What do you think of making 2021 "The Year of Accuracy" on WikiTree?

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Eowyn came up with this idea: Make 2021 "The Year of Accuracy" on WikiTree.

The two fairly-obvious goals:

1. Improve accuracy on WikiTree.
2. Use it for outreach and promotion.

We can never do enough outreach. WikiTree is a low-budget organization with no advertising budget. Members help spread the word, directly and indirectly.

Most people find WikiTree through Google searches. We create good quality profiles for our ancestors. Our cousins find these profiles through Google. Some of them click on the ads they see on the pages. This pays our bills so we can be free for members. Some of them become members themselves. This keeps us growing.

This virtuous cycle of organic growth is not inevitable, however. Google won't send us visitors unless they think we have web pages that people want to see. One of the main ways Google knows whether web pages are worth seeing is whether people on other websites and social networks talk about them. (See "Will you help spread the word about WikiTree?" for more about this.)

So, improving our profiles and making people outside of WikiTree aware of them is fundamentally important to the success of our mission.

What exactly would this "Year of Accuracy" be? I don't know. I'm posting here to get the discussion started.

We should try to think of things that could engage genealogy bloggers and people who talk about genealogy on social networks. One idea I had is to challenge genealogists who don't use WikiTree to show us where their genealogy on WikiTree is incorrect. If a blogger or someone on social media takes us up on this, we investigate. Are they right or wrong? We win either way. If we see that they are wrong -- that our tree is as accurate as it can be based on available sources -- we increase our reputation for accuracy. If we see that they are right, we get to correct a mistake on WikiTree and become more accurate.

What do you think of that idea?

Eowyn had an idea for different monthly challenges. Eowyn, could you explain your thoughts on this?

What other ideas do you have? What would be fun?

Thanks!

Chris

Comments

The goal should be accuracy, when creating profiles on WikiTree.

...and then clear and concise information.

...and the sources, there is never enough

...and enjoying the process

Ali

---

Why not have a link on each profile asking if someone sees something incorrect to contact the profile manager.Sort of like the invitation to join does. Maybe a small one that says we strive for accuracy on our profiles. If you see something wrong please send the profile manager a note or contact our correction team to work with you to correct the profile. Doing that might bring people in. Also, I have been trying to bring in some of my Varnado family members. They say they are struggling with using Wikitree. There should be a how to use Wikitree Instruction Page for people who don’t a lot about computers.

Those things might net Wikitree orchards of that “low hanging fruit”. If Alan Thomas had not spent three days teaching me stuff like how to attach a source to the biography I would have quit myself. Thanks again Alan!

---

I have noticed an astonishing number of competitive members. Why not make a Correctation be held every so often in 2021. Corrections take longer and numbers won’t be as high but the effort is worth it. Hold them where there are an array of prizes that keep people motivated.

Make sure leaders are not always the winners of prize drawings. If a person is working hard to do the work then their work is the same as anyone else’s even if not the same number of profiles.

Also, require entrants to clean their own suggestions list before the start date.

---

Correctathon!

---

Good suggestion, Gigi, to add a sort of disclaimer/mission/invitation.  I like how you have worded it.  Mary G.

---

Accuracy is essential to genealogy. It is the cornerstone on what we as a community are trying to build with Wikitree.

---

Update: Here's a narrower thread for discussing "Correct-a-Thon" ideas: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1137723/what-do-you-think-of-these-correct-a-thon-ideas

---

I think it is a great idea to focus on the accuracy of information posted on Wikitree. I have found Wikitree a great site and I have been able to make contact with others around the world related to my ancestors.

I do have some reservations about Gedcom files that are uploaded and left as they are without any attempt by those who posted them to edit the files. The uploads sometimes are messy and look very unprofessional - not very inspiring for a new person to Wikitree. The files in their raw form have helped me, but if those who upload them are not prepared to edit them - should they be left as they are? I would suggest putting a time limit on retaining Gedcom files that are not edited by those who post them. Some of  the person profiles in these files that I have been interested in are not open - they were posted in 2013 - the person who posted them has not been active since then.

Thanks to all at Wikitree who work hard behind the scene to keep it all working.

---

I agree. They are not in the acceptable format for WT and normally a cluttered extension of the top portion of the profile. I love cleaning them but am tired of reaching out to pm's that have imported them and never returned. They normally ignore you. What if there were a rule that if there is a GEDCOM import that a pm hasn't touched since it's creation that some of the "polite" recommendations are withdrawn?

---

My personal storage is in GRAMPS and I have found that if the data is entered in the correct way, the GEDCOM file imported to WT works quite well. Little editing is required. Mostly a deletion of some extra lines.

I’ve seen question from other users questioning the import from Ancestry, FindMyPast and other programs. The question comes to mind if anyone has taken the time to analyze these and make recommendations on how to optimize the data collection for the output to a compatible WT GEDCOM input file.

It has taken me a year to figure out the right way to put the data into GRAMPS and I know that there is limited control in Ancestry and FindMyPast. I never discovered a “how to use this app correctly” (in GRAMPS) when I started. Lots of help files on what the fields were for....

I have found WT difficult (like others) because of the HTML coding required. My GEDCOM files do a lot of the formatting for me, so I’m happy.

Maybe a recommendation from the WT community specifically with regard to GEDCOMs from these apps is needed. E.g. Don’t import from XXX as it is not compatible with WT.   or  you have to do yyy for the input to be compatible..

Then we might not have so many problems   

IMO

Answer 1

Maybe correct historical place names could be revisited so that a correct redirect will take place to google maps. It does feel a bit silly when that map icon takes you to unexpected places.

Answer 2

Noble goals and sentiments.

If you want to meet them, you have to get tougher editorially. You have to decide to crack down on irresponsible behavior and source/citing practices. You're going to have to call out the "findagrave only" folks, and insist upon citations that resemble what Evidence Explained outlines. Also, insist that people use inline citations. Maybe it's even necessary to create different classes of users. Judging from the average profile on this site, many users don't understand the difference between primary and secondary source information, or why this is so important. They have no idea how to responsibly evaluate different kinds of evidence or to use it in effective ways. You're really not going to markedly increase accuracy until you decide to limit the damage done by these well-meaning people. (The video-game impulse to rack up the most edits or badges is also something you need to rethink here.) The best research is scholarly research. Are the site runners willing to consider all of this? I'm skeptical. I like this site, but I can only use it if I keep my expectations for other people's behavior low. Prove me wrong.

Comments

Fantastic profiles Ryan. Can we clone you?

---

You're very kind. I try to create, edit, and manage profiles for which I have robust sources.

---

Totally agree Ross on "impulse to rack up the most edits or badges is also something you need to rethink here"

Award 100 - 1000 contribution badges BUT do not highlight/list them.

---

I agree

Answer 3

I think this idea is too ambitious. Right now I'm literally fighting the system to add profiles (given that I'm working with non-English profiles), it is wrong that I should have to use the English LNAB when English is not the primary language of the people I'm working through.

Within my first year using this site, I'd spotted a decent string of profiles of unlinked orphans who were quite clearly alive and well (a couple of years later, they're still in my watchlist). About as frustrating as seeing profiles for individuals marked as living but have been deceased for at least a couple of decades

Comments

Hi Richard,

You are correct that "it is wrong that I should have to use the English LNAB when English is not the primary language of the people I'm working through."

That violates our agreed-upon style rules. If you are seeing something that says otherwise, please create a new thread so that it can be discussed and clarified.

If you find any more living people who are marked as unliving, I hope you will report it to info@wikitree.com immediately. That is a privacy violation that is taken very seriously. It is impossible to prevent this from happening, but we do correct these cases as soon as possible.

I'm unclear on why any of this would lead you to argue that a "Year of Accuracy" theme on WikiTree is too ambitious to be a good thing. Can you explain?

Thanks,

Chris

---

Hi Chris

Regarding your first point, already created a thread on the LNAB issue

Second point: This was before the introduction of the privacy rules, and was unsure whether it was worth mentioning. 

Third point: Honestly, just being pessimistic with the idea. 

Answer 4

One of the main reason why I found WikiTree was because of the accuracy compared to the other so called geneology sites.

Any improvements going forward have my support full heartedly! It will sure make any of us "Sourcerers" job a whole lot easier, won't it??

Any way that I can help, just ask.

Comments

Thank you, Brad!

---

I agree.

Answer 5

I think working on our "connections" to prove we really are 19 degrees away from "whomever" is a goal that everyone can work on!   And in doing that, we will improve the accuracy...I think it is a great opportunity to invite some folks that are struggling with an individual website.    I know that I have invited some members of "family associations" and they have been impressed with our "focus" on accuracy.....

Comments

Robin, this is an "athon" that really would work. It has a simple definition and can't be easily disconnected from accuracy. Everyone should go out, check their connections to previous famous connections, and starting breaking them.

...It would also break a lot of people's precious links to famous people, and so I think that many many wikitreers will agree with you, but key people will not.

This is an example, I reckon, of an accuracy target, and as such it shows how real accuracy conflicts with certain other human desires that are at this moment protected on Wikitree, stopping us from fully aiming at accuracy.

I predict this topic will disappear, and be given the procedural equivalent of cement footwear.

(I am of course hoping someone will prove me wrong!)

---

Before I had other responsibilities on WikiTree, I used to check my connections every week to make sure they were at least realistic.

I ran into my first conflict on WikiTree this way. My connection to the Queen of England shortened a few degrees one week -- when I went to check why, someone had attached their grandmother as a daughter to a member of royalty. They had some story about how this royal person got pregnant at 14, then traveled to the US so no one would know about the pregnancy, and then adopted out the child to an Irish-American family. The woman got very upset with me when I disconnected the profiles...

I like the idea, but I don't think it should be an "athon", just something we should encourage people to check each week when new people are featured.

Answer 6

Chris,

This is a great idea as marketing is the only way to reach people that are not hard core genealogists.  I primarily work on profiles associated with Clan Menzies their septs and descendants. I also maintain a Clan project website that refers people to my WikiTree profiles.  I work with a number of other WikiTree members and some other members of our Clan.  With this group we manage a Y-DNA project for our Clan. We are continuously working to our goal of building a comprehensive tree of all Menzies past and present.  We have found this combination to be especially fruitful.  Our group receives multiple weekly inquires from people around the world that have found us via the above discussed methods and via Google.  Our goal is to leave a legacy to future generations.  Consequently, accuracy is foremost.  We do our best to get it right but are happy when someone brings forth new information proving us wrong in some cases.  I have found a lot of GEDCOM imports that have never been cleaned after import and would be a major turn-off for a first time WikiTree visitor.  I find this to be a visual turn off as they appear very technical and un-inviting. I think if we could somehow monitor these uploads for completion it would be a huge improvement for our community.

Comments

If accuracy is a permanent goal we need to attract the exact same type of genealogists who see through "marketing". They have to be critical. They have to be sleuths.

Answer 7

As a marketing scheme, it's okay.  But we always try to be accurate, so I don't see the point.

Comments

Interesting observation. Maybe Wikitree could just put its energy into just making 100% sure that it is really clear internally and extermally, that it is indeed permanently dedicated to this one goal.

In fact, to say you're going to be into temporarily is kind of unimpressive.

---

It's part of our Honor Code so I'm not sure why anyone would assume it was temporary.

---

Eowyn, in practice Wikitree also has other aims which over-ride the accuracy aim. No deletions. No criticisms. etc. etc. I'm sure you're first reaction will be to say that I just don't understand. Please hesitate a bit first, because I'm talking about how Wikitree really works.

In general, Wikitree's various written policies would not make a great legal system because it is unclear, and in practice people watch what is allowed and not allowed. You can say I must be a bad reader but again, I'm not just judging what I read, but how things are being read and understood.

So whether something is in the honour code or not is not necessarily important unless everyone understands it the same way in practice.

To be clear, I'm suggesting that an athon would not even represent a temporary dedication to accuracy the way things currently are. It would be promotional. I would expect none of the most embarrassing problems in Wikitree to get better, but perhaps things could get worse.

On the other hand it would be easy for Wikitree to declare itself to have an over-riding goal of good quality genealogy. It would even be good marketing. It would distinguish us from similar websites. You need to know your "USP" when you start planning a promotional campaign, right?

Many people on this thread and similar ones in the past, including me, have expressed our positive belief that Wikitree has a good potential to be more quality dedicated.

...In fact, it already is, when compared to websites of similar size. But we shouldn't allow ourselves to get arrogant about that, because we are struggling to spread quality throughout Wikitree, partly due to well-known systemic issues which seem to be have been deliberately chosen. Something is going to give.

Answer 8

I think a "Year of Accuracy" is a good idea as long as it helps develops habits in WikiTreers which will continue to be practiced after the "Year of Accuracy" is over. I think those of us who already strive to be accurate will continue to do so whether we have a theme or not. I think a year-long emphasis on accuracy may encourage some others who haven't been as conscientious about accuracy to put more effort into being more accurate. But with current policies and procedures there will still be many who will continue to contribute inaccurate and unsourced information to WikiTree, leaving it for others to correct and source, which is really sad. If we truly want to become more accurate and boost our reputation for accuracy in the broader genealogical community for the long-term, we are going to have to implement policies and procedures which foster accuracy.

Comments

Correct. Any good short term project on something as controversial as this needs careful and critical planning to think about how it will really work. Is it just a race to do large quantities of edits, or are we going to make the project about mentoring our community?

I see nothing in the project definition which implies any kind of dealing with the obvious conflicts between different visions, nor about actually making sure the athon-participants are doing good work, and not just a quantity of edits.

Answer 9

I agree that it would be of benefit for 2021 to be the Wikitree year of accuracy.  But I would hold off on promoting  . . . maybe a year of promoting, later, once there have been improvements.  Don't get me wrong, Wikitree is the best there is online.  However, there are problems with accuracy.

At first I actually promoted Wikitree.  But as my steep learning curve started to flatten out, while manually adding profiles, I was able to do a better job on my profiles - formatting and everything else - especially sourcing.  Of course I always seek sources, primary in particular, and return to add them, also add them to other profiles when I happen upon need.

However!  I started happening upon an extra-ordinary number of profiles (usually connected in some way to people in my ancestry, their siblings and allied lines) that do not meet any of the Wikitree standards, many of which were added through gedcoms.  The sourcing is a mess with "stuff" that is not advised, formatting is atrocious, and I have found terrible inaccuracies in ancestors in my own line (and corrected them with sources too of course) when I connected to profiles already added;  for example assigning wrong children. 

Granted it is always an interesting challenge when there are large families and several of the grandchildren have the same names, including the same names as the previous generations.  But clearly the information on some profiles was added from inaccurate unsourced online information, not even minimally researched to verify the sources and records exist. 

I have found sources that were not connected in anyway to the profiles they are on.  I do not think most of it is  intentional (which is wishful thinking on my part - wanting to trust in expecting good intentions).  But the point is that it is always a good idea to verify sources on profiles we connect to, and/or work on, especially when it is easily done because they are online sources.

None of this is new to anyone, and I am not complaining about it, since these are the types of things we work on with our volunteer work.  However, what it suggests to me is that a lot of people forgot about upholding the honor code. 

I too have profiles I have created, and those I have adopted that I still need to return to and improve, and admittedly am slow at doing this.  So I understand when I encounter profiles that seem neglect.  Again that is some of the work we do when we happen upon these. 

However, some of the profiles I find were inaccurate gedcoms to start with and have not been accessed since they were added.  For some reason I encounter a lot of profiles that were added in 2013 - and apparently have been neglected since that time. 

So . . .  I stopped doing as much promoting (to family and friends mostly) once I realized the extent of work that does not meet standards.  I do not want to promote Wikitree's accuracy then have people find that is not the case when they do a Wikitree search and find profiles of their ancestors that meet few of Wikitree standards.

How can we promote Wikitree for being accurate when there are so many profiles that do not measure up? 

Even many of the managed profiles are not well presented biographies.  I thought I had a good idea about the formatting standards which are suggested should apply to all profiles - but so many do not meet those standards.  The profiles look messy, are full of redundant information that takes up unnecessary space, and often cite only family records from other sites that are not accessible, or if they are accessible, are not well sourced.

It is the type of information that would be better placed in Research Notes as potential leads to find sources.  However, then it leaves nothing else in the bio other than Research Notes. 

I am still learning about Wikitree resources, so I can relate to folks who may be new at genealogical research and have become flummoxed, so simply give up and are no longer active.  This does not happen to "dyed in the wool" folks who have been at this long before Wikitree was a twinkle in anyone's eye, even when it is discouraging from time to time!  But it may be why some people become inactive, resulting in profiles that seem to be abandoned and never worked on after being added by gedcoms, because they have been abandoned and the members inactive.

I have started wondering if there is a team or a project which actually is willing to delete some of the profiles that have only a name, sometimes only a first or last name, no sources - only a connection to another profile.  Put the name and the guess work as a possible lead in the Research Notes.  Or when there is a documented list of children, or names of parents mentioned in a source, put it in the bio but do not create profiles when only a name is documented.. 

It remains unclear to me whether or not it is discouraged (or encouraged) for people to add gedcoms, since adding them seems to be the origin of so many of the profiles that need work on everything, and so many of the abandoned profiles. 

I did not ever add a gedcom - did all my adding manually - so do not know the process, but I have been told there are choices (like with merging or not adding a profile that already exists).  If that is the case then a lot of folks  have not done a good job of processing individual additions as they added their gedcom files.  I do not know if there is a choice to not add individuals in a gedcom file as it is being added to Wikitree, but why would people add individuals with no information other than a guessed birthday, and no verifying sources?

Maybe there needs to be a discussion about whether or not it is acceptable to add gedcoms.  I would say no.  Why are people not willing to carefully add individuals according to guidelines (which many gedcom entries do not meet)?  It really does not take long once one has a good idea of formatting.  It suggest that many do not care about accuracy and presentability on Wikitree.  And that again brings up the honor code.  Yes, I need to work on all of this myself, also.  Because I know that and so so, I see problems that present themselves. 

Understand that I am not simply being critical.  "Problem solving" has always been a personal approach with me, throughout life.  But it also requires recognizing and articulating problems to be able to work on them.

I think it would go a long way towards improving accuracy on Wikitree to not allow the addition of gedcom files.  This has probably been discussed in the past.  I have not done a search in G2G to see what may have been said, or decided.  But in responding to the question, I can not ignore it as an issue that is responsible for a lot of inaccuracies.

So, once again, I can certainly agree that it would be of benefit, all the way around, for 2021 to be a year of Wikitree accuracy.  However, I would hold off on outreach that promotes the accuracy of Wikitree until more remediation is done - and consider making it a focus of a subsequent year.

Let's be encouraged that we all care about Wikitree's accuracy and presentability.

Mary G.

Comments

I started happening upon an extra-ordinary number of profiles (usually connected in some way to people in my ancestry, their siblings and allied lines) that do not meet any of the Wikitree standards, many of which were added through gedcoms.  The sourcing is a mess with "stuff" that is not advised, formatting is atrocious, and I have found terrible inaccuracies in ancestors in my own line (and corrected them with sources too of course) when I connected to profiles already added;  for example assigning wrong children.

I agree that profiles that are added through GEDCOMs often have formatting issues, data that is only relevant to the user who uploaded the GEDCOM and his/her own computer and sources that are not accessible. BUT you can take the profile, clean it, take a look if you find the source that is mentioned in the  not accessible sources and add that source. And voilà, a profile is improved and is at least nearer to meeting WikiTree-standards.

How can we promote Wikitree for being accurate when there are so many profiles that do not measure up? 

You could promote it being a Tree that is getting more accurate every day because there is folks working every day to find sources for unsourced profiles, that try to correct incorrect relationships, that merge duplicates etc. The Tree IS getting better every single day.

---

Is it getting more accurate every day? How do we know this? Is there a quality control? I find, and I think many of us do, that my hopes go up and down depending what I am working on. There are islands where things are getting better. We can be mislead by this.

---

I clean up profiles I happen upon too, Jelena,  But it can be discouraging, when working on a profile to see that numerous profiles in the ancestry line all need to be cleaned up.

It is not that I object to doing the work.  It is the question it raises about why anyone would add an ancestry line, then not taking responsibility to work on those profiles - to clean them up and improve them in a way that at least gets closer to standards.

---

Good questions, Andrew.  I have had a similar experience as far as wondering about the extent of improvement, once I realized how much work there still is to be accomplished.

However when we have already promoted Wikitree attention to detailed accuracy, like I did when I was new and had not explored further afield than connecting my own lines to the tree while adding them, I had not yet realized the extent of the work that was needed.  And I still don't, but it seems to be much more extensive than promotions of Wikitree suggest.

Jelena suggests a good way to promote Wikitree that reflects actuality.

---

Andrew, do you actually know this kind of thread which observes the quality of the tree around every three months? Following these threads and looking at the graphs show that over time the quality of the Tree IS improving.

---

Thanks. I don't follow them closely but this is he type of approach I was expecting. It uses numeric/quantity proxies, as it says. And the exact kinds of mistakes which seem to increase over time in Wikitree would show up as increases in quality. Try to imagine how a person who wanted to win a marathon might worsen quality, and ask yourself how it would look using these.

By the way, this type of feedback is one of the types needed, but I'm only saying I think there is another issue we've been discussing in this thread that is not going to come up. G2G is full of remarks from editors worried that wikitree encourages people to reduce errors on error reports, fill in empty fields, merge people who have the same name, and so on.

Answer 10

Great idea! And I would like to add quality and consistency to accuracy. By this I mean that every profile have at least one bona fide in-line source that is included in a Biography no matter how brief. Please let's not add any GEDCOM junk.

Comments

There are plenty of WikiTreers who consider themselves good sourcers who do not do in-line sources.

---

Most Wikitreers seem to think inline sourcing means footnotes. From the context, this is perhaps also what you mean Julie?

I think footnotes are fine, but the preference for footnotes evolved over time and is quite separate from accuracy or lack of sourcing.

I have seen sourcing athons tend to now tag profiles without footnotes as unsourced, even if exact sources are named with the text. This is not really going to make Wikitree more accurate.

That's a good example of quantity-driven athons can create "success" which is not real, by the way.

---

Inline or online sources in the sources area are not the be all and end all.

If sufficient and accurate information is provided on the profile such as date of birth, baptism, marriage, death, residence location plus other information such as occupation and family members, another person who wishes to verify that information they can easily do so.

A link to a website does not automatically mean that the information is correct for the profiled person.

We all can and do make mistakes, verification of information means being able to find it yourself.

---

I agree M Ross. Possibly this is a side issue, but if there is going to be a massive campaign everyone should be on the same page about what the definition of a problem is.

Answer 11

A better name might be "Year of Improving Quality", having an attitude to leave each profile just a bit better. Seeing even a slight quality improvement to a profile may even become contagious. If you like the improvement add a bit more and then improve one of their profiles.

Set up simple guildelines to determine/document levels of quality for different areas: creating profiles, adding sources, writing narratives ...

For example, improving quality of sources (Source IQ level):

1. Adding the author to just a description/name.

2. Adding whether info was from a website or a published document.

3. Including link to source, if available.

I'm sure this idea can be improved upon.

Comments

I was right! My idea about (Source IQ level) could be improved. I do like the name, but that's about it.

Liz Shifflett made a comment on the "Basic, Silver, Gold" answer about "a type of grid chart with elements on one axis and status on another, with elevating the profile to the upper right spot the goal" that is a much better idea to use as a guide:

"Any WikiTreer could choose their preferred level of contribution anywhere from simple "Year of Improving Quality" by making the level of improvements in quality suited to the individual's ability/time constraints, to the more complicated improvements suggested under the "The Year of Accuracy" scenario." Originally posted here.

Answer 12

I would certainly support any organized effort to improve Wikitree accuracy.

I note that normally most of what I do would more-or-less be considered as improving Wikitree accuracy anyway.  I suspect that is true for the few hundred (?) people who are routinely active on Wikitree and would support such an initiative.  

It would be great if we could activate the 100,000+ membership to improve their profiles.  That would really use Wiki power.  But I don't have a suggestion on how to do that short of large cash rewards.

Given the small numbers of active users and the large size of Wikitree, I think we'd want to focus on more than just "accuracy".  We'd benefit from some targets that had more impact.  Or where we could at least see more definitive progress in one year.  In the spirit of brainstorming, I'll throw out some ideas:

1. Work on the 4-star and 5-star profiles.  These get some wider attention and at least should be accurate.  Although as others have noted (and my own experience) it is the common great grand-parents that seems to connect to the larger public.

2. Work on the PPP profiles and immediate family.  I think the number of PPP profiles is large and, given finite volunteers, the PPP designation does not necessarily mean the profile is cleanly written and accurate.  

3. Work on the ~100,000 profiles that have real issues.  Death too old; mother died before child was born, etc.  In my experience, a lot of these have more substantive accuracy issues and not just a date typo.

4. Replace the Scan-a-thon and Connect-a-thon with something else in 2021.  These are good, but they don't much affect accuracy.  At 83% connected now, we are already in pretty good situation.  Maybe a Correct-a-thon.  

5. Hold an Unsourced-a-thon!  About half of our profiles are unsourced, but only about 15% of those are actually labelled as unsourced. In this "thon", we'd go around adding Unsourced tags to all those profiles.  Adding the Unsourced tags at least acknowledges to the wider internet that these are a work-in-progress.  And maybe it would motivate some of the infrequent users to improve their profiles.  

6. Organize a number of small teams of say 3 persons.  They would work together to tackle and cleanup profiles and family lines of mutual interest.  May get the same results as working individually, but might be a little more entertaining as a team as we could share ideas and sources that we find as we tackle things, and give mutual support.

7. Reach out to known genealogists and ask them for something in Wikitree that bugs them.  And then fix that line.

Comments

I like the idea of an Unsourced-a-thon - that would be a great first step in identifying profiles that need to be improved with valid sources.

Answer 13

Basic, Silver, Gold

Improving the overall quality of the genealogy on wikitree is a laudable aim but is always going to be a major challenge with a site of this nature.

Measuring overall quality and quality improvement is also difficult. My thanks to Paul Gierszewski for his efforts in this regard.

We will continue to see growth in the number of profiles on wikitree but perhaps what we should focus on is growth in the number of good quality profiles, and to promote wikitree utilising its strengths rather than its weaknesses (because there are lots of good profiles and good tools on wikitree).

One of the proposals suggests highlighting profiles which are not very good and attempting to improve them. That’s fine but another (or additional) way forward is to do the opposite and identify and highlight those profiles that are of good quality. We have profile of the week but that’s not really what I mean.

In a wikitree of the future all profiles are classified into (for example) ‘basic’, ‘better’, ‘best’; or ‘basic’, ‘silver’, ‘gold’.

How might we do this?

a) Develop the criteria for the quality standards silver and gold (perhaps gold is ‘genealogically defined’)

b) Develop the process for checking the quality of a profile in order to award silver and gold

c) Develop the banner or similar which will clearly identify a profile as being silver or gold

d) Develop the process by which the quality is protected

Yes, there are of course lots of reasons for not doing this – but in a situation where it is impossible to control the quality of new profiles (and good reasons why one should not discourage new members who may be inexperienced genealogists), then focus on moving more profiles into the ‘gold’ standard; and would not the prospect of achieving a quality standard for a given profile encourage some profile managers towards that higher standard.

We already have a great tool, ‘Suggestions’, that helps towards this. We already have many Projects in place which protect profiles but which could also lead the way in the assessment of profiles. We also have some experience of checking the quality of profiles against set criteria, i.e. the Magna Carta Project.

So my suggestion as part of the 'year of accuracy 2021' is to develop and trial such a system.

Comments

This week, one of my profiles was chosen as a Profile of the Week and I’m really proud. It was nothing special, just my normal standard. I’ve always thought we should recognise quality rather than quantity. I’m not one for effusive praise and public acknowledgment, never mind points, but could we find a quiet way of recognising those great profile researchers and writers too?

Further thoughts - perhaps nominations (even self-nomination) to the Appreciation Team who could check a few profiles before awarding something to members producing defined quality work on a consistent basis. I’ve never seen much value in “appreciating” 1000 contributions when every profile created by that member is basically unsourced.

---

That's awsome Fiona. Great to see a fellow Kiwi's work being recognised. I agree with your comment. It takes time to do quality work and it should be better recognised. I'm not a fan of 100 badges or 1000 badges and have hidden them from my profile.

---

I think what you propose has merit Steve. Years ago someone proposed something similar, but that may have been before projects even (definitely before project accounts; maybe in the time when there were only a few projects).

We worked on a type of grid chart with elements on one axis and status on another, with elevating the profile to the upper right spot the goal. If I recall, elements and status were both 1-10, with 1 being no facts/no reliable sources. The elements were BDM dates/locations & parents/kids (just two spots for kids, to keep the 10x10 grid). The scale for status went to image of primary source.

The basic, silver, gold could be overlaid on the grid chart (bronze [light orange], silver, gold... the profiles that need work staying uncolored).

The idea didn't take off because there was no structure to support it. I think that project structure WikiTree has now is strong enough to support such a concept.

Perhaps there could be a template of the grid that would take y/n for each element and produce the image based on the answers?

I'm not very clever with images (either creating them or adding them to G2G), so I hope the words adequately describe what I'm trying to say.

Cheers, Liz

---

Thanks Liz, that's interesting. As you say perhaps a few years ago wikitree wasn't mature enough to take on board such an idea. But now we already have much of what we would need to implement it, and virtually no additional software development would be required. Let's highlight the accurate/good quality profiles and use that to encourage improvement throughout wikitree.

---

Liz, I really like the idea of your grid chart. I think it would work really well with my concept of "Year of Improving Quality":

"Any WikiTreer could choose their preferred level of contribution anywhere from simple "Year of Improving Quality" by making the level of improvements in quality suited to the individual's ability/time constraints, to the more complicated improvements suggested under the "The Year of Accuracy" scenario."

Other g2g posts:

Pat Credit had a good suggestion - rather than "accuracy", why not "improving quality".  If the "year" was to promote improvements in accuracy and quality, then a 'Thon could be based on the improving aspect -- an Imp-a-Thon.

commented 1 day ago by Melanie Paul G2G6 Pilot

Melanie, Thank you.

It seemed like most of the suggestions made it more complicated then needed. Only a few would want to contribute. However, by keeping it simple enough that even newbies could improve a profile as they are getting started, many more would be contributing to Improving Quality on WikiTree.

Any WikiTreer could choose their preferred level of contribution anywhere from simple "Year of Improving Quality" by making the level of improvements in quality suited to the individual's ability/time constraints, to the more complicated improvements suggested under the "The Year of Accuracy" scenario.

With many more contributors WikiTree will get better and better and most everyone will see that there is a place for them on WikiTree.

commented 20 hours ago by Pat Credit G2G6 Pilot

---

---

Liz,

Do you think this grid could work with "Year of Improving Quality" Each square on the grid could have its own IQ#. Elements and status could be numbered 0-9. IQ00 being just a bare profile and IQ99 being a profile with "all the bells and whistles".

Pat

---

Excellent idea Steve! I'd totally support this. Like Liz said, something similar was considered years ago. Certainly now we have the capability of implementing such a system.

---

The more complicated you make it, the harder and more time-consuming it will be to administer and the fewer people there will be who will participate.  Who is going to oversee this grid idea?

---

I'm not sure, but perhaps the grid concept is more of a tool/checklist that people could use if they wish. My suggestion is more of a process to encourage accuracy/quality by highlighting accuracy/quality and we would certainly want to trial something first before getting too carried away!

Answer 14

Get your flags ready. Update: No flags.  This is proof that the discussion rules are inclusive and are not an attempt to censor opinions.  Opinions expressed in an earthy way are allowed.


1. The USA just had enough of "I'm right; the press is wrong."  The 'press' here on WikiTree are the WikiTreers.  You want good promotion?  Read and heed the press.

2. Take your dirty laundry off the outside clothes line.  What if every major best-selling author had 'everything' they wrote published, not just the final ready-to-be-a-book (profile)?

3. Make profiles visible in stages: still in diapers?  have a learner's permit?  adults?

4. If those weren't flaggable, then this one sure will be:  Keep doing exactly the same thing and expect that the WikiTree community of dedicated volunteers will stay around and continue to do massive diaper clean-ups.

5. I'm not done.  First day on WikiTree a Greeter 'flipped me the pages.'  No I didn't 'flip back profiles.'  A lot of people do (make that a lot, a lot).  Add:  I wanted to add our ancestors and I wanted to do it 'right.'  Being accurate is important to me.  Then, instead of making sure all of our ancestors had profiles (an accurate lineage), I was reading page after page of instructions.  Each page had links to more pages.  So I closed-them-out and continued on with adding accurate ancestors.

6. ok, now I'm done and, no, I'm not angry.  This is the way I speak:  softly and questioning, but to the point.

7. Try a buddy system that starts first day?  1/1/2021 with a goal of accuracy?  "Hello!  I'm your WikiTree-Buddy!"  We'll be doing profiles together for awhile, then when you get your Wiki-Wings, off and profiling you go.

Edit: not off and away you go

Comments

No flag from me! 

Your #2 made me think, on some profiles I created and others I adopted and the information is complicated, and I haven't yet entered everything that needs to be on the profile. I have put a comment at the top of the biography.

'This profile is a work in progress' 

If we don't put all the information or possible information about the person profiled, it makes it more difficult for others to work on the profile. 

People especially non-members who are looking for complete and accurate profiles for their family members and ancestors need to know that it takes a lot of work to create an accurate and correct profile. 

If I'm building a fence or painting my house it is obvious to onlookers that the project is not finished. 

It is not obvious when a profile is not finished and that is when people may feel that they are justified commenting on the accuracy of the information on the profile. 

In a perfect world every single piece of useful information would be included on a profile when it is created. However genealogy is rarely finished.

---

I'll pick a priority I agree with: mentoring of newbies.

---

Yes, we need a buddy system for new people. We also need more people to step up and be buddies.

---

7. The buddy system is interesting. I know some teams actively look for new members (HC or even family members) that could be interested in their field and kindly ask them if they need help and point them to improvements kindly.

If you are a friendly person that likes new people with their newbie questions and frustrations: try the greeter gang! You can buddy a lot there.

The latest newsletter gives some stats: Honor Code signed and reviewed in one month: 2380. So 40-80 per day. Work enough for buddies I would say.

---

I could have appreciated #7 when I was new.
Maybe a buddy could work with folks on a specific number of profiles (e.g. first 10 profiles?).  I suggest amount rather than time range, because it may take a while for new folks to get going. That way there is a start and stop for newbies depending on the buddy who would be willing to correct/improve what is added.   
I struggled with formatting correctly at first, then started to select edit on profiles that clearly met standards to learn how to recreate what I wanted to do.  That worked for me.

---

Oh yes Mary, of course.  That was how I learned html.  I went behind pages I liked, copied the code, put it into an html editor, and played with it.  The same would be nice for profiles here.  Simple examples to start and certainly not Abraham Lincoln.  He is among the "Best in Show," but not the standard to which WikiTree members might hold those new to WikiTree (on that page, scroll up one line).

Answer 15

The widespread use and promotion of estimated (or better guessed) dates on WikiTree is directly in conflict with the laudable goal of accuracy. The older profiles get the harder it is to come up with birth and marriage dates. Instead of suggesting profile managers guess at a date it would be much better to improve accuracy by adding more options for the date fields such as "Documented" or "between .. and ..." and to change the way WikiTree treats "Before" and "After" dates as the same as the exact year and generates error messages that way. I do believe that guesses and estimates (if not grounded in sound reasoning) are directly conflicting with accuracy.

Comments

Correct. This would be a widely-agreed policy on Wikitree which is in conflict with accuracy.

A similar one is concerning the use of "associated" places as birth places and death places. (Which leads to lots of French people in the 1066-1220 period being born in the English lordships of their less important grand children.)

These have been discussed over and over.

---

Yes, for Germany there are oodles of medieval profiles with birth and death places simply assigned based on the house name of the family. Sometimes they are supposed to have been born in places that were only built during their lifetime.

---

I guess this is something we need to keep discussing with our pre-1500 colleagues, and not necessarily relevant in this discussion. I think there is a kind of compromise possible, but we don't yet seem to have a good working consensus on how it works because I get the impression people are still adding very "non common sense" places.

...but certainly similar issues also happen in the greater Wikitree, where we all also work.

---

I agree Helmut.  Good suggestion.

I was thinking that about a big box warning the other day, pointing out the date was guessed as if it was a HUGE problem that needs to be corrected, when the Suggestions for correcting errors say the profile should have an "educated guess" date if there is no date.

It might be advisable to make a brief comment in the bio that an dob has not yet been found, so it is estimated based on _____(whatever), like was stated on one of the profiles I was working on that had the big box!

---

In my opinion, estimated dates should be regarded as far more ACCURATE than the all-too-frequent situation where people methodically report that a person was born before the date of the first known record and died after the date of the last known record. If a man was married in 1742 it is undoubtedly true that he was born before 1742, but that is far less ACCURATE that saying he probably was born in about 1720. And if that same man is known to have had several children, but there are no dated records, it may be correct to say that he died after 1742, but that is singularly unhelpful.  More ACCURATE to treat his death date as Unknown.

---

And if he was 62 instead of 22? How many generations does it take until somebody becomes their own father, whole generations get thus invented and what does that do to the accuracy? Not that we don't have examples of that.

Answer 16

I think it would be really good to make it easier to find profiles that need correcting, and allow people to easily find them by location and date. I often stumble across profiles that came in through a GED import or with "unsourced family tree" that are not tagged with unsourced. Often these wouldn't be too hard to source, but there's no good way to find them. Also sometimes I'll be start sourcing profiles of people who lived in the same town/county as an ancestor during certain years, since I've recently done my own ancestor and am familiar with the source material from that time/place. However, there's usually no good way to find those profiles unless some one has taken the time to tag them somehow (which if the profile is neglected doesn't get done). I'd like to be able to see all the profiles listed as born and or died in a specific place during a range of years. Or even see all unsourced profiles with birth or death places in a certain time/place.

I've noticed that merges generally get taken care of within two of three months of getting proposed, because it's very easy to see pending merges, and certain data doctors suggestions (like USA too early) get taken care of pretty fast too. If it were easier to find/sort unsourced/neglected profiles I think that would help a lot. The current unsourced list only includes profiles some one has taken the time to tag, and can be sorted by a very general location only if some one has gone a step further and tagged the location too.

Comments

I believe much of what you want exists by using wikitree+ and the new bio check took. In wikitree+ you can search for unsourced + location and by location + lastedit2010 (this works up through 2014, to find old profiles input before current standards). The new tool will find profiles that fit your search parameters that appear to lack sources or basic headings. Lacking basic headings typically means they are a profile from the early days.

---

I use Wikitree+ to find profiles from the same location, and the search can be limited to a desired time frame. It is quick to skim the right column, looking for profiles that don't have unsourced tags already and don't have categories. A great many of these will be unsourced, or poorly sourced. It is also possible to restrict the search to orphaned profiles.

---

I'm glad to hear the functionality exist, but it's not easily findable or usable. Even for some one who has used wikitree a moderate amount, I'm not sure how to use wikitree+ for anything other than searching data doctor suggestions and it takes a lot of searching to even find a link that takes me to wikitree+.

Answer 17

Encourage the use of certain/uncertain

An aspect in this discussion is: how to mark profiles that are accurate? And the other side of the medal: how to know which profiles need work to become more accurate?

There is of course the unsourced tag, but that is only for sources. Sources can be accurate, or not. There is no way to classify sources in the system, it is all text in need of interpretation. And if there is one source, the profile is not 'unsourced'.

But, there is the option to mark the dates/locations and names as certain or uncertain. These are all the hard data that will make the profile really represent someone, making the profile 'sound'. In my random browsing I have encountered massive amounts of profiles where this option has not been chosen, most are just blank.

Can't we have theme to mark as many data fields certain or uncertain? That would require a check on the sources and does not need an extra data field. The only thing that would need to be made is an overview of profiles without certain/uncertain marked, and an option to find these profiles per area/country/era.

For marketing purposes you could use the general statistics on this: "this percentage has been checked and been found to be solid profiles..."

This proposal is in the line of the gold/silver idea of Steve, but works with current technology.

Comments

I would agree that the uncertain/certain buttons should be more widely used and that would add value to wikitree. However, a data field such as place of death may be quite correctly marked as uncertain because no records may exist to verify a place of death. The data field being marked as uncertain doesn't mean the profile is not of high quality, indeed it might be good evidence that it is a well researched profile.

---

Just an observation which gives us an indication about how accurate our guess are: Whenever there is no real source, Wikitree always guesses that Anglo Normans in the 12th century were born in England and died in England. (Many of them had bigger lordships in France.)

It is obvious such guesses are biased, and that tolerance of this type of guessing procedure is incompatible with the aim of accuracy.

---

@Steve. I am mainly talking about the large majority of profiles that has no indication of certain/uncertain. That is the default for new profiles.

@Andrew. Hardly anyone can join the pre1500 club, so that limited team should be able to fix that right?

---

Michel personally I think that pre 1500 needs to have getting more good members as a priority.

I guess people are scared to return to the old situation, but I fear that we've now made it too hard for good genealogists to join.

I get the impression that some of the people still in pre 1500 are however not all that worried about the problem I just mentioned, and are even continuing to work that way.

There are some non certified people who've tried to help by posting suggestions, but these suggestions seem to often go ignored, or even get deleted.

I'd like us to be asking people who post good suggestions to please join.

Answer 18

From my own perspective, I would imagine a very large "problem area" that lacks accuracy are the pre-1500 profiles from the early days of WT.

It is a large number of profiles and the pre-1500 certified WT members are less than 400. Could there perhaps be some more discussions on how to handle them?

I know we do not delete profiles but would it be technically possible to create some kind of "quarantine" until the profile has been reviewed and deemed to be based on sound genealogical/historical research? That would at least take some of the stress off those who try to do the work of sorting those profiles out. And there might even be a need for new rules, a member who is not pre-1500 certified can still be the manager of such profiles and reject a merge because it differs 20 years in the birth of a profile born in the 700's.

This is a large number of profiles and, as a whole, a complex problem and the kind of thing that might need Chris or some other member of the Team as a sounding board before a suggestions how to solve it can even be posted to G2G.

Comments

I like that {{quarantined}}, with the template maybe adding parentheses around a name.  Yet, I like {{accurate}} better.  Maybe 'accurate' could produce a WikiTree banner of Certified WikiTree?

---

Frankly I think we all tiptoe around our real thoughts too much on these issues. It is not really that complicated.

I'd say almost no one who works on pre-1500 wants non qualified profile managers. It just does not work, and we need to be allowed to say that. We see it all the time. No one who disagrees with us seems to be interested in the practical reality.

The discussion should be about whether there should be any profile managers who are individuals instead of projects. Why should I or anyone else be allowed to stick a flag in William the conqueror and say he's mine?

Concerning deletions we all know we just have to work around that crazy aversion. We can cut non-existent people off from the family tree, or we can merge them into a real person by changing every detail. We do these things because we really NEED to delete profiles, and many of us aim at quantity, despite Wikitree's uncertainty about that aim.

Wikitree should change direction and say that it's mission is to always always choose quality, and then these problems would be resolved because the solutions are obvious. All discussions would be simpler.

Answer 19

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?

Comments

Andrew, I must say I admire your boldness.

It seems to me that every one of these debates on WikiTree ends up confronting the same basic problem:  Quantity vs. quality.

There are good reasons to want quantity.  At least as I understand it, that's what funds WT.

There are also good reasons to want quality, as I just experienced again today, much to my frustration when dealing with some of my pre-1700 ancestors and relatives.

So, is there no way we can have both?  Why not allow new contributors to add a few relatives?  Maybe even up to 1800?  Many people know their own first few generations of ancestors, even if they can't, or don't want to take the trouble to, document them.  I consider those profiles clues for other researchers.

At the same time, why not have stricter standards for older profiles?  For instance, if unsourced profiles from gedcom uploads are still untouched after several years, why shouldn't they be orphaned?

---

Julie, I think I need to write two answers. This one is about your important first paragraph.

Yes I keep being told that I should be careful and I'm probably going to be punished.

That kind of tells me something about Wikitree though right? I feel this is connected to the web of issues that link to this one (quality).

Frankly, I did not sign on for a job working for anyone. I do genealogy for myself, like all the best of us, and that should be fine if quality is the primary aim, because it is going to be either right for everyone, or wrong for everyone. (I don't believe our medievalists have problems identifying the true grey areas and calling them grey areas. These are not the things we disagree on.)

I think a lot of people might not understand that if I make junk I will welcome it being pointed out to me. I love learning every day, and you are not going to learn if you are not allowed to question things, including especially yourself. Deep down, if Wikitree is for good genealogy, it has to be like that too.

People are scared of their ancestral lines being criticized and changed, but if Wikitree is serious we need to help them learn to embrace that type of evolution as exciting.

However, the Wikitree tendency as a community, passed down from the top as far as I can see, is to act scared of critical genealogy. ...And that puts it in conflict, at least very often, with the aim of accuracy. No amount of athons can hide this.

---

Julie, reply number two. Clarification of my logic:

I say we can not aim at both quality and quantity. By this I mean that one aim will rule the other.

So I am not against the aim of quantity. I just think that when there is a choice to make between the two aims, quality has to now be our selection.

I can understand an argument that in the first years of Wikitree it was important gain quantity because it gave this website momentum. But we're past that.

Quantity is now huge, and if our community shares aims more deeply, and can empathize with the spirit of future Wikitree policies instead of just seeing them as orders, it will increase its output without even having that as its aim.

I think Wikitree is capable of much more in terms of quality than most people realize.

---

Julie, actually to be fair to your post I need to do a third reply about another quite distinct issue your rightfully point me to.

I think one of the risks of athons and all the current ways of pushing for more accuracy is that tend to use artificial policies which seem not to match experience. As I said above, they are seen as orders from the boss, and look like that, rather than guidelines where we can all read the "spirit" of them between the lines and feel that we helped write them. Anyone who has worked a lot on Wikitree knows the rules are worked around, and everyone reads them differently.

What is important about the orders, I'm afraid, is following them superficially just enough to not "get in trouble". It is kind of a childish situation. How can we recruit more good genealogists to pre-1500? I'd say it needs to be more grown-up and the small groups working there need to be able to feel they played a role in developing policies.

And I think all these problems are linked. The policies don't show a clear set of priorities. They are obviously full of compromise, and deliberately written to be vague about important things. The policy which can and should guide all the others is missing. Quality should take preference over every other aim, whenever there is a choice. If we write and talk this way, all discussion will be easier.

On the other hand, one practical result of our current situation is that people who want to enforce "good sourcing", lets say for an athon, focus on whatever is clearest in the rules, and these things are often the least important. It is very frustrating to see terrible problems that last for years, while we have thousands of people running around tagging articles without footnotes as unsourced, even if they have sources.

...and so on

---

Andrew (replying to your post no. 2), I think you and I both want to see WikiTree succeed.

I have no inside knowledge of the volume that it will take to support WT.  I do have some sympathy for new members who just want to add a few ancestors, and if they're lucky link into the shared tree.  Not everyone is good at sourcing.  WikiTree is hard.  Many people have a hard time learning how it works.  

I just don't think that those modern, often unsourced, profiles are our problem.  It is the older profiles, ancestors to hundreds (at least), that deserve more scrutiny.  They do get it, sometimes, but my main gripe is that negligent PMs can hold onto profiles they aren't improving--for example, that they haven't ever updated since long-ago gedcom uploads.  Of course, anyone can edit the profiles, but PMs can block merges, attach wrong family members, etc.

---

What you say makes me think of the following.

In many of these types of discussions, I feel that because criticizing our peers is seen as extremely sensitive, people start blaming the newbies.

I keep seeing posts about how my standards are too high for the less experienced people. They'll never be able to learn it or understand it or whatever. I don't experience such problems having any major worrying effect. Most people who come to Wikitree seem to want to do genealogy like me, and they seem happy to learn. When they think something is beyond them, then they mostly ask for help or leave it. And I don't see any sign that they all demand lower standards. I think they are happy, as am I, to be working in a big group where people with different experience levels can help each other and teach each other.

I think in these g2g discussions some people hide behind these imaginary newbies in order to argue against ideas they want to block, without admitting why. I think many of our experienced editors are driven in many of their actions by a fear that someone is going break a link in one of their favorite bits of family tree.

---

There is no shortage of inaccuracies in the post-1700 era. Gedcom teams are overwhelmed with the amount of garbage that needs to be checked, pulled apart and reconnected in a different way.

I would like to see sources on all pre-1900 profiles. Nobody here has any personal knowledge of the entire life of someone born in the 19th century.

The bulk of the discussion in this thread is focusing on bandaid treatment and it is unsustainable. If WT wants a reputation for quality then it needs to face up to the root causes of the errors and address them. We could have a thon every weekend. They will never address the underlying problem of research done poorly.

Corrective and preventative actions are key elements of any good quality management system that focuses on continual improvement, and are required for those who comply with standards like ISO 9001, or those standards based on ISO 9001. A lot of people focus on corrective action, which deals with an error that has occurred. WT does that with thons, weekly Data Doctor challenges, sourcing sprints, and the like. Preventative action is even more important and is frequently poorly understood. It looks at the potential for error, the likelihood of it occurring again, the root causes, and taking steps to prevent recurrence. There are some projects that are taking a preventative approach, such as the Profile Improvement Project and some Trails from the location-based projects, but they are only working with a small number of people. WT has a lot of contributors who never join a project.

---

Leandra, as I think I've said elsewhere, it might reduce many of our disagreements on WikiTree if the cutoff date for modern vs. older profiles were moved up.  I've seen several suggestions that it be pre-1800, not pre-1700.  Maybe pre-1850 would make even more sense.

As for your statement that no one here has any personal knowledge of the (entire) lifetimes of people born in the 19th century, I disagree.  Three of my grandparents were born before 1900, and I knew them all (I am 69 years old).  We had extensive discussions and correspondence about their experiences and histories, and I had many more discussions with their children, who were my parents and aunts.

I think great value can be added to family histories by people based on their own knowledge.  Of course, I should note myself and my relatives as sources in the cases I've described.

---

Julie, when those events happened before our time, we only know what we are told by our ancestors. Those stories are not always correct. Human memory is notorious for its inaccuracy, despite our good intentions, hence the reason why it doesn't carry as much weight in a courtroom as some other forms of evidence. Sometimes a person may only have observed part of an event and has missed the bigger picture. Sometimes there is a need to cover up the truth. My father told us that his sister died of cancer. One day I looked up her death certificate and discovered that she shot herself. I've followed up on several stories that were told to me by people who should know, people who claimed to be there, and found a number of them that were either untrue or only partially true.

I'm not denying that memories don't create interesting family histories. However they should never be the sole source of genealogy.

---

Leandra, I never said personal stories should be the only source.  But what I like best are the human touches--my grandmother Marjorie, for example, telling me how they did their laundry and what kind of clothing they wore as children.

Modern people, for the most part, are easy to research.  Any beginner can do that part, at least on their own family when they know where the people lived, etc.

---

It sounds to me like you are both right on this. It will depend on the specific case. My experience is that these types of questions are normally easy to agree on when you have the actual case.

Coming back to the more general concern, what I think can go wrong, are marathons because these involve editing which does not look at the case.

Answer 20

I think this is a wonderful idea, how many times do we find that the wrong people are married to the wrong family or birth dates don't correspond. How can we police it though? Sourcing is a valuable aspect to our research and gives the searcher a place to go to verify the information with their own. Younger members of families don't seem to know what sources are, how can we teach them without hurting their feelings?

Comments

With the risk of sounding old, it is unusual for the young people to want to know all the details, and realistically if the opportunity to create my family tree online with documented sources had been possible 35 years I wouldn't/couldn't have done it.

Full time job, 2 young children, laundry, groceries, etc, etc, etc

---

I have two teenagers. I've noticed that they've been taught about source quality and so on from primary school. I think teachers and people who design curricula are often controversial but one thing many have done is to strengthen this area because they see all the problems young people face with social media etc.

I'd say the youngest genealogists may not be the biggest problem here. (They'll have different weak spots maybe, just as every genealogist does.) Is it really our younger members who tell us that they used the Book of Smiths, made by their uncle, so everything should be fine? :)

---

My comment was not that they can't do it, I agree they have been taught about sourcing and are far more computer literate than me.

My point was most are not currently interested. We have 10 younger people between 25 and 40 years old in our family only 1 has shown any interest in the family history, she has 2 young children and works full time, she is very happy to receive any information or updates, she isn't at a place in her life that lets her have the time required.

I have 6 cousins, only 1 has shown any interest and that was only in the past year. My oldest grandchild of 4 is now  18 has no interest . Only 2 of 17 is almost 12%, probably not too far off the number of older people who are interested enough to do research.

---

Younger people are taught about sources at school. This isn't an age-associated problem. It's an attitude to quality and the desire to rush. Leaving off the sources isn't faster when an error is introduced and it needs to be sorted. When people question the data it is very frustrating that others have no sources for their contributions.

---

I think you have to compare apples with applies, young people who aren't interested in genealogy are not relevant, just like old people who aren't.

...except that maybe there is a category out there of people who are not really interested in genealogy, but still compare websites to have an impact for whatever non-genealogical reason. But that is a side issue.

---

Hi, I too at one stage of my life had young children and did child minding but still found the time to research. I started in the 1970's soon after my first son was born and wanted to pass onto him the family tree. If I missed doing the resources and later went back to my work then kicked myself as I could not remember where an item came from and had to research again. I have learnt a lot over the years and wish to pass my experience on to the next generation.