Link Challenge

Question

I see a lot of unsourced links between profiles (child to parent mostly but also spouse).  And it's not unusual for a PM to demand a source before unlinking even though there is no real source or evidence provided for having made the link.  I wonder if we need something similar to the merge structure for challenging these links.  We would initiate an unlink request, or a link challenge, or whatever people want to name it, and wait 30 days.  If no repsonse, or if PM denies request without providing evidence, we click an appeal link to have a leader review it, like dispute arbitration.

It's kind of backwards as it is that relationship links can be made without supporting sources/evidence/analysis, but then whoever challenges one has to have proof.  I think it could be implemented without complicated programming, mostly just through developing or refining a policy for handling it.  *Intended just for open profiles.*  If there is something in place that addresses  this adequately, please point me to it.

Comments

I often shake my head as I go about disproving unsourced relationships, because the burden of proof should have been on the person who attached it in the first place.

---

Good point.....

Checkboxes maybe on more places you have to check that you have good source citations...
 

Draft of text and checkbox

Thanks for initiate this merge request

Have you have added good source citations that prove your conclusion? Can the profile manager easily understand your conclusion?

If you are unsure please add citations so other people gets no confusion about your sources. Otherwise check the box below and continue.

I hereby declare that I have done my best of adding sources and conclusions that prove my merge request and my genealogical citations will give no problems for a genealogy skilled person to understand. The used citations indicates reliability of my sources and are selected so that they give genealogical evidences.. 

For the communication to be easy and clear I have used a standard format when doing my citations....

On the receiving end easily be able to confirm that he/she has received good proofs and understand the evidences.....    

---

How do you even prove a negative? I assume you have something to back up the idea that the link is wrong before even approaching the issue.

 

I also think it's important to keep things simple around here, not everyone on here is tech/Internet savvy, or have good enough English to understand a wall of text with confirmations or declarations of intents etc.

I think it's better if the suspected wrong link can be backed up by the PM, so others can see what the conclusion of this seemingly wrong link was based on. We want a healthy tree, and sometimes the best of us makes mistakes.

I had a whole branch that I had researched that was the wrong person and not related to me, it had been in my tree for years before I noticed it. Was a mix up with a person of the same name and place of birth, but the birth date was a couple of days off. I obviously made that mistake in the early days of starting genealogy, but once it's in your tree, you think of it as almost holy, still doesn't make it correct! ;)

Answer 1

Do you reckon it would ever be possible instead of the biography requiring a source (in the first instance, not get rid of) that sources could be directly linked to the bit above the bio. So its more apparent that sources are needed for that and for linking to other profiles

E.g. When entering birth details in the edit box there would be a box for that source, or entering death details a box next for that.