Where should we concentrate our effort, sources or style?

Question

This is one of those questions where I am trying to understand our focus.   There are 1000s of profiles with absolutely no source, then, there are profiles with great sources, but, they don't have a lot of "style".  My attitude has always been that those profiles can be improved at a later time, the more important issue is the lack of sources on so many profiles.  I love all the work the profile improvement team is doing with in line citations, footnotes, etc.  So, do we need another profject that just tackles the thousands of profiles with no sources?

Comments

Yes, I have read up on copying text and I know how to properly credit the author and make sure the source is obvious.  And I fully recognize that plagiarism is a problem that we need to contend with.  But often it saves me significant time to use someone else's words in my profiles instead of spending my research time reworking a perfectly good narrative.

---

Then at least be sure to put others' words in quotes, and cite the original author. 

I've been spending DAYs and DAYs and DAYs cleaning up a former wikitreer's unquoted, uncited use of someone else's words, over hundreds of pages because leaving plagiarized content on wikitree not only gives the site a bad name, it's just plain wrong.

 

---

Require at least one source. A valid source is not "Ancestry.com trees". If source was from Ancestry.com the title on Ancestry.com is what should be should be cited.

A related question: Should not at least one location be requirred as it is with dates? For me no location is a problem in the search, before I even need to consider source info. There are so many names without location (and or date) that a search for matching profiles can be a lenghty process.

---

Tom, what do you mean by:

"If source was from Ancestry.com the title on Ancestry.com is what should be should be cited."

?

---

Instead of citing the source as simply Ancestry.com what should be cited is the title from Ancestry that was the source, e.g., Delaware Marriages 1744-1912, Ohio deaths1830-1970, U.S. Census 1850 Evansville, IN,  or whatever title on Ancestry was the source.  Do my examples help?

---

Substance over style.  Sources are more important than style, those profiles that need a nip and tuck can get worked on later.

---

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. I concur.

---

I think that Sources should be a higher priority than Style especially since I find many profiles to be frustrating mish-mashes.

I benefit far more from Sources because I can use them.  Often I cannot use much in profiles.  I often find narrativesomething in profiles that contradict the facts section up top. For example, the narrative lists 11 children with birth dates, but the facts section only lists & links 2 or 3 children.  Other examples include discrepancies in dates, locations, sometimes even names.

If everything in the narrative was supported by a source /sources, maybe there would be fewer discrepancies & mistakes.

---

excellent topic.  Lots of areas for trouble.  I feel uncomfortable putting in a link to ancestry for a death record for example - it goes nowhere if the user doesn't subscribe.  ( also I don't want to encourage people to think that is the only place you get information!).  I enter Name, Dates, Place File# as a <ref> and add some basic discussion and call it a day.  Am hoping I won't get zinged for doing this.  Same with census . . the data is there in my reference but is not according "Wiki-hoyle"  (BTW - I started inputting all census into my DOS database back in the late 1990s before ancestry had any images . .  from copied pages at the archives!)  It is a little irritating that wiki tends to want us to spoon feed looky-lous and "send me all you have-ers" and not contribute themselves. C'est la vie!

---

I just love the fact that 18 months after I asked this question, it is still being discussed!   Way to go everyone!

Answer 1

I say sources.  Real sources, not just a link to an ancestry tree which, itself, has no sources for the person.

Answer 2

I figure that everyone here has their strengths and their interests and the more we allow and encourage people to pursue what they choose, the more we'll approach the ideal of attractive, sourced profiles for everyone on WikiTree.

That said, we certainly are in need of an army of volunteers to source profiles and I certainly second that notion.

Answer 3

Sources are the basis of accurate genealogy and must always come before style. But, style can help to highlight and showcase an accurate profile and the sources upon which it is based.

They work together, and both are needed. Substance is crucial, but without style may seem dry and uninteresting. Style without substance, however, would be like trying to make marshmallows your entire diet.

Comments

I lIke this answer the most. We do need both sets of people. I'm generally a boring data oriented guy, so I tend focus on Gedcom removal and adding at least one source with inline citations and riting in complete sentences.  For the majority of people I come across, a Google or FamilySearch search can find one good one quickly.  Most of my profiles do end up looking rather boring they end up with the style of the new profile template that is used.

I do occasionally get interested in a person while in gedcom crud removal mode and kick into research mode totaling messing up my mass cleanup efforts for hours on end. That is part the fun here.

One of Harry Chapin's lines about volunteering was "When in doubt, do something". I think that applies here.

---

Hi Pamela,

Along the same lines as the comment I added to Robin's initial post, I hope to understand more specifics about how you interpret "style." 

You wrote, "without style [profiles] may seem dry and uninteresting" and made an analogy to marshmallows. In this context, "style" seems to take meanings more akin to creativity or pazazz. For some, this would be quite a different meaning than application of the "style guide," 

---

Hi Marty and Gene,

Thanks for your comments! Marty, you made my day! I love the Harry Chapin quote and want to thank you for your "gedcom crud removal" work.

Gene, you're right. I did interpret the reference to style as being something beyond what is recommended by our Style Guide, probably because of the phrase, "they don't have a lot of 'style,'" in Robin's post. The basic recommendations in the Style Guide are very helpful, although I think we could do a better job of presenting that information (I'd like to see more information for beginners in the text of the main topic, plus I'd like an additional index, even if it has to be manually input, that is organized by the type of task.) (Darn it, I suppose I ought to take that on. And here I thought I'd retired from technical writing, lol.)

But, to get back to actually answering your question, Gene, I've noticed a few profiles with lots of bells and whistles—fancy backgrounds, unusual fonts, pictures, and so on—but which don't have sufficient sources, or which make improbable claims in the biography without backing up those claims.* It also makes me uncomfortable when the biography text contains large numbers of spelling and grammatical errors, which I suspect many would consider that a style issue.

* I didn't make note of these profiles, so I can't back this statement up. But, I'll try to do better with that in the future and either send a private message to the profile manager or bring it to the attention of. . . . Hmm. Who would I share such a thing with?

Thanks for all the food for thought!

---

Hi Pamela,

Oh, those with experience in technical writing are few and far between, but now we know ... and I'm interested in hearing more ( a lot more) of your thoughts on this topic.

---

Oh goody! Another style buddy! Welcome, Pamela!

Answer 4

I concur with Kyle that people have different talents or interests.  That said, I work both at once. When I'm working on Puritan GreatMigration profiles, I am both researching to find better (or any) sources while also cleaning up the profile.

Answer 5

In answer to  " So, do we need another project that just tackles the thousands of profiles with no sources?"

It's already part of the Profile Improvement Project

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Unsourced_Profiles

There are well over 3000 profiles in the category and I know there are "lots" of unidentified unsourced profiles. Anyone can jump right in and start sourcing.

Profile Improvement is not limited to members with the badge, it's open to all.

Answer 6

IMHO this is a simple question.  Without sources how can you have style if the profile is non-fiction?

Comments

David, there are profiles out there where people have spent time and energy to put broken links, unsourced family trees and other such sources as in line sourcing per the style guide....I think it is a waste of time.

---

Which brings us to being media literate and providing quality sources. IMHO not every working link or printed word should be regarded as such... but there's a problem with this statemenet too, since there's a lot of bias that gets injected into tradition, be it oral or written. As such, there are times when I think there should be guidelines as to what qualifies as a source.

 

That said, I do realize that previous threads have revealed that some members value data that others others don't.... such as gedcom data that is laregly irrelevant for the purposes research.

---

I believe we can all revisit this thread on sources 

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/25911/important-understand-distinction-original-derivative-sources

and the gedcom clean-up instructions at

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/GEDCOM-created_biographies#Sections_you_can_delete

 

Answer 7

I myself could not write a eulogy for myself, let alone a biography for someone else. I love finding sources, then letting others decide if it is necessary or goes with that profile. I figure a source can be deleted a whole lot easier than a long bio can be edited. Besides one person on here may use tables as a biography while another uses inline references. Which is correct?

Answer 8

We have the sourcerer's challenges

Answer 9

Robin, we already have a month long contest every month called the Sourcerer's Challenge to see who can add at least one source ( I always do all I can find and write a bio if none) to the most unsourced profiles.  Come join us.