Data Doctor and should they edit a profile if they do not know how

Question

WikiTree just notified me about someone that had edited a few of the profiles I manage.  They list the edit reason as "(Data Doctor - 869 Duplicated named Inline citations)".  I am going in and spending time editing them to what I feel from reading the advanced editing guildlines, to what should be the correct way.  I am at a loss of words on how to describe the number system they used, so you will have to look under changes, but on [[Pound-434|Eunice Pound Kester]] and [[Kester-335|William Kester]], this person created more of a cluster with the sources by numbering each one.  It maybe just me, but it sure seems like they made it worse, and added more correction time for me.  Hey if I am way off base here, please forgive me, both my wife and I have turned another year older and we have been in lockdown in California for way to long .... cabin fever has set in and it is starting to show.   If there was a button to click for NOT thanking this person, I would be clicking it.   I maybe out of touch with some new editing that this Data Doctor has been given, it is sure not a style I have seen before.  OK, cabin fever rant done, sorry, just had to let it out.

Comments

It looks like you've already made changes to the profile.  It's hard to tell exactly what you're upset about.  A very specific example would help.

---

Have a look at the changes tab Julie, as you note Virgil has already reversed the changes, but there is definitely an issue related to the data doctor changes.

---

Yes, John, but what exactly is it?

---

Also, once again (and it seems like I've said this a lot in the last few days), when one WikiTreer has done something--whatever it is--that is clearly identifiable to that person, then I wonder whether G2G is the place for that discussion.  Wouldn't it be better to ask that person directly?

There definitely have been times that people have edited profiles I manage in ways I didn't like.  I am sympathetic.  But also sympathetic to the person who made the change for reasons I don't understand, and may have no way of even knowing they're being talked about here.

---

Virgil was correct in not naming the person, which is not supposed to be done.  I have seen issues like this on G2G, especially after a Thon of some sort.  Tagging it with Data Doctors is correct because then the Project Team should be made aware and determine if there is a problem and should then discuss it with the person to make sure they understand how to correct a Suggestion properly.

---

All I'm saying is that anyone could go back to the profile and see who did it.

---

It is a good reminder that people should make sure they know how to fix Suggestions.  There are videos for quite a few Suggestions and suggestions are not always updated by Data Doctors.  Plenty of PM correct a suggestion incorrectly, but I am sure the person thought they were doing it correctly.

---

The correction was done incorrectly and that is a problem that needs to be addressed. With one click you could have reversed the changes if you felt they were wrong.

However, perhaps you do misunderstand the use of named inline citations. You have 445 x DD 869 suggestions on the profiles you manage, and the suggestion on the profile you have provided was not a false one. Looking at the bio before it was changed, it did contain more than one duplicated named inline citation. The easiest way to prevent well meaning people from fixing the errors on your profile and inadvertently creating another problem whilst doing so, is to ensure that you keep on top of your own suggestion list. You will find it under the My Wikitree tab near the top right of your screen.

---

Good points, Leandra.

---

There are several "old" ways to handle inline refs which is what causes much of the confusion. WT also changed its preferred Heading tags and we still have PM's who use terminology found in other online and home computer databases (not to mention all the unedited GEDCOM) profiles.

Ales talked about one that involved the "span" tags and sources, I've seen a couple where the PM had a named inline ref where the actual information was down under the "references /" tag below the Sources.

I am gettng ready to try to go back and re-edit some of my earlier profiles to better match the accepted way of inline sources/refs and maybe try to write a short paragraph to go above the Birth header. (which is what I think the WT folks who set this up was trying to accomplish.)

I really don't care for biographies where the information has obviously been pasted in from another site, that has an automatic "story generator." (I also don't care for the auto generated stories some sports statistics programs write, but that's not a topic for here....)

However, I try not to impose my personal preferences on a Biography if someone else is the PM and has devoted time and effort to writing that Biography, even if I don't personally like its style.

During the Clean A Thon, I crashed through a whole bunch of 86x errors and was able to help improve a whole bunch of old profiles that hadn't been touched in years. All that made me consider going back up my lines and making sure I don't have any of those incomplete or inconsistent profiles out there.

---

Roy, when the main source at the bottom uses the Span ID with all of the info, the inline ref will only have the reference to the Span at the bottom, usually with only the volume or page, which I think is now acceptable.  I use it all the time from the genealogy books that are set up in wikitree space pages. 

Family Genealogies and Genealogies by Location

These are not the ones that are created by gedcom loads that frequently have limited or no information 

---

You are correct, my issue is people who put a "<ref name=xxx/>" in front of the "<span id=xxx> tag" underneath Sources and <references />. That is an 86x error of some sort.

I use the span code with the Space Pages all the time.

rsl

Answer 1

You could have 'restored' the profile to the status 'before' the changes were done and then corrected the problems that the DD did not do correctly.  It looks like you did have the same citation being used multiple times and the person making the changes didn't do what you did, which is the correct way to clear that error.

Answer 2

I’m not a number person on my profiles. I don’t know how to do them and all of the ones that I’ve seen were from profiles that I’ve adopted. The numbers all led to nowhere. I’ll stick with my boring bullet list.

I’m glad you were able to sort it out, I’m sure they meant well.

Answer 3

Reviewing the comments, there are a lot of changes made during CAT that require review as they were not done correctly.

The project management team of the Data Doctors Project ["DDP] are looking into those done by badged Data Doctors - and will deal with those members directly.  Mistakes happen to everyone and it is in the WikiTree Honor Code to treat all members with respect and with courtesy [Honor Code III and IV].

There are a lot of incorrect changes made by members participating in the CAT; to point out only Data Doctors' mistakes is not fair.  It is easier to see those errors as Data Doctors are required to identify themselves, the suggestion they worked on, and what they did.

The DDP is contacting the DDs and will work with them so that they understand the mistakes and work under the DDP guidelines going forward.

Julie brought up if G2G is the place to ask these questions and it is better to deal directly with the person rather than in G2G.

The DDP has added the "Difficulty Level" rating for each suggestion and these are listed on the Data Doctors Project page.  It is helpful to all WT members to review these for suggestions on profiles they manage and that DDs work at their own level of understanding and experience.

In the future, you are welcome to contact me as Project Coordinator and Project Management Team Lead for problems with Data Doctors' work.  We research the issue and will respond in private to the Data Doctor and the Profile Manager.

Thank you for bringing this up - it helps the DDP to see what improvements and updates to procedures are needed.

Comments

I think it would behoove the DDP as well as other Projects that are involved in A-Thon Projects to create a Review Request Form.

This could be based on the Request a New Category  form. A field for the Profile ID to be reviewed and a comment field. Possibly a drop down box for the member to chose which A-thon they believe may be the reason for their problem, real or perceived. It is then directed to the Project Manager(s).

This way it keeps it out f the G2G Forum and is handled without calling another member out publicly and the Project Leaders have a nice trail of any possible incidences that may have occurred.

---

HI,

Are you saying the PM could request a review or the Data Doctor?

Could you PM me please?  This sounds like it may be a good idea and I would like more info on what you are suggesting.

Many thanks!

---

On its way Sheryl.

---

Thank you - received and replied.

---

Has anyone considered the proposition that Thons may do more harm than good?

---

Lol That is said after every Thon, but I think overall with the volume of suggestions that were done, there is more good done. As other people have said, especially with the Clean A Thon, if people went through their own Suggestions and completed them, the only Suggestions left to be fixed would be those on Orphan profiles or those that people don't understand and they have not asked for help on.

---

Speaking of which Linda, today is Wed. and I have been remiss in checking mine today.  Thanks for the reminder.

LOL

---

Unless Ales updated overnight, they won't have changed from last week.

---

I always check Wed. morning Linda. My Suggestion Page has - Date of report: 2020-04-29 16:08:09

And none thankfully.  LOL

---

I love those empty Suggestion pages. Mine has the same!  It doesn't look like Ales has updated the Suggestions for the week after Clean A Thon though. It dies take a long time to run and he had to wait a while this time.

---

Mine looks much better now Ales has fixed it so that all the Wikidata Suggestions are clumped down at the bottom.  I only have 6 'normal' Suggestions now.

---

Ales just updated and posted the latest report.

Answer 4

We should blame the instructions. not the DDs.  Many of them don't tell you how to recognize a false error.

Wikitext is interpreted by code imported from MediaWiki.  It does what it does, and the WikiTree help pages aren't the definitive manual for MediaWiki.

An 869 isn't necessarily an error.  It's valid Wikitext.  It works.  It's a valid thing to do, and it can be arguably a superior technique to the one described on the help page.  It's not forbidden, and it doesn't need fixing.

But an 869 can also be created by accident, eg a typo.  In that case, the outcome probably won't be what was intended.

So the Suggestion is only a hint to look at the profile and see if it looks like an accidental 869.

In this case, it was fine.  This is how it looked before any changes were made

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Kester-335&oldid=83736745

Nothing to fix.  False error.

Comments

I have to disagree.

Named citation should be unique in names and in case you define the same name twice, it is displayed only once.

In case both citations are different, only the first one is displayed and a user can be very confused why the text is different than what he wrote (in second instance of the citation).

In case both citations are identical, like in this case, there is no imminent problem, but can be in the future when someone will correct the second citation.

---

I have seen the same name used for 2 completely different genealogy books or references by the same author.  As Ales said, only the first is shown. Only by reviewing the biography and correcting the citation name, is the other source being added to the source list for others to review.  I agree that probably most of the time that they are the same citation, possibly because someone just copied the whole citation to a new place, but that is not always the case.