Pre-1500 Badge and Comment Limits [closed]

+31 votes

It may be a small issue that we just have to live with, but, I wanted to make sure people know.   We have a minor conflict in our Pre-1500 Badge approach and our Anti-Spam rules.

For people without Pre-1500 Badges, we have told them they should post their information in the comments on the affected profiles.   Sometimes a sources or information covers many profiles.  

Our Anti-Spam approach limits the number of comments a person can do in one day.

Should we do something or should be just acknowledge that this is the way it is?

closed with the note: Time has passed and no longer an issue, as processes have been developed by the Data Drs.
in Policy and Style by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (755k points)
closed by Robin Lee
Not completely answering this question, but perhaps also circumstantially and / or superfluously  adressing the issue, I have just today had the experience of a new WikiTreer posting badly cited [i.e. the info is correct; the citation is incomplete and also covers already cited data] in comment boxes of pre-1700 profiles ... how do we deal with contribuants who because of whatever reason can only plunk info into the bio's or into comment boxes, even if this does lead to new info having to be curated in a time consuming and labour intensive way? I do not always acknowledge the contributions, but sometimes I do ... I do not want to encourage un-scholarly collaboration, but do not want to merely accept that this is the way it should be and pay the price time- and energy wise ...
Philip, My pre-1500 watchlist is only a handful of profiles, so I haven't experienced your problem. Are you getting a lot people leaving information in the comments?

It seems to me you could send messages back asking for complete citations with links if possible, which is of course time consuming also.
And ... What happens to the comments that are added to orphaned pre-1500 profiles. They might never get noticed.
Comment deleted.
Pardon. Logged in again under the wrong account. This is my personal comment: Yes, many people leave info in comment boxes which is not always an issue to me. It is when it is as I sketched above, or when someone adds "my 8th grandpa" or duplicate data, incomplete citations - when it does not add to the overal profile. The bigger issue is how to guide people to add info to the bio's in organised and non-organised bio's alike. This has been my struggle from day one. However, this is being resolved partly by the Protect Account taking over protected profiles. This way at least all added info can be monitored. Still - as with many things in WikiTree, it comes down to time consuming personal communication.
Re Anne B's question - orphaned pre-1500s can be dealt with by anybody with a badge.

Pre-1500s with unbadged PMs are trickier.

If pre-1500 had resulted in a lot of profiles being orphaned, it might have been a step in the right direction.
The problem for 'Big Brother' making new rules to cover or prevent an unacceptable situation, is that however 'beneficial' they may be in addressing the perceived issues, they will, unless critically tested against all current rules, likely conflict with some existing useful rule.

To avoid such conflicts new rules should be proposed to the contributors to test and evaluate over a minimum 3 month period, enabling unanticipated ill-effects to be ironed out and umbrage amongst the affected to be minimised.
My suggestion: Whatever format the managers and WikiTree desire should be much easier to comply with. Couldn't a format be included with spaces in which to attach citations/documents and to type a bio with a particular format to make all the pages consistent? Right now, it is so darn tedious; one must read pages of instructions and become an expert in computer programming. Otherwise, if this is not doable (can't see why not, what with today's computer software), then there must be a way for the contributors, whether the original managers or not to be able to download/type, etc. the information to a manager's account, and he/she can then (hopefully, easily) include it in the proper page on WiKiTree. This set-up reminds me of the documents I had to learn to format while working for a large corporation in the late 1980's-early 1990's! Yikes! In spite of it all, I do enjoy immensely communicating with 'cousins', the Relationship to Me page is phenomenal, I use it all the time, etc.
Well, today and before I have encountered a Pre-Christ certified person maintaining a profile that is totally *****,,, what do you do about them? Without upsetting the holy applecart?
Applesauce time, Michael!
Oh I wish it was that easy. There is a lot of do as I say but not as we do on wiki tree
Michael - take a look at this page
As a reminder to everyone, the Pre-1500 Badge has special requirements and can be removed for improper use.

5 Answers

+4 votes
Best answer
Couldn't they create a free space page and then link the multiple profiles to it?  It would make it easier for them creating a source document that can be used for multiple profiles when it makes sense to do that (and sometimes it does.. I wish I had thought about doing that for some of my glass makers the sources are redundant for over 400 years of people.   I may go back and do that and then I can add fuller detail for those who care to know it.
by Laura Bozzay G2G6 Pilot (713k points)
selected by Brian Lange
+12 votes
It's an interesting thought. One idea is to prevent non/or Pre-Badge persons from spamming by putting a checkbox or fill in xyz box that says you are a human instead of a spam-bot.

I'm just not sure what programs run wikitree and what things are ez to fix or what are best to avoid. lol.
by K Guerra G2G1 (1.1k points)
+13 votes
It seems to me that the original design for comments was the expectation that they would be permanent.  Therefore if you delete a comment you didn't write, you get a message essentially telling you that you are a bad person in danger of being sanctioned.  

For that reason, I don't like comments.  I prefer not to make them, sending a private message instead, and I don't like receiving them.  What might otherwise be helpful criticism comes across as public humiliation.  The best use I've found for them is when I'm about to edit a profile with 15 profile managers and I can say, "I'm about to do this, are there any issues or cautions I should be aware of?" and it will go to all of them.  And I try to delete my own comments when their use is gone (which is OK) but doesn't always happen.  

I think it would be a big improvement if there was some mechanism where Passerby could see the profile and comment, "The profile would be improved if you didn't use all capitals."  I could then respond under the comment, "Thanks, I've taken care of it" and have the option to check, (a) Delete the comment and response or (b) retain on site the comment and response.
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (389k points)
It would be helpful to be able to post a response to comments, good idea...I've thought the same myself when I looked for a way to respond!
Yes, this is a good idea (the response to comments).  Otherwise it looks as though Passerby has commented on (your) profile and you have done nothing about it, which makes you look almost like an Unresponsive Manager worthy of reporting...
I also believe that creating a response box to comments would be an excellent improvement.  Collaboration is key for WikiTree.
+6 votes
Formatting is not easy.  I have seen where people try to copy and paste in coding and then work within already written coding.  To make this work you have to be able to find existing already formatted code.  And you have to hope it  is correct as there are evidently codes out there that have been replaced or discontinued.   

So, I would suggest that the pre-1500 project create and publish categories or templates you would like us to use.  This takes the guess work out of formats.   And it can prompt the contributors to think in terms of desired formats.

I finally found this under Wikitree help...

Example:   Create a template for sources.  (Yes I know it is not preferred but maybe there are times like pre-1500 where it might make more sense)

Books and other published printed materials:

Internet sources:

Interviews with time period experts (give name of expert, their qualifications like PHD, chair of University of x, history department interviewed by x on specify date

Official documents and where they currently reside:

Theories in Conflict:  (for many historical figures there are at times conflicting opinions among historians  this is where you should put these opposing viewpoints an example might be a book commissioned by the family on a noble vs a book on peerage vs statements made in charters or other legal documents of the time which can create alternate family affiliations)  

Family retained memorabilia and its location:  (I for example have copies and original source materials including letters, research notes of ancestors sometimes 4 centuries or more old)

You may have other ideas, but this is a format I have used with other researchers for a while now.   We find the theories in conflict to be very important because sometimes you get some very contentious discussions about if a source is acceptable or not

If you number the sources then in the bio you can indicate the source number to conserve space and this takes the place of what I find to be cumbersome inline sources.

You can do the same for the biography section.  

An example of hard to find things for users...  try to find a project page for pre-1500.   I see a link for pre-1700 buried in verbiage at the top..    or

If there is a pre-1500 shared project page we could put directions there.

I would suggest that for some profiles linking a free space page might be the way to go, and directions on when and how to do that could be on a pre-1500 project page.  

I would also suggest that on a page like this known fraudulent sources be listed.  Not everyone with a pre-1500s badge is a historian and may not realize they are using a source that has been discredited (example is look at the creation and inclusion of a 7th wife for Henry VIII on wikitree)

OH, and I more thought.  We define some kind of coding to identify

a.  Mythological characters (they are now in wikitree)

b.  Non Verified family members (I have one in my wikitree line because she is a possible daughter or perhaps a cousin of the line... and there is no clear source found yet that clears up her actual affiliation.  I say this in her bio section but it would be great if at the top by the name some kind of icon or phrase could show up that says Not Verified.

c.  Define when we think someone is verified or not  In my opinion one source does not create verification but sometimes you have one person state something that is wrong and then multiple authors pick it up and by common use it becomes the accepted belief even though it is wrong.  We have a situation like that right now for Jacob Stenger which became Stanger when the family came to the Colonial US.  We have a team of international researchers led by Dr Luc Stenger who have proved (we have birth records, emmigration and immigration  records, hand writing analysis, and local historian testaments) that prove this family came from Wingen Sur Moder not Dornhagen as so many books and websites assert.  These kind of situations abound with pre-1700 and pre-1500 beliefs.  

Ok, I am off my soapbox...  thanks for letting me vent a little.
by Laura Bozzay G2G6 Pilot (713k points)
+3 votes
Further down I dream that wiki-Tree could get a funding to donate too the cause of information somehow. And just hire on some sort chronological scholar for general world history just have some sort of Web of official concensus. For the big names in history. (I know it's nothing that easy but I just someday). (:
by Living Smith G2G6 Mach 5 (55.5k points)

Related questions

+45 votes
4 answers
+12 votes
2 answers
175 views asked Jun 1, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Jayme Arrington G2G6 Pilot (157k points)
+47 votes
3 answers
+36 votes
4 answers
+27 votes
13 answers
+22 votes
8 answers
+7 votes
2 answers
347 views asked Aug 1, 2017 in WikiTree Tech by Glen Street G2G1 (1.2k points)
+38 votes
7 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright