Jillaine, my first pass at WikiTree was in 2014, basically to put that additional information (marriage) dealing with what I call the 'whence' issue at the Thomas profile. At the time, I was writing some articles pulling together my research notes from 2009 to that time (The Essex Genealogist - the first one corrected a prior article from the 1990s about the string of John Graves in Ipswich). Then, I heard from a bunch of Gardner families and dug in with one from the Philly area (of course, Quaker, coming in through New Jersey, had a ferry in that area) who had relations, we think, with the Salem crowd. That cut my teeth in looking at the old country, so to speak. And, I, recently, started to get more a more in-depth feel for the southwest. Interesting.
A few days ago, I came back to WikiTree, in earnest. I need to change from my roll-your-own method (a bounce from the 'ancestrydot' experience) and am looking at alternatives. There have been lots of changes the past couple of years (some have even perturbed people); many have been debating how we ought to go now. Then, 'rootsweb' had a glitch last year. But, lo and behold, WikiTree has attracted the professional genealogists.
Too, I love the 'wiki' approach, however my protocol sense still needs some tuning ;>).
My thought, yesterday, was that we need a project (I'll have to learn how to do this). About 2016, I shifted my focus from Thomas (specific - as my wife also has Thomas of Roxbury in her tree) to all things Gardner (Dr. Frank's 1933 book expanded on the list) as I have heard from all of the Gardner families, so far. I wrote about the ship that wrecked off of Oregon in 1860 (the gold fever); it was owned by a descendant of George of RI who was a Boston merchant (it carried Caribbean booze out of Boston around the Cape to San Francisco - then, it was seen in New Zealand, ostensibly to pick up supplies for the miners).
If there were a project, we could pull together all of the stories that have accrued. Plus, get all of the references in the books over the years, together. I already have started this (Hubbard, Farmer, Felt, et al) in blog posts. But, too, John (son) mentioned Sherburne (I saw that in a book at the Essex Institute but did not remember the name). He and Richard, at least for a bit, got something on Nantucket renamed, thus. The uproar caused a switchback (nothing new under the sun).
Too, my Gardner colleague from the Philly family has a slew of material some of which we'll publish this fall.
As an aside, the John Graves were conflated due to the coming forward mode of research following the Vital Records. Say, things like the Sr and Jr mention at different parts of time can confuse. I solved this by working back from extant people to that point. Then, the Johns were easy to split as we had more records.
Same goes for comparing with Dr. Frank's work.
To me, the same goes for this piece of the puzzle. Actually, I have found things just by looking at collateral families. In one recent case, a note was made that someone was in Nebraska (mid-1800s) out of Massachusetts. I was able to trace out the in-between points, fortunately; though, there are some missing pieces that can be handled via an indirect method.
Such an august family as the Peirce one of Harvard had Thomas with his father (same story told at the Dorset site - the elder Thomas came over and went back). That's why I started with just doing a sweep of stories (with a timeline). Some are far-fetched (I document the issue on the blog when I see it). Others have something behind them; interpretation is a part of human culture and history, albeit technology is now exacerbating the whole thing (keeps life fun).
For all of the stories (pulled together), we could document the pros and cons. Or, even just look at the source of the 'rumor' (belief?, wish?, whatever). Nothing to hide. Give people their spot in the sun. In other words, do a full documentation.
But, plenty of people have tried to untangle this knot. I talked briefly with Doug R to see if he had interest (of course) when I saw him at a DC talk. That marriage mention had been found on a recently transcribed record.
I'm for agreeing on some interim state and then go full-bore into the search, documenting as things go along. That is why I mentioned five years, as 1623 is coming up then.
One open issue for us at TGS, Inc. was where to work outside of the FB closed group and the current mode of tgsoc.org and the blog. I'm going to use WikiTree, as the past two days have been really effective (so much more to do).
How do (ought) we do a Thomas Gardner project?