havent added all the newspaper clippings or death notices etc. Even though I would like to.

None of these things are publicly available. I wished they were when I became interested (thankfully, I was able to obtain a lot of records when my Mum had a clean out and found them all and the newspaper clippings), so by creating the profiles, I know people can contact me if they are looking for more information, but I am still protecting my cousin's (and potentially others) privacy.

Again my Aunty, who died more recently I have created a profile for but made her privacy settings even more strict by not having her biography open.

For these reasons, I think the help page is perfect, and that all wikitree members should think about these things when creating profiles, even profiles for people who have died many years ago. My cousins don't want to see horrific details of their Dad's death online, when they were so young when he died that they have no memory of him. It is important that I be mindful of that, while providing them with a way of contacting me about finding out more if they so wish, and honouring my family members lives.

Kylie

Comments

Well said!

---

"None of these things are publicly available."

Kylie, without getting to nit-picky, technically these things are public.  Perhaps they are not widely available, but they could be found with some digging.  Someone could go to the newspaper and pull old archives of the accident and read the details.  If the newspaper has an agreement with newspapers.com, it may be possible for me to find the record in the next 5 minutes.

That being said, should the record be published on WikiTree?  No, I don't think it should be because it may hurt a living person.  

Just because a record can be published doesn't necessarily mean that it should be.  For profiles that are managed, the family can set them to private.  The profiles created by strangers and then orphaned - who speaks for the family for these profiles?

It is my opinion that a lot of people have become very accustomed to sharing their whole life on the internet.  I am regularly aghast when I see friends and family on Facebook sharing intimate family photos using the public privacy setting.  While I respect their right to share all they want, we should all respect those who want to remain private and err on the side of caution if we don't know.  

Regarding your post, I'll agree with Linda, "Well said!"

---

Thank you both. In all my digging I haven't been able to find anything publicly available. And a simple name search on google will now bring up these profiles. Australia is quite strict in releasing information. Everything I know of has quite a long time lapse before made available. And our newspapers are availble through Trove but again only ones before a certain year. I am not sure exactly what year it is though.

---

Oh and when I tried to go through the archives the two weeks after the accident was missing only. I wonder if victim protection was responsible!?

Answer 9

I mostly think the draft policy is great, though I do think nominating a particular span of years before a profile is created (in the previous G2G most people seemed to agree on 2-3) with the proviso that there may be times when it is advisable to wait longer, makes it clearer and easier to implement.

I do though have some questions/comments about the Added Value section.

If we are going to publish a statement like "It is almost never a good idea to create a WikiTree profile with just a name, dates and a link to ... website" and as Julie has mentioned elsewhere, we know that profiles like that are created everyday on WikiTree, then I'm not sure what the intent of that section is in the policy.

If the intent is to say that we should be Adding Value to profiles of those recently-deceased, but we accept that profiles of those people deceased over a longer period don't need to have Added Value, then that would appear to me to be a double-standard.

If the intent is that all profiles created on WikiTree should ideally have added value, then that, given again how many profiles are created with only a name/date/basic source, would seem to be opening a minefield.  A proposal like that should really be a separate discussion.

My advice would be to remove that section altogether, the policy is quite clear without it, and I think as it stands it creates complications.

Comments

John, I guess I am an offender in all of this. I always create a profile with no biography. In my defense It is impossible to write a bio with only one or two sources. I then try to fine as many sources for that person unless I am only trying to connect someone, in that case I try to go back later but there could be quite a delay then. After I have found as many sources as I can I try to at least restate the facts with the source proving that fact. If that is not good enough for WikiTree then I guess I should do my work elsewhere.

---

Dale, you read my mind with your comment and it has me rethinking what I will type on future bios when no other info is available.  Pehaps I'll create a standard line and add it to my shortcut app and paste it to each profile where I've exhausted all resources.  Something like, "As of 14 April 2020, a search was completed and no additional information was found that could further develop this profile and biography.  If you have additional information or sources, please feel free to improve this profile."

Sometimes I create a profile and get called away and plan to come back later and add more detail.  A comment like the one above would even let me know that I've already exhausted all of the info/sources I have and will let me know that this profile can't be improved upon without new research.

---

quote> I do think nominating a particular span of years before a profile is created

I oppose placing a ban involving any number of years before a profile is created for a deceased person. I do not think that creating such a profile is harmful, but rather a way to remember the deceased person in our global wikitree.

If they are not added to the global wikitree in remembrance at the time of their passing, then very many individuals will never get added to the global wikitree. I am an avid wikitree connector so I regularly work on linking relatives together. The connection numbers have been steadily rising. The March update told us that 82.7% of profiles on WikiTree were connected to the main tree.

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1014507/connectors-quarterly-march-2020

---

@Dale and SJ, Looking at the Added Value section of the draft policy again, it does say that connecting profiles of family members is adding value and I presume that most of the profiles you create are connected to existing profiles.

 In contrast to some of the profiles of the recently deceased, where there is no attempt to add family members or connect them up to the tree.

However I still think it would be wise to leave that section out of the policy or at least give it some more thought. For instance if someone does create a profile for someone recently deceased that does have added value, does that mean it is OK to publish it straight away?

Answer 10

Thank you Chris for your attention to this subject. Having read both the previous thread and this one I can see the amount of emotion the topic is generating.

In most cases I feel the point of the proposal is potentially still being lost in some the debates.

I think SJ has already articulated it pretty well in his comments and answers.

Personally, I see this as an extension of the honour code and it a tool for rangers, Mentors, Mediators and Leaders to use when and where complaints are made or issues are raised.

In the role of a Ranger, Mentor Mediator or Leader a certain amount of trust is placed on this person by the Wikitree community to do the right thing, and to hold themselves to a high account on behalf of the community.

If a member creates a profile of someone because they died in a tragic accident, ensures living family are privacy protected and writes a bio and possibly attempts to connect them then I do not see anyone having an issue with that.

It someone creates 50 victims of a terror attack with no bio just their death then orphans them and adds a disaster category to them it becomes my problem.

Thank you to Robin, Chris and all the other involved in drafting this proposal. It will be useful to me, and many of my Wikitree colleagues as and when these rare events occur.

(This is my last comment on the issue and I won’t be responding if any comments are made here)

Answer 11

The appropriateness of a profile of a recently deceased person should be determined by its content, but in order to ensure that we are being appropriately attentive to the sensitivities of survivors, it might help to examine our motives when we decide to create a profile for a recently deceased person.

We should ask ourselves what our motives are -- and be honest in answering.

Excellent reasons for creating a profile include:

• This is my close relative and I miss them terribly
• This is a nonrelative whom I knew personally and admired

Very poor reasons (do not create the profile!) include:

• I saw the obituary and I am bored.
• This person died in a tragic event (tornado, train wreck, fire, epidemic disease, earthquake, etc.); I am fascinated by the details of the tragedy, and I want to put all of the victims on the Internet.

Most situations fall in in-between zones. One such zone is less-notable notables. We agree that deceased notables whom we admire deserve to have profiles, but there will be legitimate differences of opinion as to how notable a person needs to be to qualify. For example, someone who served a single two-year term in a state or legislature in the 1980s would qualify for a Wikipedia article, but are we advancing our pursuit of genealogy when we give them an unconnected Open-privacy profile here in WikiTree? What about the deceased adult child of a very famous celebrity? Another in-between zone is not-so-close relatives. Should I rush to create a profile about my recently deceased 3rd cousin whom I never met, whose death I just learned about on Facebook? In all of these cases, it is worth asking ourselves why want to create the profile... Are we doing so because we are interested in news about death, or are we doing it for genealogy?

Comments

Ellen, I have no problem with any individual WikiTreer examining his or her own motives and deciding whether to create profiles.  I do have a problem with our judging other people's motives, which we really can't know.  Reading through this discussion this morning, I see many value judgments being made about added value, biographies, connections, etc. that many profiles already on WikiTree could not live up to.

Answer 12

Wikitree is a multi-cultural, global site. Basing any policy or practice on suppositions about "feelings" is problematic. I focused on the "Adding Value" part of the page. Other than the first bullet - connection - it's unlikely anyone who wasn't acquainted somewhat intimately with the profile subject would be to "add value". Every occasion I can recall when I added a profile for someone deceased within the last five/ten years, it has been something I came across in my research as I was filling out family lines, and was checking whether to add profiles for a person enumerated, in for instance, the 1940 US census or listed as a survivor in an obituary from fifty or sixty years ago. By definition the info is public, but It's a practice that grows connected profiles, and I don't see changing it.

Answer 13

Thank you Chris and all who have worked so hard on this issue. I agree with the proposal you have made and the help page.

I do not think WikiTree should have a hard and fast rule about a particular time when a deceased person's profile can be created. That said, we should all be aware of the impact on living people in the family. For instance, my only living aunt will soon be 102 years old. When she dies, I will wait a few months and will discuss with my cousins, and then will create her biography. Who, better than I, should do this since I am the family historian and have been for decades. Her family will agree. On the other hand, a younger member of my extended family was tragically killed in an accident a couple of years ago. I have not created a profile for her and may never since there are so many living relatives. Common sense has to prevail in some of these situations.

Answer 14

I have a few remarks, especially about the "Added Value"- paragraph.

The mission of WikiTree is to create one "as complete as possible" Big Tree. So, when I create a profile for a dead person (no matter when this person died), I add value to WikiTree, because I do my bit to fulfill the mission of WikiTree. This person existed (yes, there are a few fictional figures in some old genealogies, but compared to the numbers of the real profiles, they are very very few) and so the mission of WikiTree is one step further to completion, when I create a profile for the person.

Another point: "Add information that is not easily accessible elsewhere online". Hmmmmm... You want to tell me I should go to archives anywhere in the world and try to find stuff that is only accessible in libraries? Sorry, but that doesn't even work for my own family. As a foreigner, I am not allowed to go to the Serbian National Archives and look for stuff about my own family.

Yes, it is nice to create a new profile and immediately connect grandparents and greats and aunts and uncles and in-laws and whatever to the person, but.... sometimes that's a little bit harder than you might think. In Germany, there are very few regions that had a census at all, we actually have our second census in a 10-year-rhythm only in 2021. And there is a reason why Greg Slade did several "Help us connect ..."-quests last year. 

Those are my 2 cents about it. 

Answer 15

Well, I still have reservations about policy statements like this.  But it's clearly an emotional issue for many, and I see the groundswell of support.  There's nothing to be said that will change anyone's mind, and it's obvious that the decision has been made to have a policy, and we're just nitpicking minor details.  So at this point I wonder if we have a reasonable expectation that this policy would change the behaviors of the relatively small number of offenders, or if we're just going through the motions?  I'd submit that the probability of getting compliance will greatly decrease with the number of qualifiers included in the policy -- i.e., qualifiers such as it might be OK to create a profile if the death isn't "recent" (your call), the deceased wasn't a "stranger", if you can connect family members, if the person was "notable", if you add a bio with sources, if you include photos, etc.  Degree of compliance with these qualifiers is mostly left as a judgment call to members who already don't think they're really doing anything disrespectful or insensitive.  So I think the only way to obtain a high level of compliance would be to add another monitor to the software that puts a pop-up warning in your face if you attempt to create a profile with a date of death that is, say, within a year of today's date.  E.g., "Do you really want to create this profile?  Please see this policy statement before proceeding."

Comments

Dennis, I agree wholeheartedly with having the "pop-up" to ask the profile manager to review the "policy page." I suggested something similar in the last discussion about this issue.

Answer 16

Hi Chris & everyone else, I'm just seeing this now, because of another posted question just recently asked about adding ppl from obits.  As someone who has in the last 3 years lost more relatives than I want to count at the moment.  I will just give my honest opinion, that probably won't make any difference, but will give it anyway.

I have a brother who died in a horrible car accident it was back when I was only 16 years old, I'm now 57. I've only recently added his profile. why? because the memories of that day are still very hard-pressed within our whole family who loved him very very much.  If anyone had added his profile without my knowledge, I would've been outright offended and very angry as I would've seen this as having no concern for me or my family.  And the person adding the profile would not have known this person is related to me because he was legally a "step" but we never used this terminology in our family. We were all just "family".  I also have a "foster sister" who also passed at a very young age because of a heart condition.  Again, if anyone had added her, they would have connected her to her bio family not knowing that she spent her last years of her life as a full part of our family. Again this would've been done without malice or harm intended but would have caused unforseen harm to those that knew her and loved her.

I see no issue with using obits, etc to add ppl that are 50+ years back, but to add anyone that is less than this is to step on the toes of the families that may not want these individuals put online without their consents.  This should only be done by the direct and indirect families and or their friends that actually knew the individuals with the consents of the families or because the families have already added them elsewhere on other online trees.  A posted obit is to acknowledge their deaths, it is not a Public right to grab the persons' infos and display their lives outside of the obits.

I recently lost a sister-in-law only a few months ago. I've added her to the tree, it was a difficult thing to begin, but I did it, because I didn't want someone else to do this.  My families are aware I am doing all lines of families connected to us, therefore they know they will find their loved ones on a genealogical page at some point (if they haven't done it themselves).. But they also know I will be the one doing it, because I knew them, loved them, and knew who they were.  That is how it should be with those recently passed.. this is just my viewpoint.... I hope it matters even a little.

Comments

very well said Arora.