In the feed started by Chris, I made the following comment as well as this one.
I propose that a template be made to take away the confusion after a Project has taken custiodial management of a profile.
PPP'd profiles implies:
- That only the LNAB-field is locked
- That everybody can still collaboratively edit and add info according to the rules and the honour code
When I remove managers (including myself) ...
- They are still on the trusted list
- The Project is the only manager that can make changes to the the LNAB-field (in full correspondence)
- The profile is already protected (to a certain standard the LNAB has been validated)
When a profile has been protected, and the Project has been added to the trusted list but not as active manager, I put a request in the comment box to have the project added as active manager.
Having 5-10 managers on 7500 profiles within this project, it is simplly not feasible to contact every manager. Even now I'm worried that certain managers might have passed on. Many managers do not respond at all.
The plea to "Please only project protect profiles with this element of controversy." is not realistic in this project. We had to deal with tens of thousands of duplicates within the period 1652-1806. Created manually and through GEDCOM. It is not the names that are controversial. It is the reality of 16th, 17th and 18th century variations in spelling that is an issue. This is why we use the standard of baptism images to validate, and if not present other primary documents or as good secondary sources as we can find.
This Angst is totally ungrounded. When a profile is collaboratively owned, it is more inviting to share - the whole point of WikiTree is crowdsourcing ... This is exactly the period where there were / are many duplication of profiles because of phonetic spelling, patronymics, toponyms, various language and cultural backgrounds. And therefore massively merged profiles with loads of active managers who can anyway only do as much as those on the trusted list or anyone else with the right WikiTree certification. What makes profiles important to protect is the variations of LNAB of a certain period in the case of this project, though searching for existing names can be tricky if one is not in the know of the technical intricacies of WikiTree. Profiles are utterly vulnerable even when protected as far as the editing of the contents of the bio etc. goes (because only the LNAB-field gets current protection, and as I understand the parent connections). And believe me, this is a major undertaking ... once again because of the massively merging of masses of duplicates across the spectrum of the past for whatever reason ...
Nobody loses any editing rights. Once a LNAB has been agreed on, the profile gets locked by a leader through request of a project coordinator. All the variations in the surname gets AKA's (per person). See as example: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/N%C3%A9el-502 (it was collaboratively decided that that would have been the closest to the original French speling of the LNAB in the absence of baptism records and only having secondary sources as passenger lists to go on). There are thousands of profiles more such as this one. Everybody is still welcome to edit, though we do request care and we do prefer people more experienced and more closely involved with the project to edit, because we are still mainly collating the "facts" and even the narrated sections as a whole are being collated, not merely narrated without sources, even if it was GEDCOM'd data ...
So please could we have a template made to take away the fears, the confusion and give clarity to what it means to have a profile protected and also have it custodially managed by a Project ... I'd really appreciate it.