Is there a specific WikiTree policy on addressing Suggestions? [closed]

+12 votes

What is the requirement for WT members to resolve their Suggestions?  Is it required by the Honor Code?  Or by any other policy?

Update: As I have said elsewhere, this has turned into just another of the never-ending WT debates about quality vs. quantity--do we want well-documented, error-free profiles on WT, or do we want to encourage new members and additions to the shared tree, even if those additions are sometimes poorly documented, or undocumented, or wrong?  And is there any middle ground?

That wasn't what I intended with my question.  I just thought it would be a good idea to let people know what they were expected to do.  Eowyn has participated in this discussion so I know leadership is aware of my suggestion.

closed with the note: A range of opinions has been presented.  Thank you to everyone.
in Policy and Style by Julie Kelts G2G6 Pilot (456k points)
closed by Julie Kelts
[comment removed as now irrelevant]

11 Answers

+14 votes
Best answer
No requirement, that is why the Data Doctor Project exists.

It is kind of a chicken and the egg, once the Data Doctor project was created, the need for more suggestion and error reports were created.

Personally I care about accuracy, so I do look at and work the suggestions for my profiles.
by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (714k points)
selected by Julie Kelts
Thank you, Robin.
Yes, thank you Robin!
Thank you Robin.

I think many users do, but it is nice to occasionally read it.
+17 votes
I dont think there is or should be, it is simply a different way to work on the health of the tree. Not everyone understands or enjoys that method, so we shouldnt force them to.

Similarly, we shouldnt force everyone to use spreadsheets or RootsMagic or Gramps to keep an offline copy of their tree. It might be very beneficial for some, but not everyone would like or want to do that.
by Jonathan Crawford G2G6 Pilot (113k points)
Jonathan, if the policy is that people shouldn't have to respond to their suggestions, then that should be the policy.  Not nothing.  Suggestions are a big deal.  People often complain about them, and others complain about people who don't attend to their suggestions.  I don't think WT should simply remain silent.
Jonathan, the actual issue is that no one works at the same rate as others. Some more slowly, some a lot quicker. That more importantly is highlighting the problem that patience is not being exercised on here.
You can’t define everything someone doesn’t have to do, you define what they must and what they cannot. If there is not a policy, there is no requirement.

And thank you for that clarification Richard, I agree that everyone’s pacing differs. Let us not gatekeep how genealogy should be done, rather, let us celebrate that it is being done.
I agree with this and will add, defined in such a way that everyone can understand

Jonathan, maybe you can't define everything a person doesn't have to do.  But there is a Help page that describes the suggestions reports.  (There is also more information further down the page from what I've linked to.)  Wouldn't that be a reasonable place to at least comment about WikiTree's expectations of its members regarding their suggestions?  

Hi Julie,  what is it that you are expecting we might say on that help page?
Thank you for asking, Eowyn!  I haven't drafted a comment, but offhand I'd say something to the effect that while there is no requirement for suggestions to be addressed, some are especially important, and do suggest quality problems with WT profiles, and if the serious issues can't be resolved, then research notes would be a good way to explain the problems so every visitor to each profile doesn't wonder all over again why there are such issues.

If you wish, I'll work on a more formal proposal.

Edit:  There are still more answers and comments coming in, so my suggestion might evolve.
Eowyn, another thing I'd want to mention is that the Data Doctors work to fix suggestions, and for people who don't attend to their own suggestions, they shouldn't object if someone else does attempt to fix them.  Something like that.

Eowyn, what do you think about the link Leandra posted? Is it possible to convey this information along with a definition of why checking and cleaning one's own "Suggestion List". I'm just thinking out loud at the moment. You are much better at taking a thought and configuring it correctly than I. I don't think we should try to make everyone a data doctor maybe just guide everyone to take a look at their own individual work. It has been stated many times over, but I really don't think the majority of WikiTreer's know they have a "Suggestion List" at their fingertips or that we have a wonderful video collection on the importance of the suggestions and how to correct them. 

Regular review of one's own suggestion list alerts the member to errors they are making. Some people don't discover their suggestion list until it is quite large and it often then gets ignored because they feel overwhelmed. I recently came across someone with 4300 suggestions relating to URL errors. They have been typed instead of copied and pasted and in many cases look nothing like the URL they should be. Considering that 1) search engines view such pages as unmaintained and rank them lower in search results, 2) Wikitree wants to attract more people to the site and 3) someone has to spend a huge amount of time fixing up these errors, what is the value in allowing people to repeat the same error thousands of times?
+5 votes
The problem with suggestions is that there are people who have patience and are working away at things and there are others who don't have patience.

It is interesting the number of times that it has been mentioned about lack of locations or dates, is an assumption that there is a "don't care" attitude yet, shows that Party A has an ignorance of understanding that Party B maybe working at a different pace.

Rhetorical Question: Is patience required on WikiTree?
Answer: According to most people the answer incorrectly is No.
by Richard Shelley G2G6 Pilot (220k points)

I would say that patience is required, based on 3 points in succession in the honor code:

  • We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes.
  • We know mistakes are inevitable. We don't want to be afraid to make them. We assume that mistakes are unintentional when others make them and ask for the same understanding.
  • We know misunderstandings are inevitable. We try to minimize them by being courteous to everyone, even those who don't act accordingly.

If we desire accuracy, we work to fix things, the pace is unimportant, only that we work on it. We need to assume that other people's mistakes are that: unintentional. And then either we or they can fix them, but in a way that is courteous and without "attitude." Patience is part of courtesy, IMHO. 

Richard and Bobbie, sure, people work at different paces.  I wasn't suggesting that deadlines be imposed on suggestions.  But what do you think of a person who has hundreds of significant suggestions yet continues to add more profiles without fixing the ones already created?
I think it's a case for education. The member could be shown the suggesitons report and given some informal mentoring about how to work on them. Beyond that, if they are restricting themselves to post-1700 profiles, we don't really have a case for enforcing corrections on that member. We can work on them ourselves, though, as long as we're doing so while citing sources for the corrections.

I share lots of profiles with lots of other members, and we all work on these shared records at different times and in different ways. Eventually, I expect they'll mostly be cleared.
Bobbie, I agree. Education would help. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Sorry, I really cannot see how creating a whole family of profiles without locations, including multiple generations of profiles without locations, has anything to do with "working at a different pace". That practice is incompatible with caring about accuracy.
Leandra, you are absolutely correct. When I signed the Honor Code I took it to mean that I would provide as much accurate information as possible for each profile I created or adopted. I took it to mean I owed the community of WikiTree'rs to be cognizant of these profiles. I understand mistakes happen (I have made my fair share), and thanks to Aleš' programming skills fewer profiles are created now with critical information being left out. A huge thank you goes out to Aleš for this!!! It is truly my belief that most PM's are unaware of their personal "Suggestion List".

I am going to play "The Devil's Advocate" for a minute: I don't know the exact numbers but let's say we have a few thousands Data Doctors and several hundreds of thousands profile managers is it reasonable to think a few thousand Data Doctors can keep up with the ever expanding PM's.

Maybe, we haven't done a thorough job of teaching the importance of accuracy when creating or adopting profiles; we have the tools available on WikiTree to assist everyone at every skill level. Maybe what we haven't done is to get the word out to the masses on how to look at one's OWN work and see their OWN suggestions. I certainly don't want to imply that every WikiTree'r look at the massive reports created for the Data Doctors and Challenges. I don't think a new policy needs to be implemented. What I do believe needs to happen is, "Instilling PRIDE in the profiles we create and/or adopt". One does not need to be a programer or a tech savvy person to enter the bare FACTS into the profiles one creates.

I am not suggesting any one PM look any further than just the profiles they personally manage. Then the Data Doctors could work on the other profiles.

What I haven't figured out, Is how we get this message across to everyone.

Could it really be as simple as asking everyone to take "Pride" in the profiles they manage?

edited for typo

So, I'm scratching my head... when I wrote "According to most people the answer incorrectly is No." I would have thought people would have read the "...answer incorrectly is..." piece instead of just fixating on No.

(Reads the other comments)

Look, I voiced an opinion based on what I see and have been experiencing.

Just who exactly are you people referring to now? Huh?
You will respond with "it's not about you"
I respond to that with:

  • I have 128 suggestions.
  • Because of a very certain aura that surrounds anything pertaining to pre-1500, I changed my mind long ago and have been vehemently been sticking to pre (and post)-1700 profiles.
  • I have a very specific list of things I'm trying to tick off working on here.
  • I am trying to have a life away from my monitors, despite my current ongoing health complications.

To further try and simplify the train of thought as it appears (along with everything else I write is far too complicated for anyone to understand):

  • Not everyone knows of all of the information associated with an individual being added to the WikiTree database.
  • Not everyone is a master with source identification, so if someone can understand that idea, then maybe they can comprehend that for a time that profiles may lack locations or dates and that furthermore it may take longer than what you would like for the information you would like to see appear on a profile.
So actually, it is incorrect to say that there is an incompatibility when there actually is, bigger picture thinking.
I haven't looked at your suggestions, Richard. I'm simply commenting on the lack of dates and locations and how it is explained as "working at a different pace". I haven't said anything about including everything there is to know about a person on a profile before creating another profile either.

I'm not referring to the occasional profile, but entire families and multiple generations of leaving all date and location fields empty. Quite often these profiles also have inadequate sourcing. Excluding that information from one's research hampers the ability to detect errors. It's impossible for the researcher to remember all of those details for every profile. Why create hundreds of profiles without any dates and locations? This leads to the creation of duplicates. We're expected to check for duplicates when we create new profiles. Why should people be expected to wade through dozens of utterly useless profiles for a common name because the creators of those profiles didn't put a single date or location on them? It creates more work for the person doing it, if they actually intend adding the information later, it creates more work for other people, and it increases the chance of error. If one has limited time to spend on genealogy, why waste time with double or multiple handling of profiles just to put basic information on them? It only takes seconds to add it at the time of creation, and there is a requirement to research before editing.
Thanks for the link, Leandra.  I don't remember having seen that page before!
Excellent point Leandra! I had seen that page before but had forgotten about. That single little page addresses 90% of the issues!

Thank you for posting that Very Helpful Link!!!!
733 Data Doctors to cleanup up after hundreds of thousands of WT PM's. Wow, those are not very good odds!

I try to clean a thousand suggestions a month but considering everything posted on this thread, it almost seems hopeless. I have, for the past several months, been working on Suggestion # 853 Gedcom Junk, I figure I can catch a lot of suggestions by just working on this one suggestion (more bang for the time I put in). Just my thoughts.  I am not by any stretch of the imagination clearing 100% of the 853's but I am beginning to make a dent in the total number. :) When I am not working on 853's I spend time on Find A Grave suggestions. I just figure it helps both sites to become more accurate. I don't know that it requires patience on my part since I find it calming and self satisfying. :) Oh and yes, I have 11 open Suggestions on the profiles I manage or is down to finding where the websites moved to or finding different links to the same information. So, I guess that makes me guilty too. :)
+15 votes
The suggestions report has not always been there and should be seen in the same way as the numerous apps now available. It is merely a tool to assist with our goal of accuracy and helps us to find those errors that do creep into the tree.
by Hilary Gadsby G2G6 Pilot (188k points)
+4 votes
I agree there should be some type of policy in place for self monitoring one's own Suggestions / Errors Lists.

Without going into a great deal of detail, I recently ran across a Profile Manager's Suggestion List, I have worked with this PM clearing hundreds of Suggestions but when I checked on their list last week, this PM has over 1,000 errors and has not made any corrections. This PM is continuing to build profiles that are full of suggestions/errors.

Is it fair to the rest of WikiTree to allow this type of behavior to continue? Is it fair for this PM or any PM to continue to create errors and expect the Data Doctors to clean them up?

There has to be a point when WikiTree puts the brakes on this type of behavior. We are, afterall 3 months in to the year of accuracy, yet we have no direction on how to get PM's be responsible adults and care for their limbs on the overall tree.

Improvement needed in this area.
by Loretta Corbin G2G6 Pilot (169k points)
The problem seems to be that too many managers just create a profile -- often a "data dump" from what they see as "facts" from FamilySearch, Ancestry, etc. -- and never go back and edit it or even try to write a biography. It is doubtful if they ever think about checking their own work via viewing their own suggestions report.
Walt, sadly you are probably correct. My grandmother used to tell me all the time, "Young lady, anything worth doing, is worth doing Right, the first time." It was her way of telling me to slow down and check my work. And if I didn't, she would tell me, "You are going to have to lick your calf twice." I am not sure where that came from...I just knew I had to go back and fix what i did wrong. lol  Sweet little words of wisdom.
Did you check the suggestions on his report. New types of suggestions are added to the report and those can be a reason for the jump in numbers.
That would be a good way to drive people away from WikiTree. I used to check my suggestion list and clear it every Tuesdy, but stopped doing that when it started filling up with bogus FAG, WikiData, and unique name suggestions. I have better things to do with my time, like creating or improving a couple hundred well-sourced profiles every month.
Stu, Ales has separated out the Suggestions that are for Grave, WikiData, Unique Names, and Profile Completeness, since there are 'mixed reviews' on whether those should be done or not.  If people would go through their own suggestions in the 'main' grouping, which excludes those 4 sections, it would be helpful to everyone.

Remember that the Grave suggestions can frequently be a suggestion about duplicate profiles, possible parents or children etc.
Thank you, Linda.
+11 votes
Normally I like requirements spelled out, but in this case, I think there should not be a requirement.  There can be all sorts of reasons for the suggestions not addressed by a PM.

To be fair, we have many more types of errors now than we used to.  I had my extended list of 20,000 people down to fewer than 100 errors (took two years of work).  Now I can only see the suggestions for 10,000 people and there are over 1,000 "errors".  Profile completeness because a box isn't checked, unique names (of which there were many in the 1600 and 1700's), link errors (often for sources I have no knowledge of and technology I am not interested in), and my personal favorite: Separators in locations (i.e., non-breaking space, which I have tried to correct a dozen times and never have the right solution).  It can be overwhelming, even to me who wants to clear errors and has enjoyed being a data doctor.  These days I focus on truly substantive errors like multiple marriages, incorrect relationships, etc.  It now seems more productive to add new people, add dates, children, sources.  Please accept that some of the reasons people don't like to work their error list is of our own making.  So we shouldn't require people to address all the possible ideas that could be thought of.
by Cindy Cooper G2G6 Pilot (179k points)
Thank you for the thoughtful answer.  I completely agree with you about the proliferation of suggestions.  I think that has been addressed to some extent by grouping suggestions, such as those for FindAGrave differences, under their own headings.

Note that I did not propose requiring that suggestions be addressed.  I do think that WikiTree's expectation regarding suggestions should be stated somewhere.

On the other hand, some suggestions, for example children being born long after their parents died, or before the parents were born, indicate errors so egregious that concern for the overall quality of WikiTree seems to support the idea that action is needed.

children being born after their parents died, gets (at least now, I don't know if that is the case from the beginning) a warning when you want to create a profile. There is the banner saying: "Check the dates: John Smith died more than 9 months before Henry was born" (or something in that sense). For mothers the text states something like: "Elizabeth was already dead when Henry was born."

So there is a warning *at creation* of the profiles.
Disclaimer:  I am not a Data Doctor and probably not the one to provide the best response here.  However...

When I look at the Data Doctors' suggestion spreadsheet, I see 21,406 suggestions for "Father is too young or not born" and 15,227 for "Father was dead before birth."  When I then clicked on one of the links to a listing, I didn't see many orphans.  Even if these are old profiles (I didn't check), is it expecting too much that people correct such obvious problems?
The solution to correct those dates requires sources, not just deletion of the date, since you can't be sure which date is wrong. That is the reason for the number.

As you can see from the statistics this number is being slowly reduced.
Of course, and I had assumed that the dates were correct and the parental connection was wrong.  But if the profiles are to remain connected, I'd think that at least the PM could add a research note explaining the situation.

Sorry, but I'm pretty inept at using WikiTree+.  The link you provided takes me to a blank page with some choices along the side.  Should I select one of those, and if so, which?
Click the "By Era" button.

I tried that first, and here is what I got.  I had a hard time understanding it.  (I hope people can click on the image for a larger version.)

What does the by era button do and how is it accessed?
Sorry, Cindy.  As I noted above, I don't think it's time to award a star.
+6 votes
While clearing suggestions is not a requirement, you can't complain if someone else makes an effort to do so.  The suggestions often are easily corrected errors.  Some indicate that relationships may be wrong and need further research.
by Kathy Rabenstein G2G6 Pilot (267k points)
+2 votes

I am guessing that the Profile is protected, so person who made the suggestion can't make the change, so they asked you to.

It it is not protected, the suggestion may be for a name change so they made that comment as a courtesy,  so you could decide if you felt the name should be changed.  Data Doctors are even  to encouraged to suggest name changes in stead of making themselves.  I don't like changing Current Last Name.

by David Dodd G2G6 Mach 1 (18.4k points)
I meant my question to be a general one, not related to any specific profile.
+6 votes
While I feel it is certainly a sensible idea to have a clear policy regarding the average WikiTreer's responsibilities, if any, to the Suggestions for profiles he/she manages, I doubt we could create such a policy that would be reasonably fair, effective, and workable within the varied skill levels at WikiTree.

In my opinion, the Suggestions report has become bloated with too many seemingly repetitive suggestions, as well as being too tech-heavy at times for the average WikiTreer to comprehend.  We certainly couldn't expect newbies to work their Suggestions before they have learned the basics of how to create, edit, and source profiles. And many veterans still haven't learned the basics either, so why should we expect them to work their Suggestions - at least until they become more proficient in the basics?

If we do decide on a policy regarding Suggestion-report responsibilities, it should assign the Data Doctors Project the primary responsibility, again in my opinion - it's their "baby" after all. We probably would need to include mentoring in the mix, to help bring receptive WikiTreers up to speed on at least the easier-to-fix Suggestions.

Additionally we would need to clarify what level of communications between WikiTreers would be needed and acceptable. For WikiTreers who share profile management, would pro-active communications be needed? For a WikiTreer who isn't the profile managers, would pro-active communications be expected? Or should working Suggestions be considered "open season" - at least for open profiles?

I'm sure my fellow WikiTreers could raise other issues that would need discussion before a complete and well-thought proposal could be presented. Or do we need to be this thorough in creating policy (in my opinion, we do and should)?
by Lindy Jones G2G6 Pilot (222k points)
Very thoughtful answer, Lindy.  Thank you!
Just to clarify before more time goes into this - there wouldn't be a policy implemented on Suggestions. :) They are what they are called - suggestions.  There isn't any enforcement from us to get them done.  We encourage members to take a look at theirs and hope they take some time to improve the ones they can but we don't require it.  My understanding is that Julie is asking for that to be indicated on the help page that talks about suggestions.
Thank you, Eowyn.  Exactly right.  I'm not suggesting a full-blown policy, simply some indication somewhere to give members an idea of what WT considers their responsibilities to be.
So, even if WikiTree membership overwhelmingly indicated that it wanted a clearly stated policy on this issue (and/or related issues), WikiTree management would not implement such a policy because it would not want to be obliged to enforce that policy (presuming any enforcement would be necessary)?

While WT management may not require or enforce working the Suggestions, clearly many members feel pressured by fellow members to work the Suggestions. That, in my opinion, is an issue that should be addressed by a clearly stated policy, regardless of WT management's willingness to enforce the policy.
Thank you, Lindy.  Setting aside the question of whether WikiTree membership ever overwhelmingly agrees on anything--I've never seen that happen--I did begin this thread by asking if there was a policy, and saying I would just like to see a simple statement added to the Help page.  In my view, that would be progress.  If you or anyone else wants to propose an actual detailed policy, of course you can do that, but as you said above, and as you might deduce from the reactions on this thread so far, it would probably be quite difficult to achieve anything near consensus.
While you may want a simple statement, will a simple statement be enough to clarify the issue for most WikiTreers?

And regardless of any membership consensus to any future proposal, the ultimate decision will be made, as always and as is their responsibility, by WikiTree management.

Generally speaking, WT management listens (doesn't always agree though) to our input before new policies are codified. I expect WT management will show no less courtesy on this issue.

However, I doubt that I will be the one to make the proposal - just not "my bag."
Lindy, I think we are conversing through comments on two different answers now.  

If people are not required by WT to respond to their suggestions, as is pretty clear to us on this thread by now, then all I'm saying is that that should be stated somewhere, in the hope of clarifying issues for ordinary WTers (not those who frequent G2G, who are a minority).  It might help resolve arguments, and anything that helps new WTers understand the site seems like a good thing.  

How they (the new people) would find the advice, even if it were given, is another question, for another thread.
+5 votes
Oh my! Part of the answer to this question is how well are the profiles created in the beginning?

If profiles are created with accurate information to begin with, if the confidence boxes are checked, if the names and dates are accurate most suggestions will not happen.

I know I have (especially when I first joined WT) created profiles with insufficient information.

When I enabled profile completeness last fall, I went from 3 suggestions to 5100, almost all of them related to confidence boxes, or lack of information on birth or death locations and dates. Six months later I have reduced that list to 1855, it goes up and down and especially when more Error IDs are created.

Don't get me wrong it is and was my choice to enable profile completeness, but if I spend all my time working on those suggestions I do not have time to add sourced profiles for the rest of my ancestors.

If we work on in ' The year of accuracy' getting people to create profiles with believable information some of the problems will not be created to begin with.

It is not possible to go back and make the people- who created improbable profiles several years ago- fix their mistakes.

The better way to do this is to encourage members to do things right the first time. Just a few examples.

1. Look at the dates, no your ancestor did not have children when they were younger than 12 or 105 or dead.

2. No your ancestor did not live simultaneously in England and the United States in the 1700, 1800 or even the 1900s, they probably did not have multiple spouses in both locations, those spouses did not have 3 children in one year.

3. Look at the details!

Maybe those types of examples should be included somewhere in a WT beginners guide.
by M Ross G2G6 Pilot (217k points)
M, how does one "enable profile completeness"?

Update:  I found it.  See below.

 3 children in one year.


Was very possible.  Rare, but possible.  All that was needed was for one birth to be twins/triplets, and the other a single.   Moreso if the multiple birth were the second pregnancy within the 12 months, as those were less likely to carry to the full 280 days /40 weeks / 9 months. 

OK, I just figured it out.  Enabling completeness is explained at the bottom of the Map Navigator section of the WikiTree Plus Help page.  It is interesting that only 65 WikiTreers have chosen to do it.

It is interesting that only 65 WikiTreers have chosen to do it.


Because of the onslaught of new "suggestions" - which can occur if one Profile Manager opts in and others don't.  They all get the list.

Julie, I think that for me the best result that has come from adding profile completeness is remembering to check the certain/uncertain boxes when I create a profile. Also to make sure that location information is filled out.

There are suggestions on the list that I ignore, one suggestion is for Short Biography, less than 500 characters, sometimes especially with children that died very young, there isn't 500 characters of information available. Tho it is a good reminder of profiles that could have the biography improved.
I only get suggestions for the profiles I manage.

It is possible to look at results for all people related to me but that is far too much work.
M, the problem is that ALL of your ancestor profiles are getting the Profile Completeness Suggestions when YOU or anyone else adds the Profile Completeness, whether you are PM or not. They are seen on profiles for people that did not enable it but they are PM on profiles where a 'descendant' member turned it on.  People set them the suggestions to False because 'no source was found', which is defeating the purpose of the Suggestions.
Thank you, Linda.  Just so I'll understand, because I don't think I've ever seen such suggestions myself--

Do those suggestions end up on the member's main suggestions list, or only if they select the more complete "Suggestions for relatives" list?
I just looked again and the Profile completeness category says it is only on managed profiles, but I have seen it on other profiles where the PM was not in the category.  Maybe there were people on trusted list that were in the category because I hadn't checked that.  I know I had looked at many Project managed profiles, so maybe it is co-PM on the profile that is getting the suggestions, also.

Linda, when I go to my suggestions page, for profile completeness this is what it says; 

Suggestions in profiles managed by Ross-19791, so every profile I manage. 

Suggestions in profiles related to Ross-19791, currently all of them are for profiles I manage, once I think there was a suggestion for a many times GGF, managed by someone else.

'They are seen on profiles for people that did not enable it but they are PM on profiles where a 'descendant' member turned it on.'

I have no experience with that situation, and I cannot see any benefit to that happening if it does happen

I wondered if I (or someone!) should start a new thread just about this subject.  Searching, I found these two previous threads:

I wonder if anything has changed in the last year?
Maybe, you could ask Aleš, there have been more error ID descriptions added since Profile completeness was created.
+4 votes

Here are my general thoughts on suggestions (Suggestion Reports, Data Doctors, etc.):

  1. Point II of Honor Code states that "We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes."

    Accuracy is defined as "the quality or state of being correct or precise." In order for our profiles to be 'correct and precise', most members typically only think of sources.

    However, we also need to expand our thinking of 'correct and precise' to include the application of styles and standards that have been adopted by our community (Biographies, Date Fields, Location Fields, Name Fields, etc.).

    The suggestion report supports this effort through numerous methods that are aimed at improving the accuracy of our profiles. If we care about accuracy, then we should also care about the suggestions generated.
  2. It is helpful to note that WikiTree+ and the suggestions reports are an independent service offered for free to WikiTree by Aleš. WikiTree+ is not a part of WikiTree itself, but uses data that is publicly available to everyone.

    With this in mind, this means that Aleš supports our Honor Code (point II noted above) by providing WikiTree+ and the suggestion reports as a means to benefit the profiles and data being stored on WikiTree.

So to answer the questions posed:

What is the requirement for WT members to resolve their Suggestions?

There is no hard requirement that members must work on [their] suggestions - it can however be inferred via the Honor Code (II).

Is it required by the Honor Code?  Or by any other policy?

As noted a few times, it can be directly inferred by the Honor Code, but is not spelled out in the manner in which I think you are looking for - and I don't think it needs to be. When you start to drill down into too many specifics, leaving no room for movement, you start to lose room for future expansion, innovation, and more importantly, people like Aleš who spend inordinate amounts of time and their own money to benefit WikiTree and it's members.

by Steven Harris G2G6 Pilot (518k points)
Thank you, Steve.  As I've tried to say, my main concern is that somewhere some guidance should be expressed, even if that is only a statement that working on Suggestions is not required.  (Not sure why asking a question should have got me three more downvotes!)  Otherwise, people are likely to remain confused.
That this issue is only "inferred" but "not spelled out" is why Julie asked her question in the first place (apologies, Julie, if I am overstepping).

Many WikiTreers appear to want a stated policy, not an inferred one.

Many WikiTreers may view themselves, as I do, as a WikiTreer, not as a WikiTreer+.

In my opinion, if we can't or won't codify a policy regarding a WikiTreer's Suggestions responsibilities, then we can infer that we have none and can act accordingly, which would include ignoring the Suggestions, as well as ignoring fellow WikiTreers who tell us to work on "our" Suggestions.

And without a clear policy, WikiTreers who ignore Suggestions should not be subject to any disciplinary measures related to this practice.
You are not overstepping, Lindy.  As I have said elsewhere, this is turning out to be just another of the neverending WT debates about quality vs. quantity--do we want well-documented profiles on WT, or do we want to encourage new members and additions to the shared tree, even if those additions are sometimes poorly documented, or undocumented, or wrong?  And is there any middle ground?

That wasn't what I intended with my question.  I just thought it would be a good idea to let people know what they were expected to do.

Edited to fix typo.

Related questions

+34 votes
14 answers
+7 votes
1 answer
+25 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
0 answers
+6 votes
1 answer
+16 votes
4 answers
+13 votes
3 answers
263 views asked May 23, 2019 in The Tree House by Kylie Haese G2G6 Mach 7 (75.5k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright