Why is reference to contributors being erased?

Question

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/11997/should-references-imported-gedcoms-sources-history-changes
 

Reference to wikitree contributors is being erased from all front page bio sections.

This is being promoted. Going on now. And has the approval of Wikitree.

Comments

I'd like to think this is still an open issue, and still being discussed at the appropriate question you linked to.

---

Its only now being discuss because I stumbled upon the question. Its been going on for  a while.

---

Thank you for the comment on the discussion page. I had no problem to reference  to the gedcom being removed, however the name with link to the contributor should remain. Question was rewritten to make it an issue of the Gedcom. This was not an item to be brought to the general public.

---

Michael, FYI, I've stopped removing said links; I'm grouping them together under Sources under a subheader called "Contributed GEDCOMs" or something like that. That's as comfortable as I feel calling them. Includes a link to the uploader.

---

Jillaine, my position is to have an Acknowledgements section with whatever thank-yous and credit anyone cares to give. Nothing wrong with that. See http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/12261/should-something-like-acknowledgements-section-profiles

I do object to having a "Contributed GEDCOMs" section, or whatever it's called, because duplicates are a disservice to WikiTree.

Answer 1

Because this is a wiki. If you look at a page on Wikipedia, you will not see a list of people who contributed to the page. That's because that information is available by looking at the page history. Here, it's on the Changes page of every profile.

Comments

Just my opinion, its wrong. Wikitree is not an encyclopedia. No reason not to list contributors on front page. Although it makes it easier for some one else to come along later and add their name as the only contributor.

---

I like to see the contributers listed.  It's a matter of giving credit where credit is due, especially if a lot of profiles have been merged together. Also, If someone is wondering where their profile went, but can't remember, or didn't note the profile ID, the name of the contributers is helpful.

---

agree, agree, agree

---

Lianne, I'm with you (especially given the lack of data provided in 95% of the merged duplicate pages), but to me, this battle is not worth fighting if it results in losing the otherwise great contributions of folks like Michael.

---

As I keep saying, why can't this be called an Acknowledgments section? Maybe I'm being pedantic but I hate the idea of specifically thanking people for the act of creating duplicates through mass GEDCOM uploads.

If you want to give extra acknowledgment, beyond what appears in the Sources section and the Changes page, I think an Acknowledgments section would be a nice way to do it. Do you disagree, Lianne? Becky? Jillaine?

---

Well, maybe the point is moot: Michael L has decided to focus just on his direct lines, so I've already lost him from the PGM group-- except where the people are direct line ancestors of his.

I'll remove references to "Contributed GEDCOMs" and move the links to the people who uploaded those GEDCOMs to an acknowledgement section. If I can just find those pages...

---

I agree that an Acknowledgments section, that specifically includes people who made real contributions, is better than just listing the GEDCOM uploaders. Though I think the same argument might continue over who to include in such a section. I think someone who merges all the duplicates of a person, cleans up the profile, hunts down and adds sources, etc., is way more important to credit than someone who uploaded a GEDCOM with no sources in it, with erroneous parents (connecting to French nobility, of course), no bio, etc. So as long as it focuses on crediting people who really contributed to the tree, I'm happy.

---

Thank you for your answer, Lianne.

The acknowledgement section sounds like a good idea. There is such a variety of quality in the profiles out there. Sometimes it is hard to come up with much bio beyond dates of birth, death, marriage, list of children, parents and spouse(s).

I'd hope people would know to check their work against reasonable human behavior.  Ordinary English speaking people seldom marry nobility.  Women usually have children between the ages of 18 and 42. etc.

What matters to me is the thank you feed and the thank you notes that come by private messages.