@Otto-4021 I understand that if you were one of the developers that your feelings may be hurt by my referring to the changes as 'ugly', and informing us that the development was made by volunteer programmers, and that the focus has been on data collection and integrity of the data. However, within this arbitrary decision making at an executive level it appears to me that the volunteer work was conducted outside of the advertised principles and ethos of the founding idea. Not to mention that it is a website that is funded through advertising directed at non registered visitors to the site. So therefore there is money involved in Wikitree which could pay for the development.
You also made the point that the developers have volunteered their time and done so for a year. My questions would be: How much time did they volunteer to researching HOW to develop the website?
You say that a survey would not provide enough ifnormation about the required changes. Does that indicate that sometimes you will pay attention to data and sometimes not? Also your comment of 'surveys are okay .. but'.. is actually misguided. if the survey does not ask the correct questions that is on the person doing the survey and exactly WHY thought and time needs to be put into conducting the research BEFORE a change that erases the past effort and work of the other team members. (I'm referring to the erasing of the profiles that I have developed and put a lot of time and effort into).
I am a social worker and I have been trained in community development and change management. Every single member of any team provides valuable support to the success of any project. In this instance who ever does the management and the executive decision making (would this mean Chris Witten?), has forgotten the human component of this project - that it relies on human engagement (feelings), especially of the contributors. As someone trained in working with people, i recognise the risks attached to disregarding the human element (and we have enough AI everywhere) that people are people and everyone needs to feel valued, and the responses by those responsible for delivering the change are actually (and I reiterate) disrespectful to contributors. the bottom line is that the clinical and inhumane of creating change at this time is actually a deterrent. I am already exploring ideas of where and how I can continue with my interest in family and social history as a hobby. I find it relaxing. I was attracted to Wikitree and working on the website because it was all about connection, community and collaboration and working together. I can and will likely return to the old ways I used to contribute, (as according to the technicians we are just data processors anyway, putting sources on profiles). I'll go back to transcribing the references that wikitree members can use as 'sources on their profiles'. I am well aware that TROVE newspapers needs transcribers on an ongoing basis. The same can be said for other places such as the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages in NSW, or the convict data bases that we have online. Libraries Tasmania apparently holds a heap of archives of content that is yet to be transcribed, the same with Genealogy South Australia. If people behind the data and sourcing don't matter, then that makes for me, a wikitree that has lost its flavour and deviated from the promoted ethos.
Not to mention that Chris Whitten (wikitree founder) heads a company. However, Jimmy Wales (wikipedia founder) also relies on donations - and sends out invitations to users to donate from time to time to cover the costs of keeping the integrity of the site. I contribute a small amount each month for donation. This might be an option for wikitree.
A quick google and even a visit to Wikipedia states that :
"WikiTree is a genealogy website that allows users to research and to contribute to family trees while building and collaborating on a singular worldwide family tree within the same system.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] WikiTree is free for the user and financed via advertisements displayed to unregistered users.[8][9][10] WikiTree is owned and hosted by founder's company Interesting.com, Inc.[11]"
ON wikitree it promotes itself as:
We're One Family
A single family tree is premised on the idea that we are all related....Your ancestors have many other descendants. These are your distant cousins and they may have information, photos, and family stories that you don't have. Putting it together just makes sense. Sharing what we have and what we learn is one of the great joys of a collaborative family tree.
By working together, not only can we build more complete and accurate life stories, we have much greater assurances that our work will never be lost. On WikiTree, we know that our ancestors' stories will be accessible to all their descendants, now and long after we are gone.
It is my perception that who ever authorised the changes in the current format has lost their way and deviated from the ethos of 'collaboration' 'value' , 'family stories' and that our work won't be lost because frankly it looks like when visiting my ancestral profiles - it most certainly has been lost. All this malcontent, could have been avoided with an inclusive effort at change creation (and thats an executive problem in my professional opinion). the lack of inclusion is a lack of direction.
