Should we add something like an Acknowledgements section to profiles?

+4 votes

Should we consider adding "Acknowledgements" sections to some profiles, along with the Biography and Sources sections?

This would be an extra way to thank individual contributors.
Credit for specific contributions is tracked in detail in Activity Feeds. Every member has a contribution count and a Contributions list. Every profile has a Changes page. But these can get crowded and are very difficult to follow.
An Acknowlegdements section would be something more straight-forward. You could just list people who have contributed to the profile.
Ideally, it would list people who made beneficial and substantive contributions, and maybe you'd specify what they contributed. It would be like an Acknowledgements section of a book.
In practice, I think you'd end up including just about anyone who wanted to be included.
What do you think?
in Genealogy Help by Chris Whitten G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
That's a very good idea. It gives credit to people who care enough to improve the profiles and is a way of showing respect and gratitude for their contributions. That's something WikiTree is very good at already.

4 Answers

+1 vote

Example of proper sourcing and citation added for Edmund Rice

Dee Christophel D'Errico, "D'Errico Family History", Wikitree, Feb. 2010, Mar. 2010, Oct. 2012.

Until such time as this can be accomplished suggest leaving credit as it is (Gedcom reference).

Citing section may need modification.

Are we sure gedcom references to multi merges are saved and accessible? I did not see my old merge perhaps it is there, or perhaps I did not have one for this page.

by Living Lechner G2G6 Mach 6 (68.9k points)

Michael, are you eliminating the following because your names are mentioned in the Changes section?

This section scheduled for removal per on going practices

Ongoing current actions by others was to eliminate the section highlighted. I was arguing to keep this section(which is currently being deleted elsewere). Here I was attempting to provide a solution. Contributors to Wikitree must be cited on the front page for their contributions. See honor code section VII. I'm not sure why it is so hard to understand. Since my family's research contributed more than any one particular cited book reference, My credit should remain, on the front page with others.
Sad that it might be decided to keep this section, other pages are still having it removed because the word has not been passed to everyone. Only 25 people have seen this post. And I believe about 125 on the main question asked before. Where most of the comments of those that seen it were to go ahead and delete it.
Hmmm....I've been trying to give credit to anyone and everyone who added information to the profiles I've created.
Michael, you write: "Are we sure gedcom references to multi merges are saved and accessible?"

Yes, I'm sure. Bugs and "legacy" errors are always possible, but I'd bet that the problem you're seeing is what's described here:

Change histories get very hard to follow when A was merged into B was merged into C was merged into D, etc. You have to look at D's changes to find the link to C's changes, etc.

At some point maybe we can find a way to make these change histories clearer.

You write: "Contributors to Wikitree must be cited on the front page for their contributions."

No, this is not true.

It is not the intention of item VII in the Honor Code ("We give credit. Although most genealogy isn't copyrighted, researchers deserve credit for the work they've done.")

The intention of that bullet point is to discourage contributors from posting other people's research as if it's their own.

When you contribute your own research, you are credited as the contributor of what you write. This is all in the Changes history. You do not need to give yourself credit through an extra section on the profile page.
+1 vote
Chris, I'm appreciating the Acknowledgement section that is automatically added when one creates, manually, a profile page.

However, I notice that it acts like the "Based on first-hand-knowledge of..." notice. If one enters anything in either Biography or Sources, the Acknowledgement section does not show up.

Is there a way to have it show up no matter what? Seems like, in particular, someone should be acknowledged if they also add Bio and Source info! ;-)

(I still really really dislike the "based on first-hand knowledge" phrase. Drives me nuts because I can't possibly have first-hand knowledge of my 17th century ancestors.)


by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (923k points)
Hi Jillaine,

Thanks for pointing this out! It's now being fixed.

Remind me of the G2G question where we discussed the first-hand knowledge thing. I thought we made some progress there.


Thanks for fixing the Acknowledgements feature.

Re: first-hand knowledge thing: Well dang... can't find it now. Tried searching for it with the g2g search box above... let me try another way... 

Google search found it ( "first-hand knowledge"):

Um, we didn't really make progress. You explained your reasoning and asked for additional feedback but didn't get any. I felt I'd already shared my feedback. But I'll add some more... (Let's take it back to that topic)

The Acknowledgements section now properly appears when you include biographical notes and sources.

For future reference: We also made changes to the "first-hand knowledge" wording the other day.
0 votes
A separate place for Acknowledgements would make cleaning up much easier.
by Sheri Sturm G2G6 (8.8k points)
+1 vote

I'm coming to this very late, but I've just recently started handling this differently on the profiles I work with.  I've actually seen at least one Wikitreer citing his own personal GEDCOM as the "Source" for specific information on a profile.  That is, of course, silly. But I do think all the contributors should be credited on the profile, even the ones who didn't contribute much - or much that was accurate!  :-)

Here's what I'm now doing:  I create a sub-section under the Sources section that looks like this:

Contributors and Merge Chronology

  • WikiTree profile Chaney-9 created through the import of mcdougle 2010-06-30.ged on 01 July 2010 by David McDougle. See the Changes page for the details of edits by David and others.
  • WikiTree profile Cheyney-?? created through the import of LaBach Family TreeApril28_2011.ged on 05 May 2011 by Bill LaBach. See the Changes page for the details of edits by Bill and others.
  • WikiTree profile Cheney-344 created through the import of Foster-Volkenant.ged on May 31, 2011 by Terry Foster. See the Changes page for the details of edits by Terry and others.
  • WikiTree profile Cheyney-11 created through the import of Remus Wikitree.ged on Feb 12, 2012 by Fred Remus. See the Changes page for the details of edits by Fred and others.
  • WikiTree profile Cheney-1001 created through the import of Bowden-Riley Family.ged on Apr 16, 2012 by Sam Bowden. See the Changes page for the details of edits by Sam and others.
  • WikiTree profile Cheney-1144 created through the import of Duckett Family.ged on Apr 4, 2013 by Catherine Rivera. See the Changes page for the details of edits by Sam and others.
  • Chaney-9 & Cheyney-?? merged Feb 2012, Cheyney-11 added Mar 2012, Cheney-1001 added 30 Jul 2013. Cheney-344 added 16 Aug 2013. Cheney-1144 added 29 Aug 2013.
by Fred Remus G2G6 Mach 4 (44.0k points)
Fred, please share more about why you include the merge chronology. What is the value you see in doing so?
I suppose the chronology is not that important.  I list the oldest contributed profile first as a sort of nod to the person that first added this individual to Wikitree.  The oldest profile might not even be the best, that might be the third, or the tenth.  It's just an attempt to document how the current profile evolved.  I don't feel it's necessarily indispensible, but I like giving the contributors credit and think most of them also appreciate being acknowledged.

Related questions

+10 votes
0 answers
+9 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
2 answers
239 views asked Jun 1, 2019 in Policy and Style by Andrew Turvey G2G6 Mach 4 (44.3k points)
+5 votes
2 answers
198 views asked Apr 28, 2019 in Policy and Style by Patricia Kent G2G6 Mach 1 (15.0k points)
+10 votes
1 answer
+10 votes
2 answers
+15 votes
3 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright