Proposal: Allow a marker phrase in location fields when no birth or death location can be found [closed]

Question

This policy proposal is to expand the final paragraph of the Help page section Almost Any Location_is Better than No Location to read according to the following draft:

The only exception would be if entering any location at all would be a guess. See Help:Uncertain for more about the line between uncertain information and guesses. In this situation, the exact phrase "Location researched but not found" may be inserted in the birth and/or death location field. This phrase will avert a Data Doctor suggestion (141, 142 or 143) which would occur if both birth and death locations were left blank. It should not be used except in cases where research has shown that there is genuinely no prospect of establishing and providing a source for a location, even a broad one like a continent (see below). This should preferably be explained in Research Notes on the profile.

The background to the proposal is the introduction of new suggestions (mentioned in the draft paragraph) which will apply to profiles where birth and death locations are empty. See this post by Aleš Trtnik and in particular this thread. Aleš has confirmed that if this policy proposal or something similar is adopted, WikiTree Plus will not issue the suggestions for profiles where the phrase is present.

The goal of the proposal is to allow a way for people to forestall the new suggestions from appearing, provided the stipulated conditions are met.

The words "(see below)" in the expanded paragraph refer to the existing subsequent section of the Help page, relating to use of continent names as locations.

A potential drawback could be that people might use the "Location researched but not found" marker carelessly, without observing the necessity for research. However, this would amount to a breach of the Honor Code's requirement for accuracy, which members are bound to follow, so is not likely to occur often. The detailed and precise wording "Location researched but not found" has been chosen to discourage use of the phrase without the prerequisite labour. The wording could be changed if something more succinct with the same effect is suggested in discussion.

If you either support or oppose the proposal, please upvote the relevant answer. Please do not downvote, as this would distort the vote count. Arguments for or against the proposal and ideas for improving it are welcome as comments or additional answers.

Comments

I may be rehashing some of the stated opinions of my fellow WikiTreers, but my view is that we shouldn't be trying to circumvent these new Suggestions, but to stop their implementation.

---

I have some sympathy with your position, Lindy, but the place to argue against implementation of the suggestions is the original thread. Please try adding an answer or comment there.

---

Jim, your proposal implies that the Honour Code requires accuracy. This is emphatically not the case, and a proposal to make it so was met with much opposition from the Leadership. See: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1138108/should-the-honor-code-require-accuracy?show=1138108#q1138108

---

I prefer to rely on the text itself. It says: "We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes." Anybody who stated that they had done research when actually they hadn't would be failing to care for accuracy, and would be in breach of the Code. However, this is not central to the topic of the proposal, and should be raised elsewhere, if at all.

---

For the moment at least I am suspending this proposal, because another one by Ian Beacall seems to have a better chance of success.

Answer 1

Thank you, Jim, for posting this. I have upvoted: as you know, I support the proposal, assuming the proposed new database suggestions are implemented.

It may help to spell out a little more the background to the proposal. Aleš is planning to introduce a new set of database suggestions for profiles where there is no birth or death location. The current guidance on location fields encourages members to include at least a continent in the location field where there is sufficient evidence to make this reasonable, but not enough for a country. Fair enough, though people rarely add just a continent to the location field (I confess I have never done so myself).

But there are quite a number of profiles where there is no good basis for determining which continent they were born or died in. If the new suggestions are introduced, well-meaning but less experienced WikiTree members seeking to clear suggestions may simply insert a guess. As a Mediator and occasional Mentor I know this is likely to happen, with some well-intentioned members operating at high speed. The result is the addition of misleading information.

Overall, these profiles are a minority of the tens of millions of WikiTree profiles, but the numbers add up, and they need to be catered for.

Adding uncertain information based on guesses goes against WikiTree guidance. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Uncertain_Locations. Where anything entered would be just a guess, under current guidance the location field should be left blank.

For pre-1700 profiles, uncertain information should not be added to location fields unless there is a basis in a reliable source which makes it reasonable to include it. The existence of that basis should be clear in the biography, if necessary using a research note.

One alternative to Jim‘s proposal is to mark the new suggestions as false, with a comment that there is insufficient evidence to give even an uncertain location. That is illogical, but it would avoid the real risk of others wasting time duplicating research efforts, and, perhaps more important, of less experienced, well-meaning WikiTree members adding guesses as they seek to clear database suggestions.

Comments

I once added a continent to a death location field - North America. However,  it subsequently appeared on Suggestions lists as “Country not recognized “. In that case, I knew the person lived in Canada prior to death and evidence suggested they were buried in the US. It follows, they probably died in either Canada or the US. But , in many cases, I don't even know on which continent  a person was born or died. I could guess, but I’m not into speculation. I do not enter anything unless I have a source to substantiate it.

---

Perhaps this has been corrected, but if a suggestion is still being imposed on the location North America, it is happening contrary to WikiTree policy.

Indeed speculating where one has zero information is not the correct approach. If entering any location at all would be a guess, the field should be left empty.

---

I've used a star to move Michael's answer to near the top of the page, because it is such a good explanation of the background to the proposal and why it is important. I hope with this more prominent position it will get greater attention.

Answer 2

Vote this answer up if you support the proposal.

Comments

Perhaps to avoid people just copying the use of this template without reading the documentation the marker could be something like "Location researched but not even continent known" or "Continent not known" or "Unknown continent". Otherwise I can see people mistakenly using this marker when they know (or have a good idea of) the area but not the exact town.

---

Good idea thanks, Rob. I would be happy to amend the wording along these lines, but let's see what other reactions are first, so as to avoid the risk of having to complicate the proposal with multiple rounds of changes.

---

Does this "location researched ..." marker imply both "online" and "offline" efforts?

---

Research should always be as broad as possible. The key word is "genuinely". Honor Code point III ensures that we can prima facie accept someone saying they have taken suitable steps to research such a question.

---

Contrary to my request, this answer just received a down vote. Downvoting on a policy proposal is cheating.

Answer 3

Vote this answer up if you oppose the proposal.

Comments

I appreciate the intent, but ultimately I find the idea something that people (especially new users) will be unable to follow consistently. We need maximum simplicity.

---

People don't need to be aware of or follow the idea if they don't want to. It's not unlikely that in such cases they will also be unaware of the suggestions. It's more important to give people who are aware a way of preempting the suggestions from occurring in cases of genuine lack of knowledge.

---

This doesn't seem workable. "Location researched but not found" is too long. Alternatives may just sound silly.  We could put "Earth", which is simple, but it sounds silly. "Unknown" is short and simple, but it could be misunderstood as "I don't know (because I haven't done enough research yet)".  I see nothing wrong with leaving it blank.  Someone has decided there will be a 'suggestion' to add a location. Fine. If you can't find the location, ignore the suggestion. The suggestions are not errors. Many are things that you may want to check (like when the dates are different from the Find a Grave dates, for example). I don't think people would consistently use this with the same wording.  People adding phrases like "Unknown continent", "Location researched...", etc. would mess up the sorting for various apps.

One alternative, which only Brian could implement, would be an extra data status radio button.  We have 'uncertain' and 'certain'.  Maybe 'researched but unknown' (or something similar) could be added.  

If the WikiTree standard is to add at least a continent, this should be more widely known/advertised/communicated as people are not doing that.  Blank locations are blank probably because people are not sure which town or country is right.  In the vast majority of cases, people are pretty sure of the continent, I think.  But I never see a continent in a location field.

---

Adding at least a continent is already strongly urged here.

I have qualms about the length of the phrase too. "Unknown" would be short but was rejected by Aleš. At the moment based on Rob's thinking I'm leaning towards something like "Continent unidentifiable". Whatever the phrase is, provided it is well-defined, software can take it into account, for example sort it to the end. The purpose of software is to serve our needs, not the other way round. People misspelling or mis-wording the phrase is no different from other typos, like miscapitalising Unknown for example; it'll be a lot easier to correct than that one.

The trouble with ignoring suggestions on profiles one manages is that it tempts people who haven't done the same research you have to change them.

In general I would say that if you are in favour of Aleš's new suggestions, you should be in favour of this proposal (at least once the marker phrase wording has been resolved). The alternative with no marker available is that in these cases people would be forced to mark the suggestions false, which logically speaking they are not.

---

Adding at least a continent is already strongly urged here.

But it doesn't happen, which is what I meant when I said it should be "more widely known/advertised/communicated".

At the moment based on Rob's thinking I'm leaning towards something like "Continent unidentifiable". 

Again, this wouldn't stick.  People are not going to sit there typing 'Continent unidentifiable'.  They just won't bother.  I'm not saying it's a terrible idea; I'm talking about human behaviour.

The trouble with ignoring suggestions on profiles one manages is that it tempts people who haven't done the same research you have to change them.

This sounds like a minor irritant.  

In general I would say that if you are in favour of Aleš's new suggestions... 

I have no opinion on the new suggestions.  If people want to spend their time worrying about the suggestions, it's up to them.

Semantically, 'Continent unidentifiable', or some similar wording, is not right. The location field is asking you for the location, not how your research has gone, as it were.  'Continent unidentifiable' is the status of your research rather than a location.  I think the extra radio button, which would give the status of the research, is the obvious answer. 

---

An extra radio button might be better, but is not likely to be introduced given the amount of more important core software development needed and the limited resources available.

This is not about people who won't bother. It is about conscientious WikiTree members who do their research and deal with their suggestions, who will "bother". Please re-read case A and case B which I linked to above. The purpose of the proposal is to provide a way for people faced with the new suggestions on profiles they manage to handle them in an accurate and principled way.

Your semantics are technical. They do not take human needs into account.

Edited to add:  There are already precedents for using marker words and phrases, in the name fields: Unknown, Anonymous, No Last Name, and Unnamed Infant.

---

I vote against this proposal. Like Matthew, I believe in simplicity.

Rather than complicating the situation with a non-location phrase, we should accept the fact that not all information is available in our documentation.

If our sources indicate birth and/or death locations, then we use those locations. If our sources do not indicate these locations, then we should leave those location fields blank or make educated estimates.

We do not need Suggestions that expect us to add information that we do not know.

---

If we are permitted to leave the fields blank, indeed there shouldn't be a suggestion warning about them. Aleš's plan was not made through the policy change procedure, but if you oppose the suggestions, it is still open to you to argue against them on the earlier thread. However, given that they are likely to go ahead, a remedy is needed.

This proposal is not being made in isolation, but in the context of the new suggestions. The two go together: the proposal is designed to allow a way to handle cases where the suggestions cannot be resolved by entering any location reliably. Not providing such an outlet is unfair to people like those I've linked who have clear and well researched instances where no location for either birth or death is available.

---

I oppose this because of the wording length.  It is a location field, not an explanation, as previously stated.  How do you expect people to remember the 'exact wording' of this?  I don't see how people would remember that wording.

When a search is done for a person before creating a profile and they enter a country / state, etc for the location, will these profiles be shown?  If not, duplicate profiles could be created.

---

If your only objection is the length, please hold off for a bit. The wording is adjustable, and we can change it once there's consensus. It won't be any harder than "No Last Name", for example, and people don't really have to remember details that are available on a Help page.

Locations are not part of the profile matching algorithm. If the marker phrase is in a birth location field, it would be shown like any real location. That will enable you to ignore the match if the profile you're creating has a clear birth record.  If the birth field is blank and the marker phrase is in the death location field, it will still show.

---

Having to remember 'any' specific wording is wrong.  People will not remember any wording and it should not be put into a location field.

I specifically said 'Search' for profiles, not 'profile matching'. I am not talking about creating profiles, I am talking about using the 'search' function which I think everyone should use 'before' they consider creating a profile, so they can review variations in spelling, birth dates, etc.

---

Linda, this is a rare occurrence. Nobody has to remember about it. You'd look it up on the Help page when you occasionally needed it, just like with "Unnamed Infant" say. I always have to look that up when I need it: so what?

If you insert locations in the Search page parameters, they do not match against profiles with blank fields. They wouldn't match against "Continent unidentifiable" or whatever either (unless that was explicitly what you inserted), so there would be no change.

---

The fact that they do not match unless something is entered is exactly why 'any phrase', 'Europe', ' Earth', 'unknown' is not a good idea.  We may know what countries are included in Europe, but the computer doesn't know.

Unfortunately, it does not seem that there is a way to search for profiles with no location entered, but entering Europe will not help if you are searching for a profile using a location of England, as an example.  

There are many more profiles, than I think you understand, that we have on Wikitree with no birth or death sources for them. Between records lost in floods or fires, or just that there was no requirement to register a birth, baptism or even death. We may have census records or land records, so we know they existed, but that does not indicate where they were born.  If we start guessing on the location, that means we do not need sources. We already have plenty of problems with estimated dates that are not accurate.

---

The point of the proposal is to avoid guessing on locations. Without it, the only way to deal with one of these suggestions when there is no knowledge will either be to mark it false (illogically), or guess something so as not to leave the location field blank.

I stand by my statement that the proposal will make no difference to search by location for profiles which previously had blank locations. If you think otherwise, please give a specific example so I understand what you have in mind.

---

Make it a two-step entry ie "See Research Notes" in the data field (one which most people can remember) and then you have to put a Research Note in the bio.  When people realise they have to do two things, they may in fact put the correct country/continent (if they know it).

---

This is a good idea thank you, Ros. It could give a way of implementing something Michael expressed under the earlier post: "My main concern, which is relevant to this G2G thread, is to have a way of clearly indicating that a blank location field has been looked at and that there is no, or insufficient, evidence to include any place - not even a continent - in the location field."

At the moment my focus is on addressing the arguments that people have presented here against the principle of the proposal. I hope that the background and the risks that Michael has eloquently presented in his answer below may help people to reconsider their opposition. If the balance does turn in favour of the proposal, we can then consider which of the several alternative wordings offered for the phrase (most of them improvements on my original attempt) will be the most convenient and effective.

---

I think the reality would mean that for many profiles that haven't been researched people would add this terminology just to avoid the error's from popping up, rather than truly exhausting the research to fill it in.

Also, I think if you have truly exhausted your research capabilities and the location is in fact blank - should an error pop up, you can just mark it false and ignore it in your error report rather than creating a whole new process.

---

Kirby, I disagree with the argument in your first paragraph. Under the Honor Code, we trust WikiTree members to act in good faith. We do not assume they will deliberately make mistakes or consciously contravene policy. In this case, if they did, it would be apparent from an examination of the research notes—or lack of them—on the profile.

You're right that if the proposal does not go ahead, a fallback position might be to mark the suggestions false on profiles where research has established that no location can be entered without guessing. In that case, along the lines Michael Cayley has stressed, clear guidance would be essential in the documentation of the suggestions on their space pages, detailing the conditions under which this would be acceptable.

---

Please see my new proposal: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1696338/proposal-option-place-field-status-buttons-unknowable-similar .

---

You can set up guidance on when False Suggestions should be used, but it can't be monitored and people will mark it just to get it out of their suggestions.  Check the comments on False Suggestions - I didn't do this, I won't fix it, I can't be bothered with this, not my problem, etc, etc

---

Indeed. An issue with suggestions after they've been marked false is that they're hidden, unless one digs for them. An advantage of a marker phrase is that it would be clearly visible in the location field on the profile. Other people would know it was there, and could look for corroboration of it, in research notes for example.

---

How does that work for the Pacific Ocean Island nations, there's no continent.

---

That may not have come up on WikiTree so far, but if it does in the future we could discuss adding the term Oceania along with continents in this Help page section.

---

I used the Pacific as an example, but there are island nations in other oceans or seas, eg Caribbean, Indian ocean etc.
 Continental thinking is a form of tunnel vision.

---

There may be merit in what you say, Gary, but how are these comments relevant to the new suggestions? Instead, you seem to be making a critique of a quite separate longstanding WikiTree policy.

---

I was unaware that there was a separate Wikitree policy which excluded that part of the worlds population that lives outside the continents, and on reading the page you have linked to it is clear that non-continental residents were not even considered. Reading the whole page entering a continent for an Islander would be contrary to the overall principles on the page, after all would you really put Australia for the inhabitant of a Pacific Island, if you didn't know which Island or Island group they were born or died in?
 The example given on that page is poorly thought out and could do with a rewrite to better articulate the underlying principle.

---

Gary's comment was in response to the post above his.  If he is off topic, so is that other post.

---

Discussion Rule 1 "Don't change someone else's topic" asks that people not derail or hijack a conversation. The subject that Gary initiated is doing just that to the topic of the proposal, and this answer. I attempted quiet discouragement, but since that hasn't worked, a flag is necessary.

Edited to add: Since Gary and I are discussing this at comment level, I have removed my flag on his comment "I was unaware..." For the record, it read "This is an important point, but should be in a separate discussion, as it relates only peripherally, if at all, to the current proposal. —Jim"

---

Hit the space limit.

 I was stating this flag appears unjust when a reply is flagged but the comment it is replying too is not.

 Change proposals require an examination of the broader issues to ensure there are not unintended consequences or clashes with other policies or procedures on Wikitree.

 An open debate may also reveal other issues with related or connecting policies which also need adjustment or improvement for consistency and clarity.
 I do not see flaging comments the way mine was as in the spirit of the honour code.
 The use of continent names in locations is in the proposal itself, so issues and problems with using continent names appears to be entirely on topic and relevant to those who do not reside on a continent, are we not to be included?

---

Gary, all your replies have appeared directly underneath comments by me. They look as if they were replies to me. If you were replying to someone else, you should have indicated that by naming them. Before I flagged you, I asked how what you were saying was relevant, i.e. on topic. You did not respond

I am largely in agreement with your argument. But please take it to a new G2G question. It is evidently distracting attention from the proposal I've made, which is the focus here, not discussion about location fields in general.

As far as criticism goes, I did not criticise you. I criticised the subject you are raising, not in general but in this context, because it is out of place here.

The best approach please is for you to open a new question about your justifiable concern for island nations, instead of trying to change someone else's topic (mine).

---

Addendum: if you would like to return focus on the topic of the proposal itself, note that it says "a broad [location] like a continent". That includes but is not restricted to continents. Oceania is a broad location or region, so is covered. If you'd like to suggest a better wording for that, we could discuss.

The "(see below)" bit was necessary explanation of an external reference, not intrinsic to the proposal. That part is where I would like to see you open a separate question.

---

I have likewise removed my flag, and perhaps this situation arose because of a misunderstanding, nor was I aware of the need for a response from me.
 Much as I think this topic of changes to the page(s) is important, I believe an integrated and comprehensive review (including the examples as to how the fields are to be used) is a far better approach than piecemeal changes which amount to tinkering, as a result I will be voting against the proposal as it is too narrow, and if implemented leaves a help page which needs reform to be actually helpful.
 I see the proposed change and the subsequent section as so intrinsically linked as to require a consistent overhaul at the same time.

---

Thanks Gary. I did think the person you were replying to was me, and I wasn't intending (or even able) to flag myself :-)

It's a lot of work making a proposal like this and responding to discussion, but the best approach if you want to see particular changes is to make the proposal for them yourself. Mine was made in the limited context of Aleš's new suggestions, and within that narrow goal I think it has merits—though the work Ian Beacall is doing may supersede it. A much broader proposal from you would be refreshing and interesting to see.

---

I know it's hard work, I made two last year and one got messy, if not convoluted.
 I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with something. My view is that Ian's proposal is more elegant and will be simpler to use, however it still needs to be supported by a well written help page which I think is currently lacking.
 And by well written I mean easily comprehended by a new member.
 Rereading your proposal above it could be adapted for a radio button, but I think it also needs an add to make clear a tighter focused location is better rather than just jumping straight to continent level. It's just gone 11pm here so I'm not going to think up some wording tonight.

Answer 4

Is this phrase always going to be shown in English or is the phrase going to be translated and shown in other languages?

Comments

Always in English, for the same reasons as explained at

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Name_Fields#Special_rules_for_required_fields

and footnote 1 on that page.

---

I fear I might step into a language mindfiield, but the longer discussion that preciptated this one included a conversation about use of "Earth" which is clearly using English.  

So it deserves consideration.

What language you use in the field is also suggestive. Write "Location researched but not even continent known" in English points people towards an anglo world first. Write it in Cantonese and your research takes it into a different directionn.

Tech should help. Best case is that there is a way of writing the same phrase in anylanguage that gets translated? But i am being likley naive.

---

As I indicated, there are reasons for keeping marker phrases like "Unknown" in database fields in a single language. On the other hand, there is precedent for using different languages for standard WikiTree headings like Biography and Sources, so perhaps it can be considered. But at the moment it seems to be a struggle to get even English adopted for this purpose. Let's focus on the principal question.

Answer 5

I am favour of this proposal.

It must not be a default choice line "unsourced family tree of X" is (which I like as a choice because it gives me time to come back to profiles that I have researched well but need a bit of time to source on wikitree) - and I'd add "see research notes" to the geography as further prompt.

Inclusion of "Location researched but not found" should make people think sufficently before using.

When I am looking at potential merges, it will make me choose to asess the profile more readily as a match than a blank profile will.

I don't know how the tech works, but I think this "geography" has to come up in any search which adds a location field. I generally don't add one, because it's a bit hit and miss, but if I saw  "Location researched but not found" as a birth location it would make me think more about emigration.

Finally, I am in favour of this proposal, because I think that the original suggestion which prompted it (which Jim has linked) is crucial to us improving the wikitree tree we all love. My love/hate relationship with wikitree comes down to the feeling that there is a lot of energy focussed on the wrong things. There is no incentivisation for the deep dive I have done on two (non-related to me) familes on today. And I loved it. But I would have saved so much time had the profiles I was checking against had just something in their birthplace.

Comments

OOOps,  I forgot,  because I don't deal with them regularly. There must be an option for "Location unknown, because parents unknown" - there has to be a safe space for adoptees and others whose parentage is unknown.

Answer 6

This site risks becoming just another junk genealogy site if the owners insist we populate birth and death locations where there is no evidence to support same. Personally, if we must populate these fields, please allow us to simply enter “unknown” or similar in these fields.

Comments

Thank you, Susan. I take this as support for allowing a marker word or phrase as suggested in the proposal. "Unknown" by itself apparently raises difficulties, but if the proposal is accepted in principle, we should eventually be able to agree on a suitable word or phrase.

---

Jim, I followed that link but couldn't find anything which explained why Unknown is not a viable option. Would you please clarify why we cannot simply use "Unknown" for an unknown location ? What are the "difficulties" ? Thanks.

---

I can't speak for Aleš, who has not clarified the remark. However, my guess is that he meant that there may be other software systems elsewhere that use "Unknown" as a key word in location fields. If data from those systems has been imported into WikiTree, by GEDCOMpare for example, then location fields here might have ended up with the word "Unknown" in them. If we now start using exactly the same word but with a special meaning (equivalent to "Continent unidentifiable" or the other options), then there will be confusion between our usage and the old data from the other systems, where "Unknown" didn't carry the special meaning.

---

We sometimes encounter migratory and preliterate peoples. We can see where this leads for a geealogist: dead ends and  guesses.

People also go missing, so we might not know. Will we ever have a location and date of death of Jimmy Hoffa? In many cases the best that anyone can offer is  the time and place of the last encounter. So if someone was a passenger on the Titanic and was not rescued then we have a likely day and location (latitude and longitude) of death.

Some people, fugitives or deserters, might start anew elsewhere If not caught in their double lives we must assume the long natural life of 100 years. We do not have a category of missing persons. Missing in action? The legal standard is what we must go with.

---

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my comment. Many of us on this site can point to examples where "location guesses" are way off. Not just wrong country but often wrong continent. Personally, when I look to create a new profile, I do a manual search for any existing profiles which show the same (or close location) or NO location at all. I often ignore profiles where the relevant location is in another country. It follows, guessing locations will possibly lead to more duplicates being created not fewer. As for  legal standard ( I assume you are referring to the legal standard of proof)? Would that be civil or criminal and in what jurisdiction?

Answer 7

Just using "Unknown" in the field should be enough as the new "suggestion" is just finding those with a blank field.

Comments

Thanks Walt, I agree that would be simple. But did you read Aleš's objection to the word "Unknown" and my attempted interpretation of what he said?

Answer 8

For my purposes, I think the proposal is making this more complicated than it needs to be.  I know that most of the profiles on my watchlist that will show up are either adopted orphans that I haven't got to yet or because I left the fields blank when it wasn't clear if they were born in one country or were born after the parents moved to a new country.  In this case, I can enter the most likely country as uncertain, and then add a Research Note for the explanation.  The Suggestions will be helpful in either case.

How many profiles are there that you can't even make an educated guess about their continent?  With the exception of pre-1500, I would guess not many.

Comments

A lot of examples have been given, for example by M Ross, Michael Cayley, Sharon Casteel, and Ellen Smith.