Chris, if you and this wiki would commit to accuracy in a real way, I would fight for that cause. But I have a concern. Please see this as a serious, deeply felt, but positive plea.
Because of the unusual tags on this, I did not see this post until now. I guess this is the topic you mentioned that you were talking about with RJ that I said to you that I'd be interested to see? Anyway, found it now.
Chris there are two ways to read the proposal, and the difference between them is crucial to whether I hate it or love it. I am sure I am saying what a lot of people think.
Is this a "publicity" idea, or is this real? Do you fully support ideas which will make Wikitree more accurate or do you want us to go around telling people you do? I have a serious trust issue on this, based on experience.
If you do fully support it, Wikitree could do a lot of things differently, right now (or tomorrow). That would show you are serious. I think the type of things are known. (PLEASE. No one give me a link to "how to propose policies" again. Or tell me I must not understand Wikitree policy. We know that means "get lost".) I would be happy to discuss the fine points, if there was a real interest. (I've tried before, and I honestly doubt there is any interest.)
It would be easy to prove me wrong.
I have tried explaining the possibilities of Wikitree to many serious genealogists and paid the price. It is very easy for a good genealogist to do some checks, and show me how bad Wikitree is - not just in terms of present profiles, but also how they get handled each day. I argue, over and over, that at least we're getting better, here and there, and heading in the right direction.
...But then things keep happening which show there is a strong underlying movement against accuracy and certainly there are editors on the ANTI-accuracy side of Wikitree who clearly believe you in the upper class of Wikitree, will fully support them. I have honest doubts that they are wrong. I can't help it.
Chris, another way to say it is that really choosing accuracy means being against certain other types of things currently defended by the upper management on Wikitree. You can't be for accuracy and for the idea that non pre-1500 editors should be allowed to "have a say" about their favorite ancestor for example. These two aims are in direct to-the-death conflict. That's just a really simple example.
Can Wikitree honestly raise the banner of accuracy, and take a side against everything which conflicts with it? Please don't tell me we can have both. We've tried. We can't.
It is really the same as asking if Wikitree can commit to saying its mission is quality genealogy, and not genealogists getting together and doing stuff?