Do I have to conform to the Genealogical Proof Standards?

Question

When I first started, I didn't know any better, and used Find-A-Grave for my source. (ACK!) I also was bad about using just that one source and creating what are essentially stubs for profiles, as I tracked down where my line went.

I am now in the process of going back thru all of those and correcting them to add more data and sources. Slow process!

I have had a member send me several emails, basically about conforming to the "Genealogical Proof Standards" - and insisting that I do so. And wanting to know why I did it that way in the first place. (I have explained the above, my mistakes, and now my corrections.)

But he is still emailing me about not doing things in the manner he considers correct. So my question is: Should I be required to conform to the Genealogical Proof Standards for everything, and make all my profiles meet his definition of perfect?  His issue is that he doesn't want to connect to my profiles without more data on them. (Understandable) But given the many many unsourced profiles on WT, and that I have "sources" (such as they are) and am actively correcting deficient profiles, do I have to make all my corrections meet this standard, or can I document what I can, and not worry about being 100% compliant with that format.

Comments

It's not actually required (though in my opinion, should be), but it does make sense to do so if only for your own benefit in confirming that people are correct :)

---

But if this member is a problem, you should follow the "Problems with members" procedures.

Edit: Spelling

---

Geez, I'd probably tell him to take a flying leap through a rolling doughnut, but that might not be the proper response.

---

LOL!!!! That's what I thought about doing!!

---

In the spirit of collaboration, have you asked this person to help you add sources to the profiles you manage?  They have the ability, and in the end, we're here to help each other.  

A solution.... If you've built your tree on ancestry, there is a way to import your sources.  If you like, I could help you with this. LMK,

Scott

Answer 1

I have done things the way you have and am undergoing the same revision process. Particularly with complicated sets of family intermarriages, including cousin marriages I find getting the family structure on Wikitree is the best way to go, additional sources and family can then be added later

No, you don't have to meet that standard, add whatever sources you can, any improvement is beneficial to Wikitree.

The most important thing is that we get real people onto wikitree with at least one source, and that's how the connect-a-thons work, and those are official Wikitree events.

I've had a unsourced sticker placed on a profile this week, the person who did it wouldn't explain why they did that when it had a census with links in sources.

 If you don't already have it Wikitree Sourcer is great for searching for sources and adding the citations to Wikitree.

Comments

Thank you for the best answer star, I had voted Jimmy Honey's answer as best, and still think he covered all the relevant points and far more succinctly and elegantly than I did.
 Ian Beacall was even more succinct but a sound answer, and Gill Whitehouse also. I think any of those answers could have been awarded the star.

 I disagree with a couple of answers, findagrave is a source, it's usually really good for the location of a grave marker, but the info on it or the transcription is only as good as the transcriber and the original informant. The same is true for census and birth/death records etc.
 My classic is a Kiwi family member who moved to the USA and died there, her daughter-in-law was the informant on her death registration and put her down as born in the USA. And I just did a profile for someone in NZ who had their death registered 16 years late, Findagrave had it right.

 It is only when you have enough sources that you can compare them and evaluate which are unreliable.

 And there is no need to stop adding profiles until all the old profiles are revised, that new profile might be the vital link in family relationships and is what improves the results from both relationship and connection finder.

Answer 2

No. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_FAQ

Answer 3

I understand your situation of having a lot of profiles which are under-sourced, as it were.  It sounds like you're working hard at improving them.  (Feel free to do mine, too. :) )

I would suggest that you suggest that this person edit the profiles that you created. It's a wiki, after all.

Comments

Thanks, I've done that!

Answer 4

I believe this is a great opportunity to embrace a collaborative process, and I would invite them to contribute sources and update the profile.

Find-A-Grave is an acceptable source on Wikitree. It’s not about whether it is right or wrong, but rather a starting point for further research.

The focus should not be on whether a source is good enough, but on confirming the available information with additional sources. This is a collective responsibility, not just the duty of one person or side.

Comments

I strongly disagree that Find a Grave can be used as a source.  It is not considered a 'reliable source' for pre-1700 profiles, and if it does not have a photo, you have to be *really* careful.  I would only ever use it as a See Also item.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Find_A_Grave#Using_Find_A_Grave_as_a_Source

---

I understand there are limited sources for pre-1700 profiles, and while I don't agree with the restriction on using Find-A-Grave, I accept it.

Find-A-Grave is comparable to other sources like family Bible records, cemetery headstones, or second-hand information. It's important to recognize that no source is infallible, not even a U.S. Census record. The goal of sourcing on WikiTree is to inform users about:

- Who made the record

- What the record is

- When the record was made

- Where the record is/was found

This allows individuals to evaluate the source's reliability and seek additional sources or accept the provided information.

Consensus on what constitutes a reliable source is often unattainable. A good source should contain sufficient information for others to judge its accuracy and independently locate the source.

As stated on the "Wikitree Source" page: "A source is the identification of where you obtained information."

WikiTree uses Find-A-Grave for hints and specifies how to format it as a source. It's also integrated with other WikiTree tools, such as "WikiTree Bee."

Based on the totality of this information, it seems clear that the policy is for people to use it.

Answer 5

Hi Jana,

So I started to respond to this as if you were a new user. I then clicked through to your profile and saw that you have been on wikitree since 2015 and have made 55,000+ contributions.

My view is you have come across someone who cares about the profiles being rigourously sourced and researched rather than numbers added. They are not really asking for everything to be of GPS quality, just for care in the profiles being added.

Given you state that you are going back through those profiles to add the proper sources, then do that rather than continuing to add new single sourced profiles.

Answer 6

A quote for you from a WikiTree help page:

For modern profiles, WikiTree does not attempt to enforce a standard for evidence, such as the Genealogical Proof Standard. Ideally we want all information on WikiTree to be correct. It's in our Honor Code that we care about accuracy and are always aiming to improve our tree. This means we aspire to document everything with reliable proof (direct evidence) or a summary of proof (circumstantial evidence). Practically speaking, however, we do not enforce a proof standard.

The Genealogical Proof Standard is an ideal--something we should strive toward. It is not always achievable but we can use it as goal. As long as each of us is doing the best we can, that's all that should be expected. 

If you feel harassed or bullied by this member and if you have asked him to stop contacting you re this matter, you may have to refer the situation to WikiTree through the "Problems with Members" process. I hope you can resolve this cordially without resorting to doing that.

Answer 7

The GPS is a hot mess in my opinion, so vague that it offers almost no guidance to the uninitiated, and so subjective that, to the more experienced genealogists, it can allow too lax of a process to claim to follow it.  

Best implementation I have found is at https://www.genealogyexplained.com/basics/genealogical-proof-standard/ which actually recommends steps in the process. 

I meant to do something with this in regards to the WBE but totally overestimated my time and ability, so haven't got around to it. *ahem, Ian et al...

Answer 8

Jana, you didn't mention whether the profiles were pre-1700 which DO require Reliable Primary sources.  As you go back to improve your earlier profiles you might want to concentrate on those first. Also if any of your profiles are covered by a project, there are usually standards that the project rates as Reliable, Secondary, or Not Reliable. Perhaps this person is coming from one of those perspectives, but they should have mentioned that and directed you to the proper space pages.

I second those who suggested engaging this person to help improve them.

Comments

These are my GGgrandparents, so earliest date is 1789.

I've gotten him to help some, thank you to all who recommended that!