Merging by branches

+13 votes

I am preparing comparison of profiles to be merged, that includes relatives.

Here is what I have done for now.

You can test with different IDs.

It is working on last database dump (sunday).

I will be unavailable until sunday, so I will review comments then.

in WikiTree Tech by Aleš Trtnik G2G6 Pilot (671k points)
retagged by Dorothy Barry


  1. Privacy Level 60 Brita Rydström (Hogquist-2) and Privacy Level 60 Brita Högqvist (Högqvist-6)   Compare compare
    Proposed by Magnus Sälgö.
    Someone from Hogquist-2's Trusted List needs to approve. Help 
    Approval from Magnus Sälgö for Högqvist-6 has been recorded. 
          If Hogquist-2 and Högqvist-6 are different people, reject the merge. 
          Arborists and Leaders: If there's been an error, remove the pending merge. Help 
    Last updated 2016-06-28 09:09:17.

    Aleš Trtnik Tool
  2. Privacy Level 60 Hanna Maria von Born (Von Born-21) and Privacy Level 50 Hanna Maria von Born (Von Born-8)   Compare compare
    Proposed by RJ Horace.
    Approval from Magnus Sälgö for Von Born-21 has been recorded. 
    Someone from Von Born-8's Trusted List needs to approve. Help 
          If Von Born-21 and Von Born-8 are different people, reject the merge. 
          Arborists and Leaders: If there's been an error, remove the pending merge. Help 
    Last updated 2016-06-30 19:10:58.

    Aleš Trtnik Tool

I think that there is something very useful here Ales. What you have here is how my mind at times work when I view trees and branches. This is what I mean by "algorithmic" (I have always said one does not have to understand Pythogoras to implement his theory intuitively). The only consideration to make is where to fit it into the bigger picture i.e. proces. Automated corrective measures can be darned intrusive, time consuming and obstructive, if not implemented with care ...

Your innovations are inspiring, Aleš. Thank you!

We should have the new, more comprehensive database dumps ready for you shortly.

2 Answers

+1 vote
The tool is OK, no particular complaints so far.  But the main problem here is we can't get clear guidance on how to resolve discrepancies.  The rules/policies and attitudes are not in step with the technical capabilities to fix errors.  Every suggestion made to improve things is met with resistance and nothing changes.
by Living Anonymous G2G6 Mach 4 (47.7k points)

Mike Anonymous I see this tool as an excellent way to plan the action better and faster

Step 1 is always to get a disease awareness 

Step 2 find the root cause

Step 3 plan what to do and agree about that ==>

Step 4 then you act and find how to resolve the issues...

Merging can be enormous difficult

The example above from Aleš Trtnik could be about 14 merges

See the case I been working with today that just get worse as I feel now the source in Census 1900 used is for the wrong family ==>

  1.  3 children added are wrong.... 
  2. we have done 3 merges 
  3. we need maybe to do 3 more merges.....

And the reason for this chaos is that the Ancestry tool makes it too easy to connect people without doing proper genealogy....

big pic

How to agree what to do 

My suggestion use the GPS method and start analyze and correlate what you know and then agree of actions.... so the guidance I think should be

document what you know and try to follow a genealogy method like GPS

A standard of proof would be good but WikiTree has so far not implemented one.  (Is it too late to start now even if they wanted to?)  The old standby rule of thumb for people trying to do it right is to have 3 independent pieces of evidence to support any connections that are made.  That isn't always possible to achieve so the substitute for it is to include a rationale or explanation for why you are making a connection, or to at least identify it as speculative with some justification not just a wild guess or a simple matching name.  And this applies not only to links between people but to linking unrelated records together for the same person.  Birth and marriage and death data are often found in unrelated records so you need to state why you think these belong to the same person to avoid a profile made up of data mixed together from 2 or more real people.  Most of what we have on WikiTree and other internet genealogy sites is so far from this it creates a nearly impossible task to fix it.

>> Most of what we have on WikiTree and other internet genealogy sites is so far from this it creates a nearly impossible task to fix it.

Agree but it's not too late to change. Doing genealogy "correct" is a learning curve and people with more experience recommend using GPS

I think there is no shortcut if you care about that you would like to climb your own family tree....

I also feel that the intention with WikiTree is to use a method like GPS that is my understanding of the Honor Code 

  1. We cite sources. Without sources we can't objectively resolve conflicting information.
If we compare that with some lines from the book I feel it's same same.... 

As the founder Chris push that WikiTree is about collaboration and free. We need to find a way of working together and i think the steps in GPS is an excellent way to explain the conclusions we have done... the future will tell if we succeed... 

In my experience many sources conflict. Facts get updated. Put into new context. This is also science.
0 votes

Excellent to have a tool BUT feels like doing it right you need to have a Master in Applied Physics 

One Test Merge

The DB_Error tools has reported Marriages to duplicated persons

  1. Cline-470 is married to Furr-121
  2. Cline-723 is married to Furr-121

Question what is the correct action anyone to fix this?? 


My feeling is just mark it Unsourced and give up..... 


When looking on the generated report I get the feeling lack of research done on the profiles... but I don't understand where to start....

  1. Schenck-145 and Shank-92 could also be the same
  2. Father is not the same Cline-13 and Cline-721


by Living Sälgö G2G6 Pilot (276k points)
edited by Living Sälgö
Yes, lack of real research is epidemic here.  And db-error-fixers should not be doing research - if you can't fix it with the info available, move on.  (I already gave up though because of the attitudes.)

I also feel any unsourced connections found that do not seem to fit (e.g. date is way out of bounds) should be unlinked without further discussion because the rules do say sources are supposed to be cited.  Make the change, note the change, move on.  Wiki is all about multiple people editing - otherwise it shouldn't be wiki based.

I think the root cause is that WikiTree doesn't use Templates for sources...

If we used templates

  1. You could direct see if a profile was sourced and get all alarm bells ringing
  2. You could compare profiles based on sources ==> get much better matches compared to pattern matching that the matchbot is doing (which is not genealogy)
  3. A report like above could have links to the sources ==> much easier and faster to do the planning of a merge

I think I spent 10 hours trying to understand Space:Lindgreen_Iowa_1880 something I guess takes just 10 mouse clicks in Ancestry to create and it's done in 5 minutes....

If WikiTree believe in doing good Genealogy and are committed we must focus more on using sources and try to add structures (Wiki Templates is one solution...). 

 Big pic 

Related questions

+5 votes
1 answer
136 views asked Apr 30, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Janet Clifton G2G6 Mach 5 (55.8k points)
+18 votes
11 answers
491 views asked Aug 23, 2018 in The Tree House by Kaylinn Stormo G2G6 Mach 1 (18.5k points)
+8 votes
3 answers
+11 votes
1 answer
160 views asked Nov 14, 2016 in Requests for Project Volunteers by Anne B G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
+5 votes
3 answers
215 views asked Oct 5, 2019 in WikiTree Tech by Debra Allison G2G6 Mach 3 (38.3k points)
+4 votes
0 answers
+11 votes
3 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright