Why does WikiTree allow undocumented "forced" relationships??

Question

There is so much incorrect and unproved information on WikiTree that people have placed just to show they are related to historical figures or royalty or whatever!  This makes it very discouraging for serious researchers and is not in line with the goal of WikiTree.

A perfect example of this is a myth that has been persisting with the Tipton pedigree since about 1949 when Hord Tipton wrote his book which was excellent considering the resources available at the time.  The fact is that there is no proof of any ancestors before the first Jonathan Tipton-63 in America.  Yet people keep placing this line on the WikiTree.  Other more ethical or experienced researchers, including myself, remove it and explain why.  But others come and change it back.  Having experienced this over and over, I have decided that if this is happening in one family, no doubt it is happening in many.  Therefore, WikiTree can not be considered to have integrity and thus us not reliable.  It has cooled my enthusiasm for WikiTree a whole lot, sorry to say.  

What's your take on this????

edit - added Maryland tag

Comments

A side effect of these badly assigned ancestors is that it ruins many of the fun tools that make wikitree unique. Such as the connection/relationship tools.

---

Less ethical? Ouch. That's a bit harsh.

---

To say that an entire site doesn't have integrity is, I think, going too far. It's not like there's some Wikitree God overseeing each and every edit. Or even a paid staff who knows every accurate thing about every profile, trolling the site, cleaning up errors.

WE are Wikitree. You are Wikitree. There are mechanisms in place to pull in the powers that be when conflicts arise that we can't resolve ourselves, but for the most part, we're a community of volunteers-- of varying degrees of research experience-- doing our best to improve the profiles that get placed here, including finding sources.

Posting a query to g2g when there's a conflict IN DATA typically gets the desired result-- an improved profile. ANd it looks like you attempted to initially engage with the profile editors on the profile page itself. But it also looks like the person who added the parents back in has not engaged. So, coming here to g2g and asking for help is a good thing to do.

But please focus on what data it is that's wrong, what the sources are that back up your concern, and what needs to be done to fix it.

Thanks.

---

For example:

"Here's a profile that continues to be changed with incorrect information. The incorrect information is... The best source that explains why this is so is.... Are there any objections to me fixing this profile to align with what the sources say? AND given that this has now happened more than once, can we please protect this profile so that the inaccurate parents cannot be re-attached? Thank you."

---

Hi Jillaine, I tried exactly what you proposed. But egos abound with Tipton genealogy and people believe what they are gonna believe.

In so far as my comment about the entire site not having integrity, well, obviously that is not true as there is much accurate information here. So since WikiTree is ONE HUMAN TREE the  fact remains that due to being able to place myths on it, makes the tree in general unreliable and without jntegrity.

There needs to be safeguards to prevent information from being added (especially family relatiinships) so that they are documented (proven or at least evidence explained). Because with incidents like this one myths get perpetrated and history is thus distorted. Classic example here with Tipton-63 which has gone on now for going on 75 years.

---

Saro,

There are safeguards, and you've requested that they be put into place. I've asked Anne-- in the absence of Southern Colonies showing up-- to PPP the profile. That's the safeguard. The other safeguard is a good source or sources. Some are still needed on this Tipton profile.

Answer 1

I believe Jonathan falls under the Southern Colonies Project. (I've added their tag) They can put their project box on the profile and then PPP (Project Protect) him so noone but leaders and managers will be able to add parents.

If someone from the Southern Colonies Project doesn't come along and do this let me know and I will see to it.

Comments

Looks like the parents have now been detached; Anne, can you PPP it? Southern Colonies Project appears to be a bit sleepy lately?

---

It is officially PPP'd now.

Answer 2

Is there a project under which you can protect it with a PPP ?

See: www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project_protection

Answer 3

"forced relationships" (thought he was referring to abductions etc.)

Answer 4

You have certainly hit on one of the challenges of the collaborative nature of  WikiTree.  My experience with bad data has fallen into the experience area. While there are certainly some wishfully wrong genealogies here, in my experience, I have not found willfully wrong biographies. I have a surname Porterfield project that has experienced the same due to a couple of  poorly worded sections in an otherwise well researched published genealogy from 1947. THe cleanup can be annoying, but I attribute this to helping grow and help other members.

Here are some minor things that might help.

I'd suggest the disputed parentage section could be added to the top, that may help the casual observer that does not scroll. I'd drop the all caps heading as that is generally bad style here and elsewhere on the internet.  

Also, more specifically state in first sentence the parentage appears incorrect/unproven. The argument presented seems sound. You may want to avoid the use of weasel words in the verbiage (that's not an insult, it's a writing thing)  

Write the bio completely in a narrative, eliminate the "notes" heading and "notes" comments. It makes it easier to quickly assimilate the information.

On this specific profile, the merge was done months, but merge and gedcom cleanup still needs  to be cleaned up. The shorter and tighter the bio more the disputed section will stand out.   

The links in the disputed section would be easier to find if they followed the standard "ref" tags conventions.

Also, the attached father's bio needs work as there are first person comments that make it confusing to read.

Comments

Excellent advice!

---

I took an initial crack at cleaning up the narrative per Marty's advice, including linking to the disputed parents in the narrative so that they are ready to be detached. I wasn't comfortable doing the actual detaching.

I also left some notes in the narrative asking about the source numbering. That needs more attention.

Answer 5

I have started putting this note on profiles that keep getting added to unsourced and incorrect profiles;

{{Red| Please do not use online unsourced family trees when updating or adding to this profile. We need only information from viable sources that can be seen by anyone who wants to verify the information}}
Thank You, Cheryl Stone Caudill