Proposal: Add a New Member Statement to the WikiTree signup process [closed]

Question

Recently, another troubling post appeared on G2G in which a member expressed disappointment at not being able to remove profiles she'd posted to WikiTree.  I've informally suggested adding a second statement (not changing the Honor Code) to the signup process, and now I'd like to make that a formal proposal.  It could be a brief checklist, or even a simple acknowledgment of having read a statement of WT's purpose and values.  I have one to offer, that I drafted with some help from some friends:

 

As a WikiTree member, I understand and accept its basic structure and philosophy:

• WikiTree is one shared global family tree. Each person can be represented only once, on a page known as a "profile."  Many of my ancestors may already be on WikiTree, and I can add information to that profile, but not create a new one (duplicate).

• WikiTree expects collaboration. Ancestors on WikiTree may be of interest to hundreds of others.  In most cases, any member can edit the profiles a member creates.

• Once I add profiles to WikiTree, I will not be free to remove them.  That would be unfair to the other members of our shared tree.

• I will cite sources on all profiles, with at least one good source at profile creation.  The best sources are records, not unsourced trees on other websites.  I recognize that this is somewhat harder than on some other genealogy websites.

•  I understand that other WikiTree members may contact me from time to time regarding profiles, and I agree to respond.

 Edited to add tag; that changed the font size so I edited to normalize it, which removed the bold words; I've added them back.  Please excuse any disruption this has caused.

Comments

Julie, the tag "proposal" needs to be added to make this official according to the Developing New Rules guidelines.

---

Thank you Debi!  I'll do it right now.

Edited to fix misspelling.

---

There have been no new posts to this proposal for some time.  I would like to have a final decision from Admin.  

Thank you.

---

I think this could be something that is part of the initial "greeters" message to a person who signs up.....before they sign the honor code....let's make sure they understand before the move forward.

---

I see this has already been closed but if there is any remaining ambiguity: we won't be adopting this proposal. Thanks, everyone.

Answer 1

Please vote this answer up if you agree with the proposal.

Comments

I think this is a good idea.  It could be an addendum to the Honor Code ("In practical terms, this means...").  The difference, I think, is that this is more explicit than the Honor Code. Some important points are not written explicitly on the Honor Code page but are on a linked page.  #1 of the Honor Code has a link to a page that explains about 'One Profile for Every Individual' and communication, which is great, but I imagine many new members do not click that link.

Also, some people (including the recent case that Julie mentioned above) do not realise that they cannot later remove the profiles that they create.  This needs to be stated more explicitly somewhere.  Some disgruntled former members have written reviews elsewhere claiming that their work was stolen, which seems to be due to their misunderstanding of the system.

Furthermore, many people come to WikiTree and complain of how difficult everything is (there was another case only a few days ago). It may be good if new members know from the beginning that this is more difficult than sites such as Ancestry.  

The part about sources is also more explicit than the Honor Code, which has a link to the Help:Sources page.  This page is very good, but I imagine that many people do not click that link to read all about sourcing before agreeing to the Honor Code. This may be part of the reason why so many profiles are unsourced or have only a link to a profile on another site.

[Edited a typo.]

---

I agree, this can be put as an addendum to the Honour code, somewhere beneath it.  It elaborates on several key points that are not made very clear on the code page itself.  I have seen members getting into a huff because it was ''their tree'', and one member who refused to allow TL addition to a shared ancestor for some unknown reason.  It's good to elaborate on how we work so a new person can understand it from the start.

---

Thank you, Ian and Danielle.  The only problem I can see with making it an addendum to the Honor Code would be that it wouldn't be fair to add something to the HC and expect it to apply retroactively to all those who had already signed it.  I think that could be addressed by adding a date to the heading on the HC addendum.

(I definitely think that if the addendum option were chosen, the addendum should appear on the page itself and not just as a link.)

---

You have my thumbs-up vote Julie. I'm glad you have considered that point about the honor code. I recall the topic coming up earlier (probably in a G2G discussion), where it was argued that the honor code cannot be changed or amended in any way because that would make it necessary to have all the current members re-sign the new version, or else we would be going forward with two different classes of membership.

In order to avoid any perception of expanding or explaining the honor code, and perhaps to address Chris' objection, might it be possible to offer this up in some manner that doesn't smack of new rules, or of official site stipulations that thou shalt obey as a member here. Perhaps this could be couched in terms saying that these are the expectations of your peers when you participate here. When you contribute to a single tree where we all share ancestors, you are part of a team, and we are looking for good teammates and good citizens. It would be necessary to have the statement in a prominent place where prospective members are likely to read it, but it may not be necessary to infer that there will be official site policing functions associated with it. Just a thought.

---

Thank you, Dennis.

I personally don't care whether the statement is free-standing, or an addendum to the HC.  I think if leadership wanted to do it (which so far it appears they don't), they could select the particular format.

I took some care not to contradict any existing rules, but rather to explain them better.

Other than the reference to sources--and sourcing is a perennial subject of debate on G2G--these things are already a matter of policing.  People have had their accounts closed for destructively merging away profiles, or not responding to repeated contacts.  People are mentored for creating lines of duplicates, and of course those duplicates are merged away again, sometimes taking many hours of work.

What I hope this proposal would do, if implemented, is reduce conflict, improve the functioning and quality of WikiTree, and give new members a clearer idea of what they're getting into.

---

Yes, understand.  I'm not addressing intentional vandalism, and I don't think your proposal is likely to stop that either.  But I think we'd agree that at least one contributor to the general problem is that newcomers don't immediately grasp the subtle differences of a single tree approach.  They may hear the words, but the light bulb doesn't go on immediately that what you do, or don't do, in your activity here affects other members just like you.  You are not operating in isolation the way you may have become accustomed to on other sites.  On the sourcing topic, for example, when you come aboard you should understand that if you share an ancestor with me, I want you to get the data right, and be able to convince me that you got it right.  And I'm just another peon who happens to care about it, not a site policeman waiting to pounce on you with a rule book.

So what I'm suggesting is that I agree with your proposals, and with clarifying the rules, and reducing conflict, and improving quality, and getting new members up to speed, but I'm now pondering the thought that peer pressure might be a very effective way to accomplish these things.

---

Thanks, Dennis.

One minor point first (because you mentioned it first):  When I said "destructively merging away profiles" I didn't mean to suggest that that was intentional vandalism.  I think there are cases where people think they are doing the right thing, so I wouldn't call that intentional vandalism, but rather misguided.

As for peer pressure, don't we have that already?  I mean, any of us can PM any other WT member.  We can post comments and research notes on profiles.  The problem is that those things sometimes don't go over well, because the recipients don't understand that's part of how WT works.  So what I want is an official statement that people need to sign, one that alerts them to the fact that they may indeed experience peer pressure.

---

Thanks for proposing this Julie!  I support it wholeheartedly, especially the third point.  Too many new members fail to understand that WikiTree uses 'contribution' in the sense of something given away voluntarily and irrevocably.

---

it might be put as an explanation of how we work rather than as an addition to the honour code itself, but on the same page.  I totally agree it should not be on a separate page, I personally find having to go elsewhere for basic data annoying.  And not everybody would go there in any case.  Those little links are not obvious for a newbie.

---

There do seem to be quite a number of people who are unaware that profiles cannot be deleted. Emphasis up front might prevent some of bad publicity elsewhere.

---

Yes, Leandra.  If only one provision of my proposal survived, I would want it to be the one about not deleting information posted to WT.

Answer 2

Please vote this answer up if you disagree with the proposal.  Please explain your objection.

Comments

Hi Julie,

I appreciate the motivation for this, and the careful thought you've put into it. But this is so close to the Honor Code ... it almost seems like we'd just be requiring members to sign it twice.

Chris

---

Chris, while I agree mostly, the one thing that the Honor Code does not state clearly is that you can't delete profiles. I don't think we can go wrong making that more obvious.

---

Well, the reason I brought this up again now is the issue of removing profiles.  I don't see anything explicit in the HC about that.  

It seems to me that many new members haven't completely understood what was expected of them when signing up.  That is clear from complaints on G2G, and the way that many new members treat the sourcing requirement, for example.

(Jonathan and I were typing at the same time, but I took longer!)

---

Actually, the wording of Item V of the Honor Code is sufficiently vague that someone might think profiles can be deleted:  "We respect privacy.  We privacy-protect anything we think our family members might not want public. If that's not enough for someone, we delete their personal information."

---

Chris, I'm not disagreeing with you, we do have an honour code that all Wiki Genealogists are required to sign. However the honour code does not spell out what it means. In Julie's proposal she explains what these statements mean. 

For example: 1. We collaborate. When we share ancestors we work together on the same ancestor profiles. Alternate wording: This means other members are allowed and expected to add additional information, to either support or correct information in a biography to add accurate sources to existing profiles or to remove inaccurate sources if necessary. 

2. We cite sources. Without sources we can't objectively resolve conflicting information. Alternate wording per Julie:  I will cite sources on all profiles, with at least one good source at profile creation.  The best sources are records, not unsourced trees on other websites.

Several years ago I was the person in charge of creating a Code of Conduct for a volunteer organisation. After many hours and days of researching Codes of Conduct for similar organisations and templates for their creation, I found that almost all of them said in one form or another; Everyone will play nicely and be kind to everyone. 

There were no descriptions of what that meant, or the descriptions were so wrapped up in many layers of cotton wool that it was impossible to tell what they really meant. Several affiliated groups had problems with implementing their Codes of Conduct because of this lack of detail. 

I am not suggesting that the Honour Code be replaced, but new members need to understand the details of what they are agreeing to. So adding a checklist could help resolve some of the problems. 

The majority of posts I see complaining about WT are regarding some version of the following. 

1. It's my tree and my ancestors back off. 

2. I know about these people because my GGGP said so, yes I know I wasn't there, no they did not tell me in person as I wasn't born yet

3. About duplicates, the other profile manager cannot know anything about my ancestors. They're wrong and I'm right so I will create a profile that is right for me. 

If people really understood what the Honour Code means; it would or hopefully should eliminate many of the misunderstandings about how the WT community works.

And at the risk of sounding silly, a long time ago I had a similar conversation with the National Training Manager for the very big multinational company I worked for; the area managers were having trouble with some of their responsibilities and carrying tasks out. I was asked to sit in on a training meeting, after which I knew what the problem was, lack of detail. If this person had been in charge of the directions for making a cake: She would have said: Take some eggs, some flour, some butter and cook until done. 

---

I believe having "plain language" incorporated into the current Honor Code will prove to be very effective. The current language is rather subjective and interpretation can be confusing and different by different people.

---

Chris,

It would not have to be a seperate explanation requiring 2 signatures, but the inclusion of "plain language text" in each bullet point of the current Honor Code.  I believe this will make the Honor Code easier to understand for some people and will be a Win Win solution to many issues which have come up in the past and will probably come up again in the future. What are your thoughts on this as a possible solution?

Answer 3

I like the proposal (and have up-voted as suggested). The Honor Code clearly is not enough.

The one reservation I have is the implication that "records" are the only acceptble source. In many cases, especially with 19th Century and earlier data, no records were kept, and even if they were, they may no longer be extant or readily acceptable. There are secondary sources that in the absence of records should be considered acceptable—not just any old secondary source, but one that is known to be reliable. So I'd soften the sources statement somewhat.

Comments

I was careful to say "the best sources," not "the only sources."

---

Yes, but the context implies there are only two possibilities, unsourced trees on other websites and "records." I think just a statement that unsourced trees on other websites are not acceptable would be enough. (Which of course, doesn't address non-sources like unsourced family trees, "family records," and the other technically acceptable sources that many new members seem to think are just fine for post-1700 profiles.)

---

That's the problem, Stu.  Saying unsourced trees on other websites are not acceptable would conflict with current policy.  I was looking for a way to simply make sure more people understand what current policy is when they sign up.

---

Stu, we need to remember that there are several countries that I know of that have records that are mostly intact and available for the 19th century and before.

Yes I also know that there are many countries that have no records either because they never existed in the first place and/or because the records have disappeared for a variety of reasons.

What type of secondary sources are you thinking of?

---

Books, including family and local histories. They vary widely in quality, and each needs to be evaluated to deternine how much credence to give its assertions. 

For example, I've been working through a genealogy of the descendants of the early 18th century immigrant Peter Vilas, published in 1875. It was created by its author corresponding with family members and then compiling the results. It includes some relationships and dates that can be verified in primary sources, and I have yet to find even one where the author got it wrong. And there are also many that cannot be otherwise verified—for example, births and marriages for New York State were not recotded in many municipalities until the 1880s, and several branches of Peter Vilas' family lived there. So for those, I am perfectly comfortable using this volume as a source. 

On the other hand, another volume published in 1916 on a collateral family is full of errors and omissions. So I give that book a lot less credence when I'm working on the family.

Answer 4

I have voted up and agree with both M Ross and Stu Bloom. There is a sore lack of explicit information in the Honor Code and rather than an addendum, perhaps the Honor Code should be revised and updated.

Universities and other organizations update their Mission, Vision and Values, so too should WikiTree with our Honor Code. Our membership has grown greatly in just the few years I have been on the Tree, particularly new members from other countries.

I think it essential that we revisit the Honor Code and provide clear and explicit information as to not creating 'new' profiles for already existing profiles, providing clear instructions as to the need for and types of sources (I am very tired of seeing 'personal information' on profiles from the 17th and 16th centuries and have already suggested that WikiTree is not Outlander), and also underscoring the ideas of respect, responsibility and collaboration.

Answer 5

This is good, but maybe needs an additional statement about collaboration to the effect that: As profiles are shared by ancestors in common, it is not uncommon that others will edit profiles that I make...

Comments

I think that is essentially stated here.

• WikiTree expects collaboration. Ancestors on WikiTree may be of interest to hundreds of others.  In most cases, any member can edit the profiles a member creates.

This doesn't mention 'common ancestors', but descendants are not the only ones interested in improving profiles, so I think just the fact that any member can edit profiles that a member creates (in most cases) seems sufficient.

Answer 6

On the "I will cite sources" paragraph, I would add that "family records" or "I was told by John" or "my grandmother" do not count as sources...we need records.

Comments

I disagree with this. Some of what I have added to profiles includes stories told to me by my mother about her direct memories of growing up in Cincinnati.

---

I also disagree.  For more recent people, such as my parents, sometimes all we have — due to the privacy cutoff for public access to records — is the "family records, journal entries, letters, photographs" type of sourcing.  My mother's birth, for example, won't be public for another couple of years.  I had to wait a year and a half after creating his profile for my father's birth record to be public.  Should I have not created his profile?  Should I not have created one for my Mum until 2024?  I would be unconnected without them.

---

I should have been more clear. Of course, with personal acquaintance, this is possible and even desirable. But it is badly abused....no one has person experience with an ancestor born in 1800. Often this is used as an excuse to avoid research. Or every profile in a GEDcom says the same thing.