How can we make pre-1700 profile requirements more clear?

Question

I have not attempted to compile data showing the percentage, but I have noticed that a great preponderance of the questions that start with "Advice before editing this pre-1700" seem to have one or more of the following:

1. The information that they plan to add and/or a source for it is/are missing
2. The source is usually an online tree, or more rarely some family compiled genealogy records
3. Often the change has already been made before the question is posted.

We must be missing something here, but I don't know what more can be done to solve the problem.  The question that these folks post already has the blanks for them to fill in the information and sources they propose to add.  It is already very plainly emphasized in the pre-1700 certification material that personal family trees, whether on or off line, are not acceptable sources for these profiles.  The word "before" in the question should make it plain that changes should not be made to the profile until feedback is provided by way of answers to the questions.

One thing that I'm not sure is clearly spelled out is that tags for appropriate projects should be included in the question, but those are almost always missing, so if they're not already recommended, I think something to that effect should be added to the instructions for those who ask the question.

I can't think of anything to alleviate this problem and hope someone else has a great idea to accomplish it.

Comments

Isn't a pre-1700 certification of some kind required first and doesn't it explain the requirements?  I think that the certification needs to be more difficult to obtain.  I saw someone last week (no longer a member) who had been a member for a very short time and almost every profile they created was a duplicate.  There was a string of messages on their profile regarding the duplicates, and then a message announcing that the person was now pre-1700 certified.  Fortunately for our shared tree the person decided that Wikitree wasn't the place for them and closed the account before doing any further damage.

---

Of course the certification is required, Kathie, and it emphasizes the requirements for these profiles.  That's why I'm scratching my head so hard about why so many people seem to think that online trees are fine sources.

I think the problem you're referring to, about non-certified members adding pre-1700 profiles has been the result of a "back door" in the GEDCompare process allowing addition of these.  I believe I saw something here recently indicating that has now been corrected and pre-1700 profiles can no longer be added by GEDCompare, but I'm not absolutely certain of this.

---

Gaile, I can confirm that the "pre-1700 back door" has been closed. It also included "imports" from third parties like familysearch.  It was my question, and I saw its impact while reviewing the project activity feeds. I am very grateful that it's been attended to.

Even so, the problem you describe persists and dedicated project volunteers continue to spend time cleaning up dupes and bad sourcing. 

There has been significant community support in the past for stricter pre-1700 (and even pre-1850) certification, but that support hasn't translated into policy change. 

---

Gaile, see the answer below by S. Willson. We can't make the text of the warning bigger and bolder. We can't make more threats. But what we can do is to slow people down to get them to engage with WikiTree and its standards. We can raise the number of contributions required to make pre-1700 changes. The current level of 50 contributions (edits, really) is way too loo. Raise it to 1,000 or even 5,000. That forces the person to engage with WikiTree, our community and to get used to the standards that we require. It raises their level of commitment to WikiTree, rather than just have drive-bys.

Answer 1

I have seen these issues discussed here in G2G previously but I think it is worth another round of discussion. I agree, Kathie, that a person needs to be a member a bit longer before becoming Pre-1700 certified. There also needs to be more emphasis on reliable sources for all profiles created so that when someone reaches the Pre-1700 profiles, they are more familiar with what a source actually is.

I have been asked by new members how to source on WikiTree because it was confusing to them. So, I have, with their permission found a couple of sources for one of their profiles and did one source as an inline citation and one with the asterisk underneath the Sources heading. They have been very appreciative. The other thing is - learning to use the RootsSearch feature needs clearer instructions with pictures.

We have to keep in mind that people who come to WikiTree usually have experience on other sites where sources are a click and they appear - no biographies needed and no explanations for sources. We need to be more attentive to converting new members and teaching them how to use WikiTree - because it is so worth the learning curve.

Comments

Virginia, I wonder how many people who come to WT actually do have experience on other sites.  Are there any statistics?  I encounter many who've never had an on-line tree anywhere.

---

That is true, Julie; however, many do comment that they have only Ancestry experience and some even say that their tree is on FamilySearch. Of course, FS profiles can be gone or changed in an hour!

---

Julie, as a greeter most of what I see are people who do not list another site with their "research," and occasionally "My tree is on another site." I get a lot of "Don't know much about my family tree." Comparatively few people share a URL for their work.

---

Pip, one of my personal pet peeves is:
==Sources==
* Ancestry.com
<references />

Just saying...
and it is happening all the time by new and seasoned Wikitreer's alike.

---

Loretta, I see LOTS of these around, and because of that one item, it doesn’t get picked up as unsourced.

---

That's because they're in compliance with the rules.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_FAQ#Why_are_unreliable_sources_allowed_for_post-1700_profiles.3F

---

True, and I would take issue for “modern profiles” being modern of they are in the early 1700s. I have ancestors who cannot be reliably traced before 1800. For them, good sourcing would be a must!

---

And if you (general, not specific) are seeing 

==Sources==
* some source here
<references />

You absolutely should correct that to

==Sources==
<references />
* some source here

---

Julie, a "source" that just says "Ancestry.com" is not compliant with the sourcing rules. The next section on the help page you posted states that the {{Unsourced}} template should be used on profiles where there are "no source citations that clearly identify the source", and gives examples like "FamilySearch". "Ancestry.com" by itself does not count as a source even on a post-1700 profile.

---

You're right, but I suggest that the sentence I linked to be reworded so people won't draw wrong conclusions from it, and that "Ancestry.com" be added to the examples.  (Of course you can't add every possible example, but after all, Ancestry is widely used.)

Answer 2

This isn't a case of a back-door route, it's one of someone completely ignoring all Wikitree requirements and still being approved for pre-1700 profiles.  I think much more than a week's experience should be required and the quiz should not be noted as "quick and easy"  and "not a test."

Comments

I think the team has been caught in a conflict between enhancing profile quality and attracting new members who are put off by not being given free rein to add everything they know ... or think they might know.  So, we have certification requirements (which we often see new members grumbling about having to jump through such a simple hoop to get), but they're trying to make it sound like easy material to master.  Actually, it does seem pretty easy, but a lot of people just seem to just go through the motions of choosing what they know are the right answers without paying any attention to attempting to work within these requirements after "passing the test".

---

Gaile, so I guess you're saying that many members see jumping through the hoops as a mere inconvenience and nothing to be taken seriously?  If so, is there a solution?

Edited to try and make more sense.

---

Yeah, Julie, I'm saying that I think most new members going through the certification are just clicking their way through it without thinking about what it means.  Your "If so, is there a solution?" is precisely what my original question is asking.

Your "Edited to try and make more sense" is probably the best comment in this entire thread - I think efforts to make sense of the problem may be an exercise in futility and am starting to deplore the possibility of ever being able to make sense of the whole thing!

---

I was only trying to make my own comment make more sense.  (You probably saw the original.)

As for making sense of the issue:  As I've said here and elsewhere, it's a quality vs. quantity question, and management has decided to go for quantity.  I know that frustrates many people, and it frustrates me when I see people so obviously breaking the rules.  There are some arguments to be made for the current state of things.  (I'll come back to this in a few minutes.)

Edit:  I'll post my additional thoughts as a new answer.

Answer 3

Currently, the number of contributions a member has to make before taking the pre-1700 quiz is only 50. That number could represent very few actual profiles. I would like to see the requirements to get pre-1700 certification more stringent as well. It is probably not very feasible, but it would be great if there was someone to watch over the pre-1700 newbies for a certain amount of time before they were fully certified.

Comments

I would be good with this. Make it 1,000 or heck, even 5,000. That would show some commitment to WikiTree and its standards. 50 edits is trivial and way too low.

Answer 4

Gaile, this has been discussed in some depth, but nothing has changed. There was talk of pre-1800 certification. However, again, that has never eventuated. I also wonder how much control projects have over either the profile or the manager. 2021 is supposed to be the “Year of Accuracy” but this emphasis seems to have been lost on ordinary members. As a suggestion, I wonder if a pop-up warning message could be applied to pre-1700 profiles on creation, even something like “Please ensure valid sources support the facts. Family trees alone are not valid sources”.

Comments

Yes, Fiona, I know that this has been discussed at length and I agree that it is a very serious problem here.  My question now, however, is about all the questions - it seems like 3 or 4 per day typically - about making changes to pre-1700 profiles, where people are (a) not filling in the required information and sources that they want to change, (b) if they do fill in the source, it is almost always some family tree somewhere, and (c) at least half the time they have already made the change before posting the question.

---

Gaile, it would be interesting to know if the relevant project follows up privately with the question asker. I suspect not. The questions are only the very small tip of the iceberg, and if accuracy is valued, projects should be monitoring what is added within their area.

---

I agree that the questions are more than likely the tip of the iceberg.  As to the relevant projects following up, that's even more difficult because of another problem in these question - precious few of them even include tags and, when they do, it's usually just the last name of the person.  It is extremely rare to see the relevant project tag in the question, unless a moderator edits the question to add it.

---

I am unable to pass the pre-1700 test without cheating, because it is poorly written in my opinion. I inquired about adding two “well-known” pre-1700 ancestors with a project. I was told just to add them, no checking of sources needed. Because I don’t know who the descendants of these people are who directly connect to my family, I have not bothered. It makes me wonder what is going on (if anything) in policing profiles in projects.

---

Fiona, I'm very sorry to do this - it's something I never thought I would ever do.  I am about to de-select the star on your answer, but want to explain why.

I am hoping that someone will have an idea for how to get people to recognize the way they are negating the whole point of asking for advice in G2G about doing things they are assumed to know are wrong - using sources they have acknowledged knowing are not acceptable, not filling in required information in the question form, and requesting advice after having done the bad deed.  

Although your answer, and all the rest of the answers, addresses the big-picture problem, Tommy's answer is the only one (of the 11 answers so far) that offers a viable practical means to achieve a solution to the subset of it that I asked about.

---

Gaile, I’m not offended in any way. The question asker should choose the answer which suits their purpose. I did offer part of a solution - a pop-up reminder on creating a profile that a family tree is not an acceptable source. This might stop the deed so the question doesn’t have to be asked. Similarly having to join a project at pre-1700 certification could also theoretically improve sourcing.

---

I like the idea of a pop-up box upon creating a pre-1700 profile. If the two biggest problems are creation of duplicates and use of unreliable sources, then the wording might be something like:
 

I confirm I have checked that a profile for [insert profile name] does not already exist. 

I also confirm that I have included at least one reliable source (which does not include existing family trees).

There would then be two buttons:

"Confirm" "Go Back"

---

That’s the sort of thing I was thinking of, Nic. It sounds like a good idea.

---

Outstanding idea Nic!

---

Personally, I like the popup idea. I'm curious how many people that work with a lot of pre-1700 profiles would be annoyed with it, though. I don't think we would want to have an option to turn it off (since most people who are already not following the guidelines would just turn it off and then why bother having it at all?)

---

Jamie, considering how many people who work with a lot of pre-1700 profiles are so badly frustrated by the way profiles that either are duplicates or have bad sources keep pouring into WikiTree, my impression is that they would welcome the popup as promising much needed relief, well worth the teensy annoyance of the couple of little clicks they end up having to make when adding a pre-1700 profile.

---

I agree with Jamie that a popup-message would be annoying. I'm already very uncomfortable with the big yellow banner that shows up every time I touch a Pre-1700 profile, and makes me feel like I'm doing something nasty.

---

It might be annoying, but if it reminds people of the requirement to use good sources, then the benefits of a better sourced and more accurate tree should outweigh the minor inconvenience of a couple of clicks.

---

I'd greatly prefer a real Pre-1700 certification over annoying people away from doing legitimate work. Popups and scary banners hurt everybody, and very possibly least those who'd need them the most.

---

I agree with Leif here. I would find it annoying and i believe it would not have the desired effect on those who need it most.

Answer 5

The Pre-1700 certification should be manually approved. If nobody can apply for it until they've made say 500 contributions, that should give ample evidence for assessment whether they're qualified for Pre-1700 work or not. Few new members ever get as far as 500 contribs, and I'll guess that the applicants maybe would be a handful each week.

I'd gladly volunteer for a place on the approval board

Comments

And, I would add that none of those 500 contributions can be a gedcom upload.  But frankly, I'd put the number at 1000 or more.

---

I think the biggest impediment to beefing up the certification requirements is the conflict between striving for quality and increasing membership.

I have observed many posts here by new members complaining that they have been doing genealogy for 30 (or 40 or more) years and know what they're doing and find it insulting to have to take a quiz in order to add their work here ... and then they go into overdrive on the pre-1500 requirements.  While those of us who ascribe to the WikiTree creed desperately want to see better protection of data integrity here, we also need to understand that the team is trying just as desperately not to turn off potential new members.  It appears to be a dilemma, where, like the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) is widely believed by pilots to have the motto "the FAA isn't happy until everyone isn't happy", there just is never going to be a way to make it easy for new members to start working here and still ensure certain quality standards of the work that is done.

---

I agree (wholeheartedly) that there should never be an added incentive to dump more data, in the form of gedcom files, and would add that Wiki members should all be aware of this. I am not a big fan of gedcoms myself, though I can see the arguement for them. I would prefer that people add profiles individually onlly after verifying they (the profile),does not exist.   In Gaile's following comment, people might say they have been doing genealogy research for a long time, and they indeed might. However, they may be doing "click the (hint) leaf" and creating large trees with many sources that are for the most part "irrelevant". That doesn't fit the definition of research. Surely, we don't want to discourage membership, but there is a middle ground we should strive for without compromising Wikitree's integrity. People need to understand the "one single tree concept" works best for them as well if they focus on improving their skills as wikitree members, and not how longstanding members manage or control profiles and/or data. As for the pre - 1700 certification, it is almost a multiple choice test that you can retake until you get it right (you will simply pass by the process of elimination). As far as membership goes, I understand "growing the business", but how will Wikitree fare if you dramatically increase the numbers with members that are careless, thereby creating conflict, then losing well established researchers due to seeing profiles degrade in quality?

---

"how will Wikitree fare if you dramatically increase the numbers with members that are careless, thereby creating conflict, then losing well established researchers due to seeing profiles degrade in quality?"

This is my ongoing concern as well. 

---

My take is that the underlying problem is actually with the Wikitree model of "one tree". People come to genealogy and their family trees with very different goals and needs, and have not just different stylistic conventions but also different standards of proof and different perceptions of source reliability. To force all of these differences into a single uniform tree - especially one where the valiantly laboring volunteers simply do not have enough time to clearly define (and continually update) the uniform standards, let alone to police and enforce them - will necessarily lead to problems, in my opinion (not just at Wikitree, but also at the other "one tree" sites). I much prefer the ancestry.com model, which keeps each user's trees separate while giving you hints as to which other trees might contain similar information - that way you can look at other people's trees and evaluate for yourself whether what they have meets your particular needs and standards of quality (you can make a judgment call, for example, that they might actually know what they're talking about with relatively close family members for which they have photos and anecdotes, but more distant relatives may just be guesses). Sure, ancestry.com does not give you a "connection finder" - but given that Wikitree would not disconnect a parentage even after serious doubts had been raised (again, different standards of proof and different default assumptions on when to snip a tree branch), all of the "connections" I had on Wikitree were bogus anyway. In any case, this is why I am a former Wikitreer.

---

Well, you can choose to participate in a one-tree site or not.  I also have an Ancestry tree and always will, but it is interesting to see how I fit into the larger world.  You can't ever replicate that on an individual tree.  Of course there will be problems, but I really doubt that all of the connections you had on WT were bogus.

---

I have had an Ancestry tree for a long time and still do. I only use it as a resource for Wikitree. There are no requirements with Ancestry other than a monthly or annual fee. Nobody cares if you have a profile with a single reference (like to another's tree). I have found that there are not many standards of proof. Proof is evidence, fact, truth and not approximately, almost, possibly or probably. Clicking a leaf is not proof, that's why Ancestry defines it as a "hint". There are no standards to meet on Ancestry and for some that works out just fine.

---

On Ancestry, your tree is your own and you set the standards.  Most trees on Ancestry are junk, but there are also some very good ones.

---

I agree. You can set your own standards, and yes, there are good trees on Ancestry,  My Heritage. etc, etc. The tree I have on Ancestry is OK, but IMHO, only ok. Not many errors that I know of, but it is just an easy way of getting a generally large tree (that I can easily edit grab some ideas, delete this and that without repercussions). There are Ancestry trees with 3 people ) I have heard of one with over 17000. Doubt if anyone has that kind of time to verify the accuracy of one that large. If they do, they certainly have more time than myself. All that being said, I want to gradually add those to the Wikitree in order of priority, one at a time. I refuse to do a large gedcom dump. I would have no knowledge of how many duplicates I was adding.

I stay with Wikitree because it allows me a degree of creativity with a biography and a coding that gives it a "polished look". I like the links to sources as I read a bio, myself. You have to admit that many profiles are impressive. Some, not so much. Some have been a bit neglected (waiting for adoption). I feel Wikitree believes it is a disservice to those profiles to remain neglected as each person is important. They may not have a family member (or one who is interested in Ancestry) to complete it. So the need is great for collaboration. And lets be honest, you and I would rather have someone that might edit our trees to treat the as carefully as our own. If someone screws up, and it happens to even the most experienced on Wikitree, there is someone to point it out.

I have my own profiles to bring up to speed, (Mainly older ones I started when first joining). Some things the data doctors found which improved my profile. It used to feel like being picked on when I first started as I "didn't quite get the hang of it", but I figured...why would people invest so much time discussing standards and investing so much time? They are not getting paid for it. The pre-1700 issues people may have will sort itself out in time. However if Wikitree compromises with everything a small group objects too, you establish a precedent that will start a snowball effect. The 1500 cert will be next, project protected profiles after that, anyone can edit anything following that?

---

Mark, you might be surprised that just recently on G2G, two people mentioned having trees of over 50,000 and insisted they could manage them well:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1210396/process-to-facilitate-adding-large-gedcom

I agree with you about the creativity possible with WikiTree profiles, which allows much more elegant profiles than Ancestry does.  But with a cost, of course, in not having those easy clicks available to add records.

In your last paragraph, which small group are you referring to?

Answer 6

Gaile, as others have suggested, the pre-1700 test is just too easy.  As I recall, the person taking the test just keeps picking answers until finding the right ones.

As with one of my recent questions, yours, I think, once again boils down to the basic WikiTree debate--quantity vs. quality. I know you're specifically asking about G2G posts, but I think the issue is the same.

Edit:  I won't update or hide this answer because that would disrupt the flow of the discussion, but I've got more to say so please see my new answer below.

Comments

P.S.  Some have suggested the questions also need improvement.

---

Julie, the test isn't too easy. The test is a sham, and should never qualify for Pre-1700 work at all. We need manual approvement for that, based on what new members actually show that they're up to.

No automated test will ever accomplish that.

---

Lief, I completely agree. So often we see profile after profile added by an enthusiastic new member - but the sources are non existent. Sources like ʻfamily recordsʻ or heʻs my grandpaʻ. Some one told me long ago that if my dad was born before I was then I was not a ʻsourceʻ for his birthdate because I was not a witness.

I know greeters and mentors have a lot to do, so maybe there does need to be another team called Demon Checkers or something nicer. Team members could be alerted when a new member has made 25 contributions so they could be checked, then again at 100, etc. There could be a standard message sent with a link to the correct Help topic if necessary. There should also a way to put the ʻbrakesʻ on a member who is really not following WikiTree standards.

Question: How are ʻcontributionsʻ counted? I do not think it is that each added profile = 1 contribution. So, I suspect the count is each time a profile or edit is saved. If that is the case, any number we choose is arbitrary because if a member hits ʻsave changesʻ after entering birthdate, & after birthplace & after death date . . . you understand what I mean.

Sorry for the long post, but I just ran across a new member who asked a question & had added 3 generations with siblings, etc. and the sources are most often herself or family records. I just wanted to yell "Stop".

---

Kristina, there already are Mentors and Rangers, and Greeters, who all try to guide new members into good habits (among other functions).  I doubt WikiTree has the manpower to do much more policing.

Yes, contributions are counted according to the number of edits.  There might be many reasons for people's different habits.  Some will write an entire biography with sources before posting anything.  Others find it more convenient to post as they go along.  Sometimes I correct a one-letter typo and that is an edit, but still worth doing.  Sometimes I add to a profile bio, but then think of another thing, so do another edit.  Rather than try and control that process, I think we should just not put so much emphasis on the number of contributions people make.

---

A contribution is added to your total every time you click the SAVE button on the edit page.  There are a few other things that also add to your contribution count - the ones that come to mind are every time you answer a G2G question and every time you add someone as a profile manager (just to the trusted list doesn't count, though).  ADMISSION:  I cheat regularly by getting contribution points I have not earned because I leave edit pages open in my browser when I shut down my computer - it automatically counts as a contribution when I next open the browser!!!  I have reported this as a bug - Jamie made it a tracked bug, but that was several months ago and it's still happening.  My work habit is to keep several tabs open - typically for parents and all their children as I am working on the profiles because I use sources and even parts of bio on more than one of these, so I start every day with anywhere from 1 or 2 to a half dozen or so phony contributions.  I continue to do this because it's much easier for me to have all this in front of me when I am starting work the next day.

---

Gaile, I'd hate to see Jamie make a priority out of that bug.  What's a few contributions out of 63,000?

---

Julie, being a girl, what do I know from numbers?

Here's another example of something that happened a few minutes ago.  A member asked for help merging and I discovered it was a sticky situation.  I proposed a merge for the duplicate fathers I found and when I answered the question, I told him that and what he had to do before completing the merge.  The result got me 3 contributions:

17:42: You proposed a merge of Thung-40 and Thung-12.17:42: You proposed a merge of Thung-40 and Thung-12.17:40: You answered a question about Siang Wie (Thung) 湯 汤 TH06B (bef.1893-bef.1930)Here's where I first posted about that bug - Confession - I'm a big fat cheater with more contribution points than I earned - WikiTree G2G

---

Doesn't bother me!

---

Aha, just as I suspected (especially after seeing 16,000 contributions and noting that each was a tiny change), each save counts.

OK, so here is another suggestion that does not take a team but could still help new members:

When a new member posts in G2G, before answering the question (or even welcoming them) if we took a moment to look at their profile and at some of those they created we might catch an error before it spreads to 25 or 500 profiles. At that point we might send a private message or )if the circumstances warrant more) contact the mentor or greeter on the profile page.

The question in G2G could be addressed here without any public reference to any issue we see in the profiles.

---

Who will do that?  It would have to be coordinated.  We don't want some poor member to feel deluged with messages, but more likely, many will get overlooked.  And not every new member introduces himself (if that's what you meant).

I'm not a big fan of private messages either.  I sent some when I was a Ranger, and I've sent some on my own when I've seen a member on G2G whom I thought could use a little more help, but most of them go unanswered.

---

Me, known for contrarian messages: better to deluge in a nice way than to have a new member adding profiles willy nilly and never learning there is a better way.

Anyone could do it, maybe with instructions to contact the greeter or mentor who would look rather than sending 10 member notes.

I did not mean for every new intro member to get a message, just a look. What I really think needs looking at is a new member who asks a question indicating they have not read much of the intro material.

Of course many are likely to get overlooked with this method, but at the moment they are getting overlooked anyway.

An unanswered private message does not necessarily mean that it was unread.

---

Yes, I understand the sentiment, but...

I doubt most people who are sent reminders that they aren't sourcing, or whatever the message is, no matter how well crafted, feel that those messages are friendly.  Some of the sample messages I've seen seem quite patronizing to me, and we should all remember than many of our participants are doing genealogy in their retirement years, and may not enjoy feeling talked down to by younger people.

The Greeters and Mentors already do a lot of work, and my guess is that a deluge of messages from members observing new members might also be an unwelcome burden.

Also, I really wonder if those members who post profile after profile with minimal sources, such as "family tree" or "personal memories," really don't know whether there is a better way.  Some will only add their parents and grandparents and do nothing else.  Quite a large percentage of new members do nothing after their first posts.  Those who do continue to add more profiles might not be so uninformed--just scofflaws.

---

Julie, my only issue is at the end of your comment - the guilty members have no excuse for not knowing there is a better way - it's part of the pre-1700 certification that they did complete, after all ... and what part of "Advice before editing" don't they understand, when they make the change first, then post the question?

Answer 7

I think a lot of the new people who come to WikiTree are very excited to be able to add their family.  Frequently, they don't embrace (although they've signed the honor code) the concept of one tree.  It's a hard concept for many people that we share ancestors.  Additionally, we enable new members to almost immediately qualify for adding pre-1700 profiles.  I did this myself, back in 2016.  I added a bunch of family members based on research of others, thinking I had a good source.  Today, I would never create those profiles based on a published work as the only source.  I learned quickly, thanks to many wonderful WikiTreers, but it was still a learning process.

If we don't make it harder to add the pre-1700 profiles, just bolding, underlining, or clarifying instructions is not going to help.  WikiTree has a steep learning curve.  We're not doing anyone favors by allowing them to play in such a huge sandbox.  Sources for pre-1700 profiles are much more difficult to access.  If we are requiring sources (and we are, not some family tree somewhere), it only makes sense to limit creation of pre-1700 profiles.

It's nice to say that the different projects should manage all the pre-1700 profiles, but the reality is that all of us have a limited amount of time to spend on WikiTree (I mean some of us have to actually eat and sleep, sometimes ).  And, after all, projects are really a bunch of volunteers that have a common interest.

Comments

When I joined over 6 years ago, I was brand new to genealogy and totally clueless, but got my education from the wonderful members here, so I learned about sourcing the right way.  I had great difficulty with my family - didn't even know first names of either grandfather and didn't know anything beyond that level.  I deliberately did not get pre-1700 because I knew that I didn't know what I was doing and, besides, had no reason to ever work on any profiles that old.  Since I never got that far back, I knew that I was not sufficiently trustworthy to do right by the really old profiles.  I finally got pre-1700 certified in November 2020, when I was soooo excited to have the first profile to work on that's pre-1700.  Frankly, I am in shock when I see someone join and become pre-1700 certified the same day ... even though I've seen it so many times now.

---

Gaile, I'm so happy to read you finally took the pre-1700 quiz.

---

I dunno, Jillaine ... now that I'm part of the club, I'm looking at all the bad stuff happening to these profiles and my feathers are getting ruffled, which may not be a good thing, considering my proven difficulties with that four letter word - tact.

---

Join the club...

---

(I know it's not April 1 anymore, but the imp would not be denied.)

-

{{Image|file=Badges_20200401-35.png |caption='''Ruffled Feathers Club Member'''<br /> Inspired by g2g posts by [[Gordon-4080|Gaile Connolly]] and [[Smith-32867|Jilaine Smith]]. |label=An American Bald Eagle, with ruffled head feathers, has the words "Member of the Ruffled Feathers Club" surrounding it. (Inspired by g2g posts by Gaile Connolly (Gordon-4080) and Jilaine Smith (Smith-32867). }}

---

I needed this today.  Y'all are so funny!

---

Melanie, thank you from the bottom of my heart for that badge, which I have now added to my profile as a sticker.

(y'all can check it out there - I am *not* kidding)

---

You didn't include the alt text for screen readers.

---

oops - THANX for catching that Mel - just added the label (chuh-ching - rack up another contribution point if anyone's counting)

Answer 8

I think part of the problem is that we don't read everything that is online.  We have almost been conditioned that way, after all how many people actually read all the 'Terms and Conditions' and 'Privacy Statements' when ever we download a new app or piece of software.  Most of us just tick the box and get started.

Unfortunately, I suspect that is how the Honor Code and Pre-1700 test are viewed by many people, just something that needs to be ticked, to do what they want to do on WikiTree.

Perhaps we need a statement that "You will be expected to follow these WikiTree community guidelines. If you don't understand what is involved, please ask first"  But then there is the problem that this is more text to read.

Comments

John, it sounds like you're in the identical place where I am on this topic ... depressing, isn't it?

---

I think John is on to something in how the Honor Code and pre-1700 are perceived. The easiest and perhaps best point for monitoring and intervention, when necessary, regardless of making 50 or 500 contributions before certification is with pre-1700 Greeters. Perhaps the pre-1700 greeter program can be revisited. When I see newly pre-1700 approved members that need help (or ignore everything) I contact the greeter. Some are responsive, some not.

Answer 9

I would add another tick box that says ... I, name, understand that I will have my certification revoked if I do any of the following:

• list the items

Comments

This sounds like the best idea I've seen here to - hopefully - mitigate the problem somewhat.  Unfortunately, even if it were implemented, I doubt that it would ever have teeth - I don't think WikiTree would revoke anyone's certification because it would create too much bad feeling.  I apologize to everyone for being so negative, but I've become very discouraged about ever seeing any path to improvement here.

---

There are already processes in place to revoke people's certifications and it does happen. But people have to actually go through the problems with members process or nothing happens.

---

Jamie,

I think what we (some members) seem to want here is a sign posted on the front door that says if you do "these things" then "this" will automatically (by somebody placing a block or revoking a badge, etc.) happen.  This way it is "cut and dry" and the member will know exactly what will happen and what to expect.

---

Tommy, policies must be administered and threats should be carried out or they will soon be seen as meaningless.  Who would do the extra reviews?  Would it be feasible to automate them?  I don't think that "someone placing a block or revoking a badge" can reasonably be described as "automatic."

---

Julie, the "automatic" was referring to "this" will happen, not so much to the how/who will do it? But that can all be specified as part of the "this".

---

Jamie wrote, "people have to actually go through the problems with members process or nothing happens."

If I submitted an MIR every time I saw badly sourced pre-1700 sourcing happening, I would be submitting MIRs every day. I doubt the mentoring body would want that.

---

Yes, no one should file 10 MIRs a minute (which is how fast you have to be making changes to be blocked).

Answer 10

As Julie pointed out, this question is a subset of the quantity-vs-quality question, on which oceans of electronic ink have been expended. The site's management has decided that quantity trumps quality. It is what it is. It's not going to change.

The issue is not only with new members. A couple of weeks ago, I had unsourced additions made to a profile I manage (pre-1800, not pre-1700). I queried the contributor as to the source. She then added a "source" - a family genealogy, without a proper citation (ie no author info; not a complete title, just "<family name> Genealogy"), no page number, no indication of what in the profile the "source" referred to. I managed to locate the source, found the reference, and discovered a discrepancy in the data that should have been at least noted and preferably discussed and resolved.

She's been a member since 2012 and has north of 30,000 contributions.

Comments

And quantity of contributions is also no indication as to quality of work. I not infrequently check my watchlist to find things like one individual going through multiple profiles, leaving no comment about the edit, and doing something like simply removing the word "county" from place names. Almost invariably these are members who earn a Club 1,000 badge every month and, I suppose, don't want to break the streak.

---

Yes, or changing/adding stuff based on unsourced Findagrave citations, often ignoring Research Notes that explain why the unsourced FAG is not on the profile.

---

doing something like simply removing the word "county" from place names.

commented by Edison Williams 

.

If someone does that to profiles I manage, I revert it .  Naming American places as County is important to aliens such as myself, or to our non-American cousins.

---

---

And especially when there is no city or township named. Yeah; I had about three dozen of mine "corrected" like that last fall. No biggie. But my preference is to always include "County" or "Parrish" as appropriate. Helps with clarity, and the old method of not including it stemmed from the limiting GEDCOM standard of 30 years ago...which of course is a FamilySearch product and that's where we draw our place-name suggestions. In the 21st century, there's no reason not to spell it out. But I'm getting off-topic. So I'll go post something more...er, controversial.

---

And longer..... you're losing your touch, Edison!

I'm with you on the "County" being added, and I won't explain as I've beaten this dead horse too many times.

Answer 11

Why not simply create a “privacy” level for pre-1700 profiles that only allows WikiTreers who have demonstrated their grasp of sourcing fundamentals to make edits? That is to say, folks who have  completed a process similar to the Profile Improvement Project’s PIP Voyage?

Comments

David, that is effectively what we have now.  Members have to complete the pre-1700 certification process in order to be allowed access to any profile with a birth date earlier than 1700.  The main problem is that the process just doesn't produce the desired result of people doing things right.  

My question was about a small piece of the problem - that people not only don't even fill in what they intend to change or violate the source requirements when they do provide that information, but they don't even pay attention to posting the G2G question BEFORE making the changes - more often than not, they have already made the change before requesting the advice about whether or not it should be done.

---

Deleted (comment was made in error).

---

I do understand the problem, Gaile, which is that some people are not following WikiTree guidelines, nor using professional standards for sourcing, when making changes to profiles, with particular reference to pre-1700 profiles.

The pre-1700 certification is basically a simple questionnaire and a multiple-choice quiz. Anyone can fudge that, if they have a mind to.

What I am suggesting is a more thorough peer-reviewed certification, similar to the Profile Improvement Project's [https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Profile_Improvements_Voyage PIP Voyage], by which WikiTree members would be coached by fellow members, before receiving permission to edit pre-1700 profiles.

Here is an example of a PIP Voyage profile that I recently worked on, as a part of my (still ongoing) process to get the PIP badge: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Elsemore-52

Answer 12

People are taken to the "Ask before editing this pre-1700 profile" question form when they select the ADVICE BEFORE EDITING button at the top of a pre-1700 profile. This may be the first interaction with G2G some people have had, so perhaps it's not surprising they don't realise they should fill in details and add tags.

However, prominent near the top of the question form is the following (quite new, I think):

If you're asking about WikiTree see our FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions).

Unfortunately, at present the FAQ page doesn't mention pre-1700 profiles, except for a brief reference to the quiz.

Would it help if a section or link were added to the FAQ page explaining how to fill in the "advice before editing" question, including some of the points that have been made in response to Gaile's question? Maybe it could have a list of project tags to choose from, for example. No doubt not everybody would read the FAQ section, but some people would, and consequently the question they ask about advice could end up better formulated.

Comments

Thank you for explaining that, Jim!  I was wondering, as I read through this thread again this morning, what form Gaile was talking about, never having seen it.  I guess I'm not one to ask for advice!  It still took me a minute to find the button, which is in the Edit screen, not on the main profile.

I'd like to see that FAQ accessible from somewhere that more people will find.

Answer 13

Is there any hope for a compromise on the amount of time/number of contributions before accessing pre-1700? If at least 250 contributions and/or 30 days were required first, I think we would eliminate a lot of the "drop and run" folks who quickly enter "their" tree, then start getting questions about duplicates and sources, reminders this is a single tree, etc. and leave (with the mess for others to clean up).  If they had to wait longer to reach the more distant past, maybe they would realize that there's actual work involved, understand what real sources are, and decide it's worth the work, or decide they don't want to do the work for pre-1700 profiles and just stick with more recent generations, or realize that this may not be the place for them and leave.

I think a lot of the problem people leave anyway, (or stop participating) so I don't think this really would have a major effect on the overall number of members.

Comments

Kathie, the overall number of members might not be affected, but is that what's important?  I've looked at some samples of new members signing the Honor Code, and observed that on average only two of ten contribute anything after their first little burst of energy in the month they join.

If we discourage the remaining 20%, how will WT grow?  Or will you be happy with a smaller growth rate?

---

That's the $64 question.  Will people who might have stayed if they could enter family before 1700 right away leave if they have to wait a month?  Or are they the more conscientious folk who quickly find out that actual work is required, decide that it's worth the effort to stick around, and start improving their profiles?  The 'drop and run' folks are probably going to leave (or go inactive) anyway, so preventing them from making a worse mess while they're here seems like a good thing to me.

Answer 14

COMMENT (I mean, Answer) from Joyce, the Wikitree freethinker. Why does anyone want to go adding or changing anything before 1700 in the first place?

The first profile I ever created (apart from adding my own name to my own profile) was for Mary Berry, the first Countess of Lanesborough. I had an interesting story for her which had taken me some research, and I thought I would add it to her profile. She did not have one, but her husband did, so it was easy enough to create one for her.

Her birth date was "about 1703." I thought "it's a good thing she wasn't born 5 years earlier, because I am not pre-1700 certified." I imagined a computer message popping up "STOP. YOU ARE UNAUTHORIZED TO DEAL WITH ANY PROFILE WITH A DATE BEFORE 1700" and being unable to go further;

So I added her profile, using the sources and information from her husband's page. I thought the sources looked pretty iffy but I thought "what the heck. Does anybody really care about someone born 300 years ago?"

Then, just for curiosity, I looked at the "test" for pre-1700 certification. Duh, use acccurate sources. I knew that. "Have 50 contributions." Since this was the first profile I had created, I couldn't pass that.

But what tripped me up wasn't "using accurate sources." It was my ignorance of English nobility. I'd known for years that my hometown of Lanesborough Massachusetts was named for "the Countess of Lanesborough" but it wasn't until recently that I'd realized that "Countess of Lanesborough" wasn't her name, but her title, and that there were other people called "Countess of Lanesborough." Surprise #2- I thought her husband was a count, but he was an earl. Surprise #3-I thought her married name was "Countess of Lanesborough" but it was Butler. About an hour after I had completed her profile, someone had caught and corrected that mistake.

And the final surprise was when I looked at the record of my contributions. I had racked up more than 50 just by answering questions, even if the question was "(Your Name Here) is a wonderful wikitreer" and I answered "yes." I had answered questions about telephone books, Paul Revere, and Syrians in Manitoba. I had not answered one question that would show my knowledge of Irish nobility after 1700, much less before.

So, my suggestion is to have the computer automatically shut out any changes to anything before 1700 until the pre-1700 board has certified the applicant's qualifications  AND THE REASON SHE WANTS TO GET BACK THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Thank you for listening. Have a happy day.

Comments

Thanks for the laughs!

---

Thanks for reading this, Julie. After I worked so hard on "Countess of Lanesborough" I looked at the profile for the wife of Count Basie (Countess Basie? Mrs. Count? Earl-ess?) and added a story to her profile.

Answer 15

More on quality vs. quantity.  I expect some down votes for this but no one should fear down votes.  (And I know you don't, Gaile!)

In the on-line genealogy market, WikiTree is tiny.  I think it's reasonable to estimate that we have only a few thousand really active members.  So I think it's reasonable that management wants to grow.

About a year ago, in a thread about how to better welcome new members, RJ Horace (whose pithy comments I miss) said:  "The huge difference between WikiTree and other sites is that WikiTree has an army of unpaid untrained unprofessional volunteer Leaders and other badge-wavers, and their activities are far more intrusive than anything you get anywhere else."

That is an offensive way to say it, of course, but maybe we should keep the idea in mind.  People probably don't want to be policed while trying to enjoy their hobbies.

Although I don't like seeing junky profiles on WikiTree, I console myself with the fact that I can make sure my own ancestor profiles are well-written and sourced.  I know that over time, many project-managed profiles have been improved and I believe that over time, the quality of WT profiles is improving.

I do not have the impression that dedicated genealogists leave WT out of frustration with the poor quality of some people's additions.  I personally know many dedicated WT genealogists who, while complaining about the quality, continue to work week after week on improving WT.

Comments

Whether something has a source you find acceptable or not says nothing about the quality of the information in the profile.

Someone can have 100% accurate information from an "unsourced" tree. The information probably came from sources, but just because the sources weren't recorded or kept with the tree doesn't mean the tree is wrong.

And a profile with a bunch of primary sources may be incredibly wrong -- mixing up people with the same name, mistakes on the records, incorrectly interpreting the information etc.

It's better to encourage people to write whatever source they have as a starting point. Wiki articles are meant to be improved over time.

---

Jamie, your points are things I had not considered. Well said.

---

The entire point with a source reference is that the reader should be able to verify whether the information is correct.

Wiki articles are meant to be improved over time, yes. But with the current policy of letting anybody add junk based on Internet mythology to any existing Post-1500 profile, I fear that the opposite may actually happen. It's not a comforting thought, and I fear that it hurts WikiTree by keeping serious genealogists away.

---

If you're seriously arguing that solid sources are unnecessary for a quality profile, then we have nothing more to discuss. If that is indeed the position of WikiTree management...I better quit now or I'll get in trouble.

---

No, I'm saying the information in a profile can be 100% accurate even if there isn't a source referenced in the profile. But it's better to know where the information came from, even if it's a poorer source like a family tree, than having no idea where the information came from at all.

Ideally, a quality profile would have a well-written biography with inline references to reliable sources for every fact in the biography. But that's a lot to expect from people doing this as a hobby.

---

Yes, it's a lot to expect, and that's exactly why WikiTree as a whole will never be taken seriously by people who care about quality genealogy.

---

There is plenty of quality research going on at WikiTree by people who care about quality genealogy. No matter what you do, collaborative platforms like wikis are going to have a range of quality. Those who want everything to be up to their standards should just work someplace where they have complete control of the data.

---

Yes, there are lots of people here on WikiTree who take genealogy seriously, but there would probably be ten times more if they were guaranteed some integrity of their work, rather than seeing hordes of cluebies who think that anything they find on the Interwebz is worth latching on to existing well-researched profiles.

I did have my own genealogy site where I had complete control of the data, But the site didn't have a chance to survive my own demise. I refuse to use a pay-site for my data, so there aren't many options left. I thought that WikiTree cared a little more for quality, but I see now that I may have been too naïve.

---

I've long ago made my peace with the mountains of nonsense that proliferate on WikiTree. I've made efforts to improve some of it. But the point remains, WikiTree is not a serious genealogy site, although there is serious genealogy here. (The same can be said for Ancestry, FS, and some of the other tree sites.) A different attitude and set of objectives from the people who run the place could improve the situation, but as I said way upthread, it's clear that's not going to happen. Personally, I will continue to add profiles to WikiTree, sourcing them as best I can, and when I encounter the junk either work to improve it or just sigh and move on, until y'all decide to kick me off for now and then speaking my mind.

---

*some* of the other tree sites? Is there a site other than someone’s small personal website where this doesn’t apply? Suddenly I am reminded of Citizendium, which was supposed to supplant Wikipedia as the web encyclopedia with only moderated, quality information. It didn’t make it. Maybe it could have, but none other than Larry Sanger founded it and  many people put a ton of work into that site and still couldn’t make it work.

Answer 16

This isn't really going to be an answer. Really more of a ramble. Like that's a surprise.

Lately I've been thinking about the confluence of the philosophy of science, formal logic, and genealogy. I'll hold that in reserve while it percolates, because I ain't as quick as I used to be and it'll probably be 2022 before I come up with something cohesive enough for a blog post or a podcast about it.

To dabble at least a tiny bit in that pond, though, I think the core issues go deeper than just the pre-1700 requirements. There is a massive amount of conversation on WikiTree about "sources" and "sourcing." But often the term is used interchangeably with others, in incorrect ways, and I think we may be doing a disservice to new genealogists. While I understand the perennial battle between popularity/simplicity and complexity/accuracy, it's very difficult to learn something new if the fundamentals aren't explained and the nomenclature is imprecise.

Can you imagine going to the first day of chemistry class in high school, pretty confused about the whole thing, then holding up a vial of liquid and asking the teacher, "Is this the catalyst or the reactant?" And the teacher rolls his eyes and replies, "Don't get fancy. It doesn't make any difference what you call it. Catalyst, reactant, reagent, solvent, substrate. We just call everything a 'chemical' in this class."

For example, a source is not its citation. Two different things. A source is not information, per se: the specific content from a source needs to be evaluated for the type and quality of information it presents (i.e., form of information; knowledge/authority/reliability of informant; relevance and adequacy in addressing a specific matter), and then establishing the level of confidence resulting from that evaluation.

Likewise, information is not evidence. We go through that evaluation to determine which information is worthy of being interpreted to be evidence. Evidence itself is, of course, malleable and can be on a spectrum from inconsequential to powerful. In genealogy--as in science or historical studies--we can't accept evidence prima facie; that's only where the testing of it commences.

As a DNA dweeb, one of my constant bothers is that DNA is often viewed as definitive evidence when, in fact, with our current common tests only the autosomal DNA results of identical twins, parents/children, and full siblings are definitive at first look, and even full siblings can require some analysis. That's not dissimilar to any, more traditional form of genealogical evidence. All evidence has to be tested, and it's required of us to actively seek evidence that might disprove our hypothesis.

The science guy in me would love it if we could have a standardized, quantifiable metric similar to the likelihood ratio used in statistics for the evaluation of genealogical evidence. There are ways to simplify it, and there is precedent for its application to genealogy (see, as one example, the work by Turi King, et al. "Identification of the Remains of King Richard III." Nature Communications 5, no. 1 (December 2, 2014): 5631. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6631). But that's just another of about three dozen ideas I've jotted down that have become backlogged blog post topics. Some day, some day.

Bottom line, though, is that these things--in conjunction with a proper understanding of researcher objectivity and confirmation bias--are the foundations of the Genealogical Proof Standard. It's the studied, analyzed conclusion that's important. Folks involved in theoretical math probably go bonkers at the way genealogists use the term "proof," but that standard requires a "proof argument" that, to quote Elizabeth Shown Mills, is an:

• Explanation of the problem
• Identification of both known and missing resources
• Presentation of evidence, supported by thorough source citations and analyses
• Discussion and resolution of any conflicting evidence
• Summation of main points and statement of the conclusion

But we very seldom talk about the GPS and the steps to arrive at and document arguments and conclusions; the WT Help pages about sources and sourcing never go there; and very few WT profiles meet those criteria.

In light of the above, some of the questions on the pre-1700 self-certification quiz are troubling. Just a few by way of example:

What is the purpose of adding sources to WikiTree profiles?

Sources are very seldom added to a profile. We do and should add citations all the time. But unless we're uploading, say, an entire 1890 book in PDF format, we're not adding sources. Again, lax nomenclature.

Is FamilySearch.org a reliable source?

Sources are almost never wholly reliable or unreliable. Seldom do we see a source discredited in whole, and that usually is due to outright fraud. It is specific information contained in a source that may be reliable or unreliable to varying degrees. It is incumbent upon the genealogist to properly evaluate the information, as briefly mentioned above. This is one reason that a repository of "approved sources" is not something that would have merit to, say, those holding a CG or CGL certification. The analogy would be trying to write a legal code that described everything you were allowed to do rather than one that enumerated only those things that were prohibited. That's why penal codes are never written that way in any developed country. There are three separate questions on the pre-1700 quiz to which this comment applies.

What is an original or primary source?

These are two completely different things. "Primary source" is a generic label for a source created by someone with presumed firsthand knowledge, or one created at or about the time an event occurred. An "original source" is specific: it is material in its first oral or recorded form...as opposed to, say, a transcription or translation.

What should you do when you see information from a disproven source on an Open profile managed by someone else?

We, of course, really mean a disproven source citation. The 1850 U.S. Census for Anywhere County would be a source. If someone conflates two different John Smiths and shows the wrong data on the profile, the source isn't disproven but the particular citation for the wrong John Smith certainly may be.

Speaking of The Notorious ESM (sorry Elizabeth; I couldn't resist; you know I luv ya), in the third edition of Evidence Explained, its Chapter 1, "Fundamentals of Evidence Analysis," runs from page 15 through page 38. It is not an imposing read, and those 23 pages are pure gold for genealogists because they are, well, fundamental.

I think the book belongs on every genealogist's bookshelf, but it isn't the least expensive (still a bargain, in my opinion). First things first, though. I really don't care if someone's citation on a profile doesn't follow Chicago or MLA or APA so long as it's thorough and does its two-prong job of showing the specifics of where the source can be found and recording the details that affect the use or evaluation of the data. 

However, if the person editing a profile has grasped the content in just those 23 pages from Elizabeth Shown Mills, they'll be 90% on their way to doing quality work. And what they put on any profile will have value.

I don't have an answer. On one of my websites I have a mechanism where I can present a video (from YouTube, Vimeo, wherever) as an instructional class, and the completion of the video is tracked. In other words, I can set it so that you have to watch (well, at least play...I can't tell if you're actually sitting there; that would be creepy) any percentage or all of the video before you're able to move on to a quiz that checks your grasp of the material. I always structure those quizzes as several questions drawn at random from a large pool of questions so that almost never would any two quizzes be identical.

If I ran the world, I think I'd want to look to something similar. A video (say, 20-25 minutes) telling you the genealogy fundamentals we expect you to understand. Watch it more than once, if you like. We'll also give you a PDF transcript you can read and some "for further study" links if you want a deeper dive. When you're ready, now or later, complete the quiz. Some people learn best from text (that's me; I'm a reader); some do better from audio-visual presentations; and some do best combining the different media.

But it's the same reason legendary coach Vince Lombardi walked into the locker room of the Green Bay Packers in 1961 before the first preseason game, had all 48 members of the team gather round, rookie and seasoned pro alike, held up a football in his right hand and showed it, slowly, to everyone. Finally he said, "Gentlemen, this is a football."

Because in just about any endeavor--from Olympic skiing to running a corporation to flying a plane to doing genealogy--it's always about the fundamentals. Fundamentals understood, done well, constantly practiced, and regularly revisited.

I think it would be of greater benefit to both members and the tree if this were approached as a form of instruction rather than a static list of self-certification questions. And I think it could apply across the board, to new members (perhaps an introductory version without a quiz) and to those wishing to work on older and more challenging profiles.

In the discussion about attracting new members and possibly turning some off with "required study," I think we need to step back and objectively realize that it probably is not learning (more) about genealogy that is a barrier, perhaps quite the opposite, but that WikiTree is simply not an easy, intuitive website to use. Even for the functionally internet literate. It isn't understanding basic genealogical principles that's hard--especially if they're presented well, and right now they really aren't presented at all--it's WikiTree that's hard...because it's a unique animal: no experience on any other website really carries over to an ability to quickly ramp-up use of WT. But we certainly, no matter what we do, shouldn't be causing confusion on the genealogical front by using imprecise terminology and techniques that run counter to existing bodies of knowledge.

Comments

Beyond simply getting a grasp on the nature of evidence, I think there is also the matter of different people having different standards of proof (to use your example of the likelihood ratio, do we require p<.05, p<.01, or p<.001 for the null hypothesis?). In other words, how sure should we be before we add someone to the tree? In my own tree I am operating on a quite strict "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard (in other words, if descent from a person were a hanging offense, would I be willing to send you to the gallows?). But others are quite happy with a "more likely than not" standard - and I have seen some even use a "plausible and not absolutely disproven" standard.

---

> The science guy in me would love it if we could have a standardized, quantifiable metric similar to the likelihood ratio used in statistics for the evaluation of genealogical evidence. 

I have had thoughts like this. The other idea, I had an idea to have a non-parametric approach to assembling profiles with the same surname into families. I worry about how much confirmation bias affects how I end up deciding things. Have a computer randomly permits the attachments in all ways that are biologically possible and assign a negative score for every likely issue with the identifications. If the carefully reasoned profile exceeds every other permutation by a lot, then it seems more sound than any other possibility.

> Folks in theoretical math probably go bonkers at the way genealogists use the term “proof.”

Yes, this!

Otherwise, excellent walkthrough of ESMs golden pages and the problems with the boldface statements. This may be my favorite G2G post to date!

---

Many thanks, Barry. I wrote the next bit offline while doing some Easter holiday-obligatory things (if you mute, they can't hear you typing), before I read your comment. If I had read it first, I think good sense would have told me to stick with the, "This may be my favorite G2G post to date," and not risk damaging that. Just leave it alone.

I'd go back and highlight your comment about confirmation bias if I could. I do, though, bring it up in the part about Niall Noígíallach and Childeric I, King of the Franks. (I wonder if that was enough of a genealogical teaser to get readers to slog through the abstruse stuff. Probably not.)

But... I already typed it up in reply to An Anonymous, who I think I might recognize by a different name. And even though I routinely waste a lot of word count, one should never completely waste word count. What we put on the internet will likely outlive us. Hey! Maybe I'll proofread this before I click "Add comment" this time. Nah...

---

By its very nature, I don't believe genealogy will ever be a "beyond reasonable doubt" sport. And this starts to get into that morass of philosophy of science vs. logic vs. genealogy I mentioned. So I'll try hard not to dive into a rabbit hole here. I'm really not equipped yet; my thoughts on the matter are still too disorganized.

The historian Roy Basler, best known for editing the collected works of Abraham Lincoln, once wrote:

"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity."

Not only is history written by only a select few, and almost always written by those on the winning side, but human perception is pretty fragile to begin with. The Age of Enlightenment was spurred by a maxim that, at our center, human beings are inherently rational and logical. We really aren't. There have been numerous studies in experimental psychology that have delved into the weird Venn diagram of humans when it comes to reality, perception, and memory. But in consideration of history and historical documents we only need to look as far as recent studies on the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness court-case testimonies to learn what we need. A good read is a 2017 article in Scientific American. The authors present a case for methods of improving the reliability of eyewitness accounts, but in the opening paragraph they write:

"Eyewitness misidentifications are known to have played a role in 70 percent of the 349 wrongful convictions that have been overturned based on DNA evidence (so far). Psychologists have learned a lot about why such errors happen. With surprising ease, for example, participants in a memory experiment can be led to believe that they saw a stop sign when they actually saw a yield sign or that they became lost in a shopping mall as a child when no such experience actually occurred."

Even if the chronicler writing the historical document did so shortly after personally witnessing the event, we still can't apply a "beyond reasonable doubt" certitude to it. Or even to material, written in the person's own hand, telling of his or her own life. Could it be "clear and convincing evidence," more legal terminology that designates a "standard" of proof somewhere between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence"? Sure it could. But "beyond reasonable doubt" is an unfeasible bar (sorry; couldn't resist the legal punning) for history even in this day of a video camera on every street corner and in every pocket. How much impassioned disagreement of modern events do we see in social media even though all interested parties can replay the video?

Since I'm a Quotes R Us storefront today, here's another from, once again, Elizabeth Shown Mills:

"Historical truth is physically pliable. We begin every research project with a vision of that pot of truth awaiting us at the rainbow's end. When we reach that end, we have only a mound of dough--dough that will be manipulated, stretched, shaped and flavored by our own experience and standards."

In the physical sciences, there is no such animal as "proof." That's why Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, for example, is still a theory. I wrote a small bit about this in January 2019 in a post, "Matches on the X Chromosome between Male Cousins." To quote myself <cough>:

"One difficulty we have when classic genealogy and the scientific method meet is that lexicons differ. In science, 'theory' is likely to carry a meaning that may be very different than we genealogists use.... In science, what genealogists might casually call theories are not; they are hypotheses, at best. But where the genealogy/science lexicography really breaks down is that, in genealogy, the very name 'Genealogical Proof Standard' implies proof is possible. In science, a final proof is never actually possible. This 2017 article by Ethan Siegel for Forbes, 'Scientific Proof is a Myth,' will make interesting reading.

"To scientists, proof isn't the Holy Grail. It isn't even in the equation, so to speak (the term 'proof' takes on a different meaning in pure mathematics). In fact, if you read the actual BCG definition of the Genealogical Proof Standard's five steps you will, interestingly enough, not find the word 'proof.'"

I feel that the BCG (Board for Certification of Genealogists) standards and the Genealogical Proof Standard are great as far as they go. If an understanding of those fundamentals could become a part of WikiTree culture--not just the ambiguous and often incorrectly used word, "source"--we'd be way ahead of the game. Where I think the rigor of the GPS could be improved might be a look to the work of a fellow CC (Certified Curmudgeon), Karl Popper. Taking inspiration from Einstein's work and pondering on the meaning of science, Popper denied the seemingly obvious assumption that science seeks highly confirmed theories. Contraindicative, the distinguishing mark of science, for Popper, is that it seeks to falsify, not to confirm, its hypotheses: that the scientific method is centered around actively working to find evidence that disproves an assertion. Only in that way can the assertion be painstakingly tested. We'll never prove Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, but we can test the heck out of it and in so doing continually find possible refinements and limitations.

As for applicability to genealogy, all we need to do is look to those branches of the tree where some will argue until Armageddon that they are, for example, a direct descendant of Childeric I, King of the Franks. Not only will negating evidence never actively be sought, but if any turns up it will be ignored at best; more likely vehemently be denied. It doesn't fit the agenda, and in their minds they have proven their descendancy from royalty. Or worse, the rock-solid belief that they are the direct descendant of some potentially mythical figure like Niall Noígíallach. Confirmation bias infects genealogy perhaps more than any other discipline. It's our family. It's our heritage. It's our identity. We're simply too close to it easily step back and be objective.

My thoughts around adaptation of likelihood ratio really aren't about setting some sort of institutional threshold. Since 99% of the data we deal with are qualitative, not quantitative (or experimentally reproducible), I don't know that it would even be possible. Its use in genealogy, specifically genetic genealogy, to date has been in the modality of diagnostic testing, i.e., a value for the sensitivity of the test divided by 1 minus a value denoting the specificity of the test. Even as a Bayesian evaluation, there is still an implication of causation involved: possibilities given a specific event. But with traditional genealogy, our typical focus is correlation. Our concern, after evidentiary discovery and interpretation, is correlating that evidence with other data. We are seldom concerned with causation, and causation and correlation are not the same things.

Seemingly as you do, I have an "ain't accurate enough" reaction to using only standard-of-proof designations for evidence analysis. I believe it was probably reasonable prior to the introduction of DNA into the mix, but we now see, every day, the use of DNA to extents that really can't be supported by our current knowledge of the science. Even in the oft-referenced research on the skeleton of Richard III (which I also referenced, above) mtDNA played a decidedly minor role in the final postulation about the identity of the remains. The researchers' likelihood ratio calculations can be found in the supplementary materials beginning on page 48 of the paper. Yet we see people point to the research as "proof" that mtDNA at even low resolutions can be used as incontrovertible DNA evidence.

Ergo the notion of a simplified, likelihood ratio-inspired "cheat sheet" sort of designation that--even though it would one or a collaboration of a few genealogists making the somewhat arbitrary decision about typically qualitative data--might give us a vastly greater amount of granularity in stating the confidence level of an evidence evaluation. I just glanced at Wikipedia and they indicate nine possibilities from "meh; some evidence" to "beyond reasonable doubt." I'd prefer to have a sliding numerical notation as a descriptor instead, because in part new information can always come along...and it might not merit hopping from "preponderance of evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence."

But somehow, and to get this back on topic, we really should figure out how to improve upon the "meh; some evidence" that we see on many profiles.

---

Thank you, Edison, for your detailed and deep thoughts - I always learn something from you (hadn't realized, for example, that there were nine levels of legal proof, not just two).

Yes, better granularity on level of certainty would definitely be welcome. Wikitree right now has only two defined levels, "Uncertain" and "Confirmed with DNA", with an intentionally vague "confident" in-between.

One problem, though, is that Wikitree by its design makes binary choices - either you are connected or you are not. Things like the "connection finder" or the "relationship finder" or the propagation of DNA tests do not care how certain each link is. I understand that you could run some of these "finders" with individual links removed, but I don't believe there is a way to actually run the "relationship finder" with all links marked "uncertain" eliminated from the beginning.

As I understand modern phylogenetics as practiced by evolutionary biologists (using either DNA or trait evidence), they run Monte Carlo simulations to determine the most likely tree and then assign Bayesian probabilities to each node in the tree (similar to what Barry was proposing). Probably way beyond the technical capabilities of Wikitree.

So on Wikitree we are left with no actual clear definition of the level of certainty before a connection is made - and a de-facto working practice that a connection, once made, is left in place until enough people have squawked to remove it (which generally happens only where there is a well-organized and well-staffed project guarding a particular section of the tree) - in other words, we do have a de-facto level of "meh; some evidence" for the tree as a whole.

Which is why, for Continental European medieval genealogy, I don't even bother with Wikitree. Instead I turn to genealogics.org, which is essentially based on the Europäische Stammtafeln (which do have their own problems and in some cases apply connections based on mere possibility, but at least apply a fairly uniform standard to the evidence and don't have any outright howlers in them), and to Cawley's Medlands project, which has the great advantage of actually citing primary sources and also uses a fairly uniform standard (again because it is a single person building the entire tree), even though it also gets things wrong in certain cases. From there I can then delve into the primary sources myself to build my tree.

And yes, you are probably right that I am not using a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. For one thing, I am a-priori not considering non-paternity events (unless bastardy or adultery is actually alleged in contemporary sources). What I am looking for in medieval sources are charters or similar documents that explicitly say "my father/mother so-and-so" or "my son/daughter so-and-so". This actually eliminates a lot of maternal ancestry - I don't simply assume that the only known wife of count X is by default the mother of all of count X's children, but instead want to see an actual charter or similar document where she is called the mother of the child of interest. But yes, as with modern video evidence and "deep fakes", there is also always the question of whether a given charter is genuine - I understand that the universe of what are considered genuine Merovingian charters is rather different today than it was in the 19th century. And yes, I am also not doing my own paleography - I do trust that the transcriptions of charters made by 19th or 20th-century scholars are generally accurate.

I admit this is extremely far away from the original question asked by Gaile. But I do think there is an inherent problem with a "one-tree" site in which there is no generally agreed-upon criterion for the level of evidence needed to make a connection and many of the contributors are not sufficiently aware of the nuances of evidence (and may not even care, depending on their motivations and needs for building their own family tree).

Answer 17

Being a project coordinator on a project that starts pre-1700 and ends in 1763, and 2 sub-projects that are totally pre-1700, I agree that something needs to change.

To give an example of why projects cannot monitor all the profiles involved, I recently worked on a Fille du Roi profile (pre-1700 all, and all under PPP).  When I checked the parents, which were pre-existing profiles, I found that they had been adopted by a relative newbie and their data had been changed according to a FS tree.  Putting both the girl's parents as having come to New France and dying here after the daughter's marriage.  Whereas neither ever came here, and one of them was listed deceased already on the daughter's marriage..

If there had been changes to the daughter's profile, that would have shown up in project feeds.  But the parents don't fall under the project.  So nothing showed up anywhere.

We need some sort of control for pre-1700 profiles that has some teeth in it.  The creation of duplicate profiles for these projects is continuous.  Which means someone has to constantly hunt for them and propose merges.  There are arborists who do that, and I appreciate them very much, but they could spend their time better I'm sure if there was some control on creation of these profiles in the first place.  Some of the early settlers in New France have so many descendants they are found on a gazillion family trees.

The pre-1700 self-certification needs to be made tougher, more like pre-1500 certification.  While we may be smaller than some other tree sites, few such actually strive to create a single tree, they just offer a person a place to build their own, regardless of whether or not the tree already exists on the site.  It's time we started aiming at quality first, over quantity.  I know for a fact that WikiTree shares its data with at least one paid site, hopefully WikiTree gets some return from that site.  But this is another reason for us to aim for quality first.  We are becoming a resource for research.  Let's make it worthwhile.  With proper sources.  Not just ''where a person got the data''.

Comments

I agree completely. However, I don't think that is likely to happen. The site is run by people who believe:

Our requirement for modern profiles is only that you say where your information comes from. We do not attempt to enforce any standard of reliability for sources or any method for securing pre-approval except on pre-1700 profiles. ... We have a low bar for creating modern profiles because we want to encourage all our cousins to share their family history information. As long as they also share where their information came from, we have a starting point for collaboration and we can work together to improve our shared tree.

I know the bar is (at least in theory) higher for pre-1700 profiles. That's a phony distinction. A genealogy site is either a place whose purpose is serious genealogy, or it's not. "We have a low bar for creating modern profiles because we want to encourage all our cousins to share their family history information" places it in the second category.

That said, there is serious genealogy being done here. But the great majority of stuff hardly qualifies as serious genealogy (at least in the area I work in, 17th-19th Century New England).

---

Maybe the whole purpose of WikiTree needs to be looked at anew then.  Are we just another tree site, or are we a Wiki?  My understanding of what a Wiki is supposed to be is something with sources to back up the statements made there.  Looking at Wikipedia articles for instance, one regularly sees these ''notes'' ''this information is in need of further sources to back up the data'' or some similar statement.

---

Danielle, yes, we're a Wiki, like Wikipedia.  But there are differences.  According to its website, WP had 143,546 active contributors just in the last month.  As far as I know, it dominates its field.  It is a nonprofit, so can raise funds through contributions.  How is WT to fund itself, if not through growth?

---

First, thank you, Danielle, for all you have done to improve our understanding of our French and Quebecois ancestors. The level of scholarship and accuracy embodied in the profiles managed by the project are an inspiration to us all.  I agree that there should be a higher hurdle for pre-1700 certification.  I was certainly not adequately experienced, when I received my certification, and now regard the certification process as entirely inadequate.  Like others engaged in this discussion, I believe that there should also be some minimal qualification for pre-1800 profiles.  That said, I also endorse a relatively easy entry for more modern profiles, where memory and family remembrance often outweigh available records.  I also endorse the "Be Bold" ethic for recent profiles, although I would prefer that WikiTree do a better job of providing potential matches by waiting to analyze potential matches until middle names, birthplaces and/or deathplaces, marriages, etc,are entered, before proposing potential matches.  I believe the interface and programming are progressing, albeit slowly, towards improved accuracy.  The primary attraction , for me, in addition to the personalities of fellow members, is the presence of so many profoundly accomplished researchers, like yourself.

---

Thanks for the compliment Mark.  Meanwhile, on the aspect of the profiles suggested as matches by the program as we are creating them, I agree the program could stand some improvement.  I created a profile just recently for a man with the given name Marie Louis.  It was definitely a man, and I entered the gender right away before completing the profile creation, but was still getting suggestions for matches of women's profiles.  Something to propose elsewhere methinks.

Modern profiles are something else.  For one thing, most of us have known our parents and grandparents to some degree I believe.  Not all of us, obviously, there are always exceptions.  And considering privacy laws in most countries, records for BMD are ''restricted access'' in a lot of places for this period, so source citations for those people forcibly get skimpy.  Prior generations get progressively easier to find records for until one reaches the 1700s, where things start going the other way often just because of age  of records themselves, deterioration, loss through fire, flood etc.

---

Julie, WT is funded by advertising that is seen by non-members who visit the site.  I don't know if NPO status is even possible for it.  But it's not growth that creates our funding, since members don't see the ads.

---

Danielle, growth still indirectly increases the income from those ads because the more profiles we have, the more "hits" we'll get when people do searches, which will lead to more traffic to the website to view a profile that shows them ads.  Of course, the more people see the ads, the more click credits we'll get.

---

I know for a fact that WikiTree shares its data with at least one paid site, hopefully WikiTree gets some return from that site.

WikiTree share's its data for free with anyone who requests it (hobbyist programmers, researchers, even paid sites) as long as they aren't going to charge for the data and agree to some rules. 

My understanding of what a Wiki is supposed to be is something with sources to back up the statements made there.

You may want to look at the page for "Wiki" at Wikipedia, then.

---

thanks Jamie.  Went looking further down, there is a chapter entitled, which is worth looking at to decide what we want for WikiTree.  

Trustworthiness and reliability of content

---

From the article referred to by Jamie:

Trustworthiness and reliability of content

Critics of publicly editable wiki systems argue that these systems could be easily tampered with by malicious individuals ("vandals") or even by well-meaning but unskilled users who introduce errors into the content, while proponents maintain that the community of users can catch such malicious or erroneous content and correct it. Lars Aronsson, a data systems specialist, summarizes the controversy as follows: "Most people when they first learn about the wiki concept, assume that a Web site that can be edited by anybody would soon be rendered useless by destructive input. It sounds like offering free spray cans next to a grey concrete wall. The only likely outcome would be ugly graffiti and simple tagging and many artistic efforts would not be long lived. Still, it seems to work very well."

If WikiTree was just a Wiki, then all would be fair and good: We might expect that the "Articles" (or Biographies) would improve over time. But WikiTree also has a database that connect profiles on parent-child relationships. The members who are in such a hurry to enter their more or less mythical ancestors usually don't touch the Biography more than they absolutely have to.

This duality of WikiTree makes one side of the wall a place for scholarly discussions by those who master the Wiki code, while the other side is left for "ugly graffiti and simple tagging" in Lars Aronsson's words.

Answer 18

The problem with WikiTree and pre-1700 profiles is a problem with any hobby genealogy: People prioritize seeing how far back they can go (and feel incentivised to stretch the rules or truth) because other people are impressed by long pedigree chains.

Where a single, collaborative tree should shine is in helping people see wider connections and understand that their personal history is more than a line of descendancy. It's about the movement of people, who they live near, immigration patterns, the way one relative's circumstances change another's, how communities grow and shape families. And WikiTree is set up to be a rich resource like this, but the amount of people we don't have profiles for in the 18th-20th centuries is staggering because everyone wants to rush backward. Until the hobby in general puts emphasis on and rewards thorough work in the more recent era, we're going to see the same problems with early ancestors.

Comments

What an interesting concept, Erin!  It never would have occurred to me.  I am 99.x % focused on 19th and 20th centuries, with only 2 pre-1700 and less than a dozen pre-1800.  That's only because I have not been able to trace my family farther, so I keep building out, hoping to make more connections and/or be able to work farther back from one of my sideways maneuvers.

I remember once, when a member said something about being related to all kinds of ancient royalty but did not have sources, I responded that I am a queen and claimed an unimpeachable source, which is the label in my pantyhose.

---

Erin, when I first began on-line genealogy--ignorantly--I was impressed by how far back some people had traced our lines.  But as time went on, what I began to value much more is the closer ancestors.  I can actually see how my life has been shaped by my grandparents and even great grandparents.  And I know that my non-genealogist relatives, who are a main reason I joined WT (so they could see my research for free) really only care about the ancestors close enough that we can understand something about them.

What use is a name from 400 years ago?  I want to know how my ancestors lived.  Of course, I can read about how people lived all through history, but there is nothing personal about that.  But I absolutely love that my grandmother once wrote to me that in her childhood, "I can remember when a little hand pump by the sink was a great convenience."

---

Julie, your comment about "ancestors close enough that we can understand something about them" reminded me of a recent G2G post about family circles - the idea of starting with one person and adding those one degree out from them, and a circle of those one degree from them, and so on. Family circle integration would even help people grow a greater understanding of far off names, but would enrich stories like your grandmother's by placing them in context with similar experiences.

---

Gaile, as they say, the clothes make the (wo)man 

---

Erin, you may be referring to the 100 Circles project.  It is interesting to see how our connections extend laterally in space, as well as backwards in time.

---

"Where a single, collaborative tree should shine is in helping people see wider connections and understand that their personal history is more than a line of descendancy. It's about the movement of people, who they live near, immigration patterns, the way one relative's circumstances change another's, how communities grow and shape families."

This is an excellent statement, Erin. I have only just recently come to realize just how important this is and have adjusted my readings/study accordingly.

---

Julie, your grandmother's letter is exactly the thing that roots me in the culture wherein I flourished. My example would be this document transcription I made of my Aunt Doris' remembrances of growing up in Paw Creek, including her mentioning of relatives and happenings my mother didn't even share with me.

---

Gaile, love that image, a queen because of a label on pantyhose 

---

Erin, that is exactly the conclusion I have come to. The earliest ancestors I am absolutely certain about were born in the late 1700s. They were very ordinary farmers, fisherfolk and the occasional tin or coal miner. Many of their descendants emigrated. Finding information about their 19th century descendants is much more rewarding than just a name. I find that working in small, unpopulated places, I can make connections that shine new light on family events 170 years ago and break down brick walls that have persisted for a long time. Those things can’t be done by just going backwards.

Answer 19

At the risk of stepping on a few toes, I am going to point out a few things. This topic has been discussed to the inth degree on G2G and on a positive note some great changes have been put into place.
1. Profiles cannot be saved without dates (new or updated profiles)
2. Gedcom dumps have been slowed down to a crawl
3. Thanks to some resourceful members, we have some of the BEST APPS in the world to assist everyone at every level. 

What is missing? We get very little input from The Team Members and Chris W when this topic comes up. 

To accomplish Accuracy, the instructions/directions need to be as strict as one wants the Accuracy to be. 

Back to the point of this discussion. Solutions??? If there are any, they must come from Management and The Team Members. 

1. Pre-1700 certification - has been determined by the vast majority of WikiTreer's to be "Useless", this is not an opinion, it is a fact.
2. Quality vs. Quantity - the vast majority of WikiTreer's have come to the conclusion, Quantity seems to be More Important, which saddens me. The Keys to that Gate are solely in Managements hands. The very word Quality means - there must be stricter standards for work to be included on WikiTree. 
3. Teasing "Free: One World Tree" to attract more members is not working well because we are getting individuals who are looking for instant satisfaction and True Genealogy is not instant (those people need to go to FS where there are NO Standards or pay to play at Ancestry where there are even Less standards). 

WikiTree needs to be straight forward with potential members! WikiTree is a free site for genealogists who exhibit the Strength to adhere to Strict Quality Standards (nothing less will do).

IMHO, the vast majority of committed Wikitreer's have made the above 3 points abundantly clear. The question is, Is Wikitree going to continue on the current path or is WikiTree going to update their standards for the purpose of Quality? 

If updated for Quality, the quantity of good genealogists will follow. WikiTree could have a WikiTreer in Training Program, for individuals who are sincerely interested in doing genealogy but aren't sure how to...

Thank you for reading this post.

edited to underline a few word and remove one word.

Comments

The Team has given plenty of feedback, but the people who keep bringing this up won't listen to what we say because it's not what they want to hear.

WikiTree is for everybody who wants to collaborate on a shared tree, regardless of skill level.

---

Yes, I agree WikiTree is for Everybody who wants to collaborate on a shared tree and yes I agree regardless of skill level.  

I sincerely don't see your statement as solution to the concerns the people who keep bringing up the subject. 

There have been some recent positive changes to WikiTree, these changes have eliminated problems brought up in previous posts maybe we could come up with more like these:

1. New restrictions to help prevent gedcom dumps. It didn't involve advanced skill level (except for Aleš' wonderful programming skills) and didn't stop anyone who wants to collaborate. I see this change as a huge improvement. 
2. Pop-ups for Gender, this is a gentle reminder not to add a profile without a gender. Again, that within itself was a great improvement.
3. Dates - I love this improvement. Not being able to save a profile without dates is an enormous improvement.

I don't believe it is a question of not listening on either side of the fence. Maybe it is a case of too many ideas proposed at once, or maybe it is a case of not thoroughly investigating each idea separately and making a decision based on the pros and cons of tweaking the wording and definitions. Example: Source and citation. Can we agree this seem to be a hot issue? What can be done just to improve the usage of these two words throughout the site.

I certainly don't have the answers. I am not as well versed as others on WikiTree. What I am, is willing to work with both sides of the above mentioned definition and usage and see if there is a compromise in there somewhere that does not hinder collaboration or involve skill level. Just clarification of two words and how and where to use them in context. I believe Edison Williams made some excellent observations above on Source and Citation.

Here is a thought. Maybe something could be included in the daily emails we get, like a teaching or learning segment that discusses one point per week. Call it 52 Weeks of becoming a Better WikiTreer. Maybe do a week of, Suggestion Lists...where to find your own suggestion list and how important it is to the overall health of the tree and why it is so important correct it...who or how to ask for help...etc. I am just throwing out some ideas that may help.

Let me close by thanking you for the tremendous amount of work you do to make our tree healthier and more accurate.

Spell check would be very helpful for my lack of typing skills.    

---

Jamie, I for one appreciate all your articulate responses on this thread.  And for the most part I agree.  I was particularly impressed when you said "In the 3 years I've been on the team, not once has there been a discussion about how to increase the number of profiles. But there have been tons of discussions about how to encourage people to add good content to profiles. Policies and software changes have only been made to make it harder to add profiles, not easier.  Getting more profiles with little to no content only hurts WikiTree business-wise. It increases storage costs, dings us in Google search results, and gives WikiTree a bad name. So I don't know why people think that's something we want?" 

Yet so many people have commented that junk profiles are being added every day--and I have seen that myself--that I do think there is an unanswered question here.

Edited to correct punctuation.

---

P.S.  I just now saw Loretta's post.  I think it is a terrific idea to add a little educational feature to the daily e-mails we get.

Answer 20

There seem to be some people editing pre-1700 profiles who just don't seem to understand the sourcing requirements.

I don't think this page https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources provides enough information about what a good source should include, and it has nothing about reliability of sources. IMO it should also include a link to the Research Before Editing page, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Research_Before_Editing  and to the Pre-1700 Profiles page, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Pre-1700_Profiles. When help pages are disconnected, people can't be expected to find all the information they need. Links to citation examples, for those projects that have them, would also be useful here.

The requirements for pre-1700 are too easy. Someone could do very little for 6 days, then easily complete the 50 contributions on day 7, before anyone has an opportunity to see whether they understand the requirements for sourcing.

WT also allows people to make many thousands of contributions to post-1700 profiles without adding useful sources. Is it any surprise that when they get to pre-1700 profiles, they don't understand reliable sourcing?

Comments

You have an extraneous comma at the end of the link for the Research Before Editing help page, Leandra.

edit: You're welcome!

---

Thank you, Lindy. I've fixed it now.

---

Leandra, I couldn't agree more.