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.