What is a WikiTree Weevil?

Question

While the WikiTree Events Committee was developing our new and very popular Connection Combat game, friendly Forest Elf Eowyn coined a term: WikiTree Weevil.

What is a WikiTree Weevil? It's an insidious twig eater that weakens the branches of our tree. Like the real-world bugs that destroy crops, each individual weevil is a minor annoyance, but too many of them can threaten everything we're growing.

One of the worst weevils, of course, is no sources on a profile. How can we collaborate if we don't communicate about where our information is coming from?

No dates and no locations for birth, death, or marriage are weevils. This makes it very difficult to identify matches so that we can work together on the same ancestor profiles.

GEDCOM-created junk is another weevil. This detritus from automated profile creation makes it clear that a profile hasn't been given any real attention from a human being. If a human being didn't create it, and nobody else has shown it any love, why would a cousin want to collaborate on it?

If you feel inspired to squash some weevils, Connection Combat is as good an excuse as any. This week it's centered on Billy the Kid.

Onward and upward, for our shared family tree,

Chris

P.S. Isn't the graphic cute? Eowyn says she crafted it with the help of an AI app. The only flaw I see: these weevils look too cute to squash.

Answer 1

Between GEDCOM junk and no sources, I would say that GEDCOM junk is the lesser of two weevils. 

Comments

Clever 

---

I was wondering who would come out with that quote! :-)

(Master and Commander)

---

Yes, but the GEDCOM Junk makes you SEE NO WEEVIL! I've been continuing to clean up GEDCOM-generated data from the challenge earlier this month so after running AGC and Auto Bio, the profiles are now marked as unsourced so that the WikiTree Sourcerers can find them easily!

---

Beat me to it!

---

I just happened to read Chris' post less than an hour after he posted it. And I never could resist a good pun. (Or a bad one, to be honest.)

---

But a worst weevil is the unknown weevil, the profile with no sources that is not marked unsourced, has dates and locations, and doesn't have GEDCOM junk. The Bio Check app is your weevil finder.

---

Awesome. Love the pun.

---

 I like the lesser of two weevles. Reminds me of that scene in Master and Commander the Far Side of the World!

---

Take my upvote. ;-)

Answer 2

Like pieces of a puzzle, a complete picture on the box top is helpful to piece the puzzle together. But it is not a necessary condition, if one has all the pieces of the puzzle. One can put the puzzle together by placing the puzzle pieces (picture pieces) face up and recognizing matching patterns that one-by-one becomes a recognizable completed puzzle. The picture pieces are analogous to sources.

The more challenging approach is putting the puzzle together with the pieces face down.  And it takes more time.

The WikiTree community is collective of people, each with amount of puzzle pieces to many different interrelated puzzles, without the pictures on the various puzzle boxes or the bigger WikiTree picture which is a work-in-progress.  And many of these pieces are missing entirely, many pieces with sections of the picture (sources) and some missing the picture (without sources).

At a minimum, you have to have the puzzle pieces.

Since, progress can be defined as the discovery and correction of error. Without the pieces, there is NO discovery.  With or without sources, it is all part of the process.

Recognizing patterns is something I've been blessed with.  I love sources and I've found many of them by putting the puzzle together upside down.

The law of large numbers is a blessing on Ancestry, like it or not, as one can see patterns in the morass of data. If successful, information develops which leads to a higher probability of locating relevant sources. I use Ancestry as my testing ground for assembling puzzle pieces, that may lead to connections, that may lead to sources that either prove or disprove my assemblage. Once sufficiently proven, I search WikiTree for connection for matching pieces.

DNA matching is the only way to certify biological parentage and other family relationships within the limits of current technology. Period.

All other sources are simply documented vital statistics, which may have their own problems and may or may not accurately present the facts.  How many spelling variations of one person's name or surname can there be?  

The variations of my surname Holcombe will certainly give that contest a run for the money.

Comments

As the problem is overwhelming with gobbly goo GED files, files that say 'Personal knowledge' for 1700 period profiles and no sources at all, (and I work on hundreds of these), I agree entirely with Eowyn, that it is weakening our tree and the integrity of our research. How can anyone take the research seriously if there is nothing to support that person's existence.

---

I'm not sure how this relates to my commentary.  

However, I'll take a stab at a responding with both statements and questions:

1. I'm not sure why importing GED files is allowed in the first place.  That in and of itself, probably invites the majority of junk seen.

2.  Personal knowledge for 1700 or older period profiles, without supporting references or sources is a stretch for sure. However, vital information notes written in family bibles from any period, could be considered as someone's "Personal Knowledge" even if the writer did not identify themselves. In other words, this is a reference at best, but does not represent a verifiable source as there may not be sufficient context supplied. A single missing piece of an unknown puzzle, if you will. Would you consider data in such a situation as "junk' or potentially valuable? After all, the difference between data and information is context. Two pieces of data equate to information. Would you consider simply a first and last name to be "junk"?

3. From my perspective, the answer is yes, it's junk. a minimum of 3 related data points is a necessary distinction between junk and potenially useful information. It qualifies as a puzzle piece, and may represent the only missing piece of someone elses puzzle that has the missing context in terms of more information, references and/or sources.

4. What would you consider as the minimum necessary conditions or standards for creating a profile?

5. From my perspective, that can be controlled by requiring a minimum profile data set of first and last names, and at least one vital event, birth or death, contexted with date and/or related location. That would cover most family bible entries.  What do you think?

---

Denise, in the early years of WikiTree, there were "standard sentences" that were put automatically in the biography box to have at least a bit of text. These were "No biography available yet. Can you give a bit of information?" and when no source was added to a profile "First hand information given by ... ."

No human being put that sentence into the profile, it was created by the system.

---

If we stop at vital statistics, we're missing a large portion of the picture (and, consequently, a large part of our ancestors' lives). We're reassembling the puzzle; most of the pieces fall outside the strict confines of birth, marriage, and death, and I think that's where many genealogists falter and hit brick walls. It's not just about "looking up a record" but understanding who our ancestors were and how they fit into their families and communities.

Regardless, DNA isn't the only sure-fire way to prove connections. It's not even the best way; it's merely one tool in the genealogist's toolkit.

---

I agree with you with the exception of labeling the perspective "unnuanced". My subject was selectively narrow to begin with, on purpose. I can discourse from alternative perspectives as well.  However, that said, there are many paths to Nirvana in many cases, and perhaps only one in others. Family relationships are what it is all about, of course and DNA simply helps validate, biological connections within a properly developed family tree.  

Without Y-DNA matching, I would have never known that one of my older male lines was incorrect as understood by the rest of the family going back 4 generations, nor would I have been able to work with a distant cousin of mine to identify and dial in a male family line, to which they suspected they were biologically linked.  That was my point. Proper genealogical linkages and DNA corroboration are powerful when properly done together.  As to which is the chicken and which is the egg, I leave that to others.

---

I'm not sure that pieces upside down is the worst case. I remember a puzzle from years ago that was Jumbled 'Oreo' cookies. I've also helped put one together that was a jumble of peppers.

---

I agree.  However, if the graphics face is more confusing than the cardboard backside, then the cardboard backside will get one where they want to go more efficiently, and equally effectively.

---

What defines a family within a family tree?  There are many different and valid perspectives.  All relative, pun intended, including blood relationships and DNA relationships.

---

Thank you to Dawn Watson re "It's not just about "looking up a record" but understanding who our ancestors were and how they fit into their families and communities."  

Another angle I do my best to include is to include the ages at marriage for both men and women, which reveals so much, together with listing the children born to that marriage even if nothing else is known about them. The early deaths of women in the colonial period, and rapid remarriage of the husbands, followed by smaller family sizes in the Northern states after the Revolutionary War, also fascinates me. 

---

Thinking a bit more about the puzzle metaphor and the way WikiTree works. One way that usually works is to find the corner and edge pieces. They can them be connected together to form an outline. Then working inside the frame details of someone's life can be filled in as one person finds one thing and another finds something else.

The metaphor fails though as occasionally the parts inside the puzzle turn out to be bigger than the original framework and get expanded to fit the new information.

---

I understand your perspective on edges and outlines.  However, what if you do not have any of those pieces?  Conversely, what distinguishes edge pieces from interior pieces from a genealogy puzzle.  In addition, genealogy doesn't have any edges beyond dead ends, which may be real or only perceptual until another data point pops up.

---

In genealogy, we make our own puzzle pieces not by waiting for them to pop up, but by being good genealogists: asking good questions; understanding what records are available, why they were created, what information they hold, and how to use them; conducting thorough research (not just a search through indexes and/or published abstracts, but within the records themselves); learning advanced methodologies; and so on. 

The framework itself comes from low-hanging fruit (i.e. the puzzle's edges) such as vital records, burial records, and censuses where and when they're available, then expanding into tax records, probate records, deeds, court records, newspapers, military records, and so on. For those who don't know what records are available when and where, I always recommend finding good records guides, like Val D. Greenwood's The Researcher's Guide to American Genealogy or Christine Rose's Courthouse Research for Family Historians.

"Filling in the puzzle" means not just gathering a bunch of documents together, but also analyzing those records thoroughly and integrating them into a formal proof argument and/or narrative complete with accurate and well-thought-out source citations. It also means adhering to accepted genealogical standards and practices. Many of those are discussed in books such as Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills and Mastering Genealogical Proof by Thomas W. Jones. The Board for Certification of Genealogists has laid out an outline of genealogical ethics and standards here: https://bcgcertification.org/ethics-standards/

Answer 3

I vote for no dates and no locations as the Worst of the Weevils. If one has dates and locations, sources can often be found. Even an approximate date and location can be enough to begin.

But where does one start with just a name, but no dates, locations, or sources? A name alone seldom identifies any person. The only remaining clues might be relationships, but those commonly have no dates or sources either. Managers who have create unidentifiable profiles often create several generations of detail-deficient ancestors and cousins. Basically one must search through many generations of relatives hoping to find an "anchor relative," before adding dates and locations to connected profiles. Thus, the search for an "anchor" can take quite a bit of time and effort before sourcing can even begin.

Comments

And thus we have the Weevil Anchor.

---

I know there's an Unlocated Profiles category (it had 3,202 profiles in it when I checked just now, but that's just scratching the surface).

Aleš's reports include suggestions (131-134) for missing dates (Suggestion 131 alone gives me 1,999 hits).

---

I'm with you, Bill, for worst weevil, the no dates and locations issue.  I once found a weevil with no dates, no locations, no parents, no spouse, no children, no sources and no manager. I gasped at the evil weevil, then ran away.

---

Pat, did it have a name.  We have thousands of profiles with both 1st and last names as Unknown with nothing else

---

Pat, I wonder if that profile with no dates and no links was from a GEDCOM the disintegrated on impact. There were a bunch of those back in the early 2010s. I'm assuming that there was some kind of bug in the GEDCOM import tool back then. That bug has apparently been fixed for years, because by the time I joined WikiTree and started importing GEDCOM files, the problem of links between parents and children getting lost during the import process and ending up with lots of isolated profiles wasn't happening anymore.

Unfortunately, we still have tons of isolated profiles left over from that period. But I found that, once I realised that an isolated profile was imported as part of a GEDCOM, I could search for other profiles from that GEDCOM and start to put it back together, identifying, sourcing, and eventually connecting all those profiles. So I started the Lost and Found Project to let other WikiTreers know that those isolated profiles aren't quite so hopeless as they look. (At least, not the ones from GEDCOMs.)

So if you ever come acress a weevil like that again, just add the category for the GEDCOM it came from, so people who are taking part in that project will be alerted about another piece of the puzzel.

---

Gosh, Linda.  You found a profile for Unknown Unknown? I'm speechless.  At least my weevil had two recognizable names, however the passage of time prevents me from recalling said names. Pity, because I could follow up on Greg's answer to my comment.

---

Thank you, Greg.  I will make a note of what to do if I find one of these weevils again.  I could have done GEDCOM but instead put each person in one by one.  Not only do I find it easier to check sources but a much more enjoyable experience.

Answer 4

I would vote for a real Clean-a-Thon instead of Add-a-Thon or Connect-a-Thon.

Because if we could get rid of the Unconnected, Unsourced and Unlinked Profiles, we would really have an USP

Comments

How about if we change the rules for the Connect-A-Thon to specify that only those added profiles which:

• are connected by the end of the thon (or the next time the script runs after then end of the thon),
• have at least three primary sources,
• have birth and death dates and locations, and
• has marriage date and location if the person is known to have married

count towards a participant's score?

---

The problem with that is there are a lot of people who can currently only have one locatable source, I did some during the connectathon, they only have either a birth/baptism record, or one or two census records, some parents can only be documented from a child's (or several children's) baptisms in older parish records and their dates of birth can only be estimated. But they existed or there would not be children
 If a single sourced profile can be created outside a connectathon, it should also qualify during a connectathon, and sometimes there is only one source to glue parts of a family together.

 Hopefully in the future more sources will turn up.

---

Greg, an "Unsourced" profile counts as "sourced", when it has one (1) reliable source. So why do you want to be more pope-like than the Pope (German saying for being more demanding than it's needed) than the Sourcerer's challenge is? There are many unsourced profiles on the Tree where one can be happy if one source is found.

Yes, I would support a Connect-a-thon which would count the profiles that are added to connect unconnected branches which were in the system before the Thon began and are connected when the Thon ended and the database updated for the first time.

For the creation of new profiles at least one date is necessary. So all undated profiles (currently according to the Friday Date Night stats a bit more than 400k) are from the "old times". Also visible in the stats is the number of profiles that were already dated since the Friday Date Night started. We dated nearly 100k profiles. Some profiles got complete dates, some were rough estimates, but they have a date with which one can start to work. So the quality of the Tree improves every single day, because every day formerly undated profiles are dated.

There is a reason why the Team said that locations are not obligatory when you create profiles. It is much harder to find a birth or death location for a person than it is to find or estimate a date. Especially when you have dead infants you can give them a(n estimated) birth or death date, but to tell where they were born or died is more or less a lottery. So again, if you want an obligation to have a location you are demanding more than the system does. And as I did before the Team clarified that locations are not obligatory to create profiles, I would (and will if it's needed) again fight against an obligation to have locations at the creation of profiles.

---

If they would consider counting only if you add a profile to connect an unconnected profile, then it should also count if 2 existing profiles are connected, since that does not count.

Are you aware that Ales is considering new Suggestions for profiles with no birth or death locations? If new profiles are not required to have locations, those suggestions will continue to grow.

---

The problem simply is that some profiles only have locations from marriage or children's birth/baptism records, so while error suggestions are fine, these people will inevitably generate error suggestions until a record is found, if there is one to find.

---

This is old ground, but the main purpose of preventing a profile being created with the birth location empty would be so that people, particularly new members, wouldn't forget or neglect to enter a birth place which they are perfectly well aware of. The case of true ignorance can be covered by entering the name of a continent, or "Earth".

---

Remember that I am on the side of adding more profiles to WikiTree as quickly as possible, because the task is enormous, and even 36,990,642 profiles, as awesome an achievement as it is, still only represents about one profile for every 1,712 people born since 1 A.D. (Or, to put it another way, we are about 0.058% done, just in terms of adding profiles, never mind getting them up to any kind of a standard.¹) It took me forever to connect my family to the main tree, and I very nearly gave up before finally finding a connection. I don't want other people to be discouraged and drop out because it takes them so long to connect to our main tree because it's so small. (And, yes, compared to this month's estimate of 63,345,754,172 people born since 1 A.D., yes, a tree with 36,990,642 profiles does count as "small".) That's why I've suggested so many different kinds of thons and other challenges. As far as I'm concerned, anything that motivates people to create new profiles is a good thing.

All of that said, there are people who don't like thons or challenges of any kind, because their perception is that participants will do the minimum necessary on each profile to get a "point", because they care more about racking up points than about improving the tree. Now, I don't know what anybody besides me is thinking when they're working on a profile (actually, sometimes, I'm not even so sure about what I'm thinking...), but I assume that, for most people who are participating in the various thons and other challenges, that's not true.²

So what I was attempting to do was adress that criticism of thons by having the rules of thons be that any new profile created through a thon is going to start out being better than most of the profiles that are already on WikiTree. If that were the case, then the criticism that thons lower the average quality of profiles on WikiTree would, clearly, be invalid.

And also remember that I'm talking about the rules of thons, not of WikiTree as a whole. If we made the rules for adding any profile to WikiTree as strict as what I suggest for thons, then we'd make it pretty much impossible to add a profile in, say, British Columbia for anybody who was born after 1903, was married after 1947, or died after 2002.

Still, for what I consider the "golden age" of genealogy (from the time when things like census records have been kept until privacy protections kick in), there are hundreds of millions of people who could be documented to the levels I suggest. That doesn't mean that people who aren't as well documented should never be added to WikiTree, but for me, thons should concentrate on the low-hanging fruit.

Greg

1. And that, in itself, is a huge improvement from March of 2016, when the total profiles on WikiTree represented approximately 0.016% of the people born since 1 A.D. But I do long for the day when we actually break 1%.
2. In my case, when I'm working on surnames each month, I'll sort the profiles by the last edit date and look through the Open profiles to see whether they're sourced, add sources if I can, and add the {{Unsourced}} template if I can't. But because for most surnames I'm still back around 2010-2012, most of the profiles I check don't even have == Biography ==, == Sources ==, <references /> or even a bare-bones biography. So I end up doing a lot of fixing up on most profiles, even if I only find one source. And if I do find a source that names other family members (I particularly love census records for that), I look to see if I can find those other family members on WikiTree and link the profiles. Granted, I'm probably more on the obsessive end of the scale, but I do think the assumption that anybody doing a challenge is going to do the bare minimum and move on is unfair.

---

Clean-a-thon is a great idea.

---

Greg, you may add more than one source when you create profiles during a Thon, but I do not think that is normal for the people that are consistently at the top level of the Thon. There are teams that expect Quality over Quantity, but many others do not.  It is easy to check the profiles that were created during the Thon to see if they were created properly.  How many have only a Find a Grave citation in them?  How many have only one Census in them? Sourcer and WBE have made it much easier to add multiple sources to a profile when they are created or shortly afterwards, but many people do not know about the extensions and / or will not use extensions. 

If you think that people are conscientious about accuracy of profiles created during the Thon, then why have the Suggestions increased drastically from the week that the Thon was run until two weeks after the Thon when all the Suggestions are now available?  There are almost 21,000 suggestions for the 97,000 profiles created in Jan.  There are over 21,000 suggestions that have not been fixed for the 92,000 profiles created in July! 17,000 of those suggestions are on managed profiles!  This is why people do not like all the profiles being added during these Thons.

Biocheck is restricted in only selecting the 1st 30,000 that were created. Just a few of the problems seen, which is the proof that many people are not checking their profiles, nor are they creating them as expected during the thon:

1. Many profiles have an empty biography.  Many of these are because the Bio was added to the Sources section, instead of the Biography section.  Multiple suggestions are generated from that problem.
2. Many have no headers, just sources on a profile 
3. Several have 2 sets of Headers, probably caused from running Auto bio and not removing the old bio
4. Many are marked unsourced.  How does that happen when sources should have been added when a profile was created? 
5. Profiles with headers with 3 equal not 2 equal.

---

I know some people add profiles with only one source during the connect-a-thons, I had some added to my family at CC7 some years ago and adopted them and added more sources.
 It's also why for years I refused to take part in these thons.
 After the grind of tidying up the profiles during my first thon in April last year I decided that this was the wrong approach and went for adequately sourced (as best as possible) profiles. Some still only have one source, usually a birth/baptism and that's all that could be found before the thon.
Day 3's efforts are getting additional sources if posible before orphaning.
 OK not everyone does it that way, but it can be done.

 Are there figures available for the suggestion rate for blocks of 97,000 (or 100,000 profiles) created before or after the thons? It's the increase in the Suggestion rate that's relevant.
 I managed over 550 of those in the first two days

---

I know those thons are meant to create as much profiles as possible, because then we would be found sooner in al the search engines by relatives from those profiles or future WT users. But be realistic we will never win from all those big companies with such better technical platforms and money that’s behind it.

I would rather stick to our original purpose, make sure we will get the best possible sourced and proven World Wide Family tree there can be. That should be our unique selling point. Stand for what we believe in and that’s why I would rather vote for sourcing and cleaning up the current mess there is, than adding another pile of profiles. (I’m not in the states with the current pre-election going on, but I would almost make a yell from it.)

“Let us do what we do best at Wikitree and give us a Clean-aThon”

 (and this is meant as a funny remark, not being disrespectful or sarcastic or whatever)

---

Gary, the link for the DD report has the date in it, so you can easily change the date to see what a previous report had.  The DD report doesn't have total profiles, just total suggestions.  The NEW column shows how many new suggestions each week.  Looking back at several weeks, the most I saw that was new was a week that had 14 K suggestion added.  I only work on suggestions for one project and clear many of theirs each week, as many other so.  They probably can't tell how may suggestions were fixed before the 2nd week Suggestions were created. Not all of the new suggestions are from the Thon, but a substantial amount are, I suspect, based on the volume of suggestions generated.  It is really unfortunate how many were never corrected from last July that are on managed profiles.

Answer 5

Way too cute to be a weevil! Weevil Knievel?

Comments

Too cute indeed, they're the kids cute cartoon version, we need the horror movie edition.

---

Needs a Snake River Jump, Rocket cycle.

Answer 6

Suggested weevils so far (supplemented and listed alphabetically for now):

• anachronistic locations (like "United States of America" before 1776)
• bogus sources (like "personal knowledge of" somebody who wasn't even born at the time)
• broken links
• conflated profiles
• profiles from fraudulent genealogies¹
• GEDCOM junk
• incomplete/improperly formatted sources
• isolated profiles from exploded GEDCOM files
• no categories
• no dates
• no headers (== Biography ==, == Sources ==, and <references />)
• no images
• no locations
• no narrative biography
• no sources
• typos, misspellings (bearing in mind that there are significant spelling differences between U.S. English and real English), and grammatical errors
• unconnected
• "Unknown" (or other variations like "ULN") for the last name, first name, or both names
• unmerged duplicates

In my opinion, fixing any of these issues on any profile improves WikiTree, although I do agree wih Bill that undated and unlocated profiles are probably the hardest to identify and fix.

1. The thought just occurred to me that, possibly, instead of keeping fraudulent profiles visible, but marking them as fraudulent, we could keep them in the database, but not display them (or maybe only display them to people who have earned a "Fraud Hunter" badge or something like that), but if somebody tries to create a profile with the same name and date, the system pops up an error message telling them that the person they're trying to add is from a known fraudulent genealogy and point them to the help page on that topic.

Comments

Oh, yes. And we should probably not include fraudulent profiles in our counts of the total number of profiles on WikiTree.

---

I'm not keen on this idea sorry Greg. The number of such profiles is too small to make any significant dent in the totals. Also, hiding the profiles would make it very hard for us to tell whether a new proposed profile was a duplicate or not. Human eyes are needed to determine this: it would be quite hard to automate.

---

So which English is the real English, New Zealand English, Australian English or Indian English?

---

Gary, my point isn't to start an argument over which version of English is best. My point is that there is a difference between a spelling variation and a spelling mistake. I would not consider words like "honor" or "organization" spelling mistakes (or at least, not on profiles for Americans). But I've seen enough words that are misspelled by anybody's dictionary that I worry that, if certain people hit certain profiles on WikiTree, they would assume that we're all functionally illiterate.

---

I agree with you regarding a spelling variation vs. a spelling mistake. However, when it comes to name spellings, how does one determine the correct version according to whose perspective?  Speaking from personal experience, regarding personal and family names, illiteracy may not be applicable, but perhaps more likely due to personal preference or a phonic spelling thereof by record keepers. That said, I try to record all secondary spelling variations as "aka".

Answer 7

Bol Weevil , Odetta theme song?  

Answer 8

I fell down a rabbit hole and made some more weevil graphics. :-)  Feel free to use if you'd like.  Here's a couple of them:

The rest are here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree_Weevils

Comments

They should be chewing on the tree. And, as others have mentioned, a lot less cute. Think evil weevils.

---

Ooh! Image 6 is more promising. The non-anthropomorphic mouth helps. Maybe if the mandibles were more prominent and sharp-looking? And the eyes were segmented?

---

Well, these creep me out. 

Answer 9

Those profiles that we cleanup end up looking just like those beautiful weevils!

Answer 10

We need another weevil graphic with three weevils:

One eyes closed "See no weevil;" one ears covered "hear no weevil;" the last mouth covered "speak no weevil."

Answer 11

Once you get over the queasiness generated by the average GEDCOM import. Not to mention the infamous ones like DeCoursey-128, there is a great deal of fun to be had in running down the information needed to fix them.

It may take a certain sick and twisted mind to find the fun in fixing GEDCOM issues, but you get the thrill of the hunt. The joy of fixing something broken, and the pleasure of a properly pruned branch of the 'tree.'

Comments

Anthony - please join in the GEDImprove challenge where we work to deweevil all of the profiles created via a specific GEDCOM import. https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1697707/gedcom-weevils-a-challenge

Answer 12

If your In the mood, take some time with WikiTree and the Five WEEViLs to improve a few GEDCOM created profiles needing some TLC. A little music goes a long way.