Does being a Profile Manager or on the Trusted List give you greater rights to control it?

Question

This is a question that comes up periodically and I want to make sure we have a good answer that the community agrees on and understands.

Particularly with Open profiles -- since any signer of the Honor Code can edit them -- do the managers or Trusted List members have a greater right or say over the profile than those who are not on the Trusted List?

I will write my draft of an answer below.

Answer 1

Theoretically, no. Practically speaking, yes.

 

As we say, privacy controls are for privacy, not control.

 

For modern people, the Trusted List may be limited to family members, for privacy reasons. The family has de facto control.

 

For deep ancestors, for Open profiles, the Profile Manager is really just the leader of it. They're supposed to lead the collaboration. Some members will want to be on the Trusted List so they hear about updates and can more easily make major edits such as merges, but any member in good standing who has signed the Honor Code can edit Open profiles.

 

See http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Ownership_and_control for more on this.

 

Not only can any Wiki Genealogist edit an Open profile, we encourage them to. If anybody can make an improvement we want them to do it.

 

That said, I do think that the manager of a profile and those who have worked on it deserve some deference. If they've put hard work into a profile they've earned it. You should be respectful.

 

Being respectful promotes healthy, friendly, and fun collaboration. This gets to the "practical courtesy" discussed on Communication Before Editing.

 

If there's an Open profile and you're not on the Trusted List, it's not that you must communicate with the manager before making significant changes, but you should. If they disagree with you about those changes, you should keep talking, possibly bringing the discussion here to G2G.

 

If you can't work out your problem, see http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Problems_with_Members

 

Comments

I was working with another pm on a merge, giving her a chance to approve and gain the experience as she was intimidated by the process.  Five days after initiating the merge proposal and long before going into default, another member, not a pm and not even on the trusted list of either profile, someone unconnected to the line and only a member for a month was somehow able to complete the merge.  I asked for help here in explaining how this member had the ability to do this, which is contrary to my understanding of the process.  I received a lot of non answers as well as a critique of my attitude and contributions to the point that I felt I can no longer trust the site if it is not clear who has to follow protocol and who gets a pass.  Other than being told the Leaders were looking into it, I never received an explanation.

---

Someone not on either trusted list was able to complete a merge before it was approved or defaulted?  That's a very good question -- as I understand the process, that shouldn't happen.

---

In Lauren's specific case (if I'm recalling correctly), the pending merge went to the auto-approve list where it was completed by someone who was helping clear the pending merge list. What's not clear is why it went to the auto-approve list prior to 30 days. Possible theories:

1. Someone had previously proposed the merge, unbeknownst to Lauren, and it naturally went to auto-approve at 30 days.

2. Some unique technology glitch occurred, placing it on the 30-day auto-approve list prior to 30 days passing; as far as I know this has not happened again. We should be keeping an eye out for such glitches; if it does happen again, Tech needs to look into and fix it.

---

No and no.  It was not previously proposed and I checked it every day to see if the other pm had approved.

---

Then it must have been some strange technology glitch, Lauren. I can't think of any other answer. I just know that the person who completed the match said that they found it on the list of pending merges that were ready to be completed.

---

Chris I think what you have said is well put. And appropriate. And considerate. I also understand Ellen's comment. I put someone on my trusted list one week after I came on Wikitree. She created new profiles merged mine into them. I don't see how this kind of thing can be stopped. I tried to work with her on common ancestors since I had myself added to profiles that already existed and need sources and changes. She is undoubtedly a better genealogist than I but she refused to work on common ancestors. So if I try to find a Roach relative , I have none. Because I'm not connected. All Roaches I am related to ,oddly enough are related through a Hunnicutt woman married to a Roach. But my point is there are issues that just have to be put up with. I think your point about consideration is wonderful.  As a new person and a person serious about wanting to be correct it. It can be intimidating to get an uppity e-mail. About how not every one is related to royalty . Just because you ask to be on a trusted list. Or why do you think you are related to my relative. I get frustrated because wikitree is inaccurate as far a s my relatives are concerned there are duplicates that could be cleared up with co operation and collaboration. I am aware of incinerate profiles of my Roaches in the 1600 and 1700 s but am reluctant to approach a couple pm 's who might have more and better sources but threw out the " Well I've been a genealogists for blah blah years" and who are you to question anything or put out new ideas. I think bringing issues to G2G is a great way to get long standing issues with profiles resolved.. I have one profile that has been over a year and half that's been held up by a manager who is a leader and her limited research doesn't support a chance but another good researcher has provided sources. But to bring forward these issues sounds like whine and tattleing. Well anyway I'm with you. Trudy

---

Trudy,

You shouldn't be having the trouble you're having.

If you've reached the limits of what you feel comfortable doing one-on-one with this profile manager, you might want to go this route:

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Problems_with_Members

Answer 2

Good initiative, and a good start toward drafting a new statement on this. I was going to add a "comment" on Chris' draft writeup, but since the discussion had veered off in a different direction, I think an "answer" is better.

I have wondered about the wisdom of using the terms "Profile Manager" and "Trusted List" in relation to Open profiles for people from long ago. This is not just a semantic concern: I have observed that there are Profile Managers who refuse to add other users to the Trusted Lists for Open profiles because they believe that being a Profile Manager gives them exclusive control -- and because they don't trust other contributors.

Essentially all of my work that has involved interaction/collaboration with other contributors has been on profiles for people born >200 years ago. Often these profiles have a large number of Profile Managers, typically because a large number of contributors uploaded gedcoms that included the person, and they maintain their status as PMs after the various duplicates are merged. When a profile that was first created 5 years ago is completely unsourced and has 7 named managers, none of whom has edited it (other than possibly to complete a merge) since their original gedcom upload (this may sound like an extreme example, but it actually descrives far too many profiles), it seems overly generous to describe thost 7 people as its "managers" and it seems unrealistic to expect them to "lead the collaboration" to edit that profile. Perhaps "Profile Administrator" would be a more appropriate descriptor, indicating that the person has agreed to talke responsibility for administering certain interactions related to the profile, without Implying they are in charge of the profile.

In that same context of profiles of long-ago people, the notion of the "Trusted List" seems a bit quaint, because personal privacy should not be an issue. Ideally, however, there should be some threshold level of earned trust (similar to the pre-1700 test) before  a person is enabled to complete merges. Aside from the authority to make merges, I see the main purposes for being added to a "Trusted List" for an Open profile as (1) being able to watchlist the profile (and get notifications of anniversaries if you like those) and (2) to identify oneself as someone who is willing to be contacted about questions or comments related to the profile. For those purposes, and as applied to Open profiles, I think that the term "Collaborators List" would be more accurate (and hopefully would reduce the reluctance of some profile managers to add people to the List).

Comments

Good points, Ellen.

---

REALLY good points!

---

Thanks, Ellen. I agree that "Trusted List" doesn't fit for Open profiles. We just decided that it was simpler to keep it than switch things around.