Do we need a pre-1500 problem list of some sort?

Question

On G2G we get many queries about problems concerning a pre-1500 profile.  Some of them are very easy to fix (a miss-typed birth date for instance) but others are more complex and may involve more than one profile, or a great deal of research to find the correct information.

This can mean that with the complex problems, even with the best will in the world, there are times when no one who is pre-1500 certified is available to undertake that work there and then.  There might even be some discussion about the problem, but nothing actually happens, and it gets forgotten, until it is reported again as an issue 6 months or a year later.

I'm wondering if there is some way of flagging these profiles that basically says "yes, we know there is a problem" and "someone will get to sorting it out as soon as they can".

I'm not sure what that should be though, a research note template?  A category?  Some sort of error code?  A free space page?

Comments

John, we have a template that can be used for that:  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Euro_Aristo_Repair_Work_in_Progress

Answer 1

One possibility is to enter a status comment on error report. My guess is most of requests are originating from error report.

So if comment like

On pre1500 todo list

is added to error report, people would know, the problem was looked into and will eventually be corrected. You would need to have a page with problem profiles, that would be worked. Not just to dump all problem profiles there.

Comments

I think the issue is coming from 3 or 4 sources.

1.  The error report but while some errors may point you to a complex profile I do not think that is where the bulk of the pre-1500 needs for assistance come from

2.  PMs who do not have the pre-1500 badge but these are their ancestors and they want to make a change to the profile.  This necessitates a posting in G2G.

3.  Projects that are actively trying to clean up the "myths" that seem to populate so much of this time period.  And this is what really takes a lot of time because our ancestors at that time period did not always keep records and if they did many have not survived so this is takes real detective work because so much of what is out of the internet is fabricated genealogy to make a line look more important than it might be.  In the middle ages there was big business in linking current nobles to ancient lines.  So all of that has to be researched in light of newer discoveries.    And this is where I think the bulk of the work is sitting.  It is not just fixing what is caught in database errors.  

4.  Newbies wanting to add their pre-1500 people.  

For this reason I agree with those who have made suggestions in threads below that we need to keep some kind of record of what has been done on these possibly fake or inflated profiles.  I am not sure the error report is a good place for that as we may want to leave url links, screen shots and paragraphs of rationale.  For me that sounds like it would be better in a free space page.

Answer 2

Another approach would be to add certain category on these profiles. Like [[Category: Pre1500 complex error]]. That way I can prepare separate report of complex errors and users might see the category and wouldn't ask again. Or if it is asked, you would immediately know it is a complex problem and wouldn't even look into details.

Comments

I think it definitely warrants using maintenance categories. If some apply that already exist, great. If not, we need to discuss new possibilities.  First step would probably be to look at what has already been discissed and is in use. Great idea, John and Ales; thanks!

---

Some existing categories that might apply:  Serious Data Problems, Conflated Profiles, Bad Merge

Separating the pre-1500 profiles within these categories would be a great idea.

---

I having specific maintenance categories for Pre-1500 profiles is only useful if someone uses them.   I recently asked about who was working a very large category set up by a one-name study.   I was told the category was just to "alert" people of an issue.

---

Robin, I agree that there aren't any guarantees that having some sort of maintenance category will mean that pre-1500 issues are dealt with any quicker, but I think there is value in capturing them in some way.

At least we know that the pre-1500 badge process has mostly stopped these problems increasing.

---

Free-space pages can be added to narrow down the type of Complex errors (possibly using error code groups). These pages could have information about how best to correct the issue. Profile managers can invite assistance for their profiles by referencing to the appropriate free-space page. Depending upon the complexity of the issue, they could mention whether they prefer comment or edit assistance.

Answer 3

Would really appreciate that it was noted something like "on pre-1500 to-do-list" as a comment on profiles alerted in the DBE list. That way it would be clear that someone who actually had the skill to edit was aware of the problem with the profile.

If DataDoctors were to add something to the bio (research note or category) they still would need to be pre-1500 certified.

On a free space page anyone could add a profile that would need pre-1500 help.

As a DataDoctor viewing pre-1500 profiles to see if anything can be done I  can't help but wonder if the badge for pre-1500 should be renewed once a year. Some of the profiles pre-1500 without sources or anything at all in the bio (besides ancestry links that don't work) actually belong to managers with the badge.

Comments

Sure you can and probably better than most pre1500 badge holders, due to your knowledge of local history. But you don't need to manage the profile to do that.

But if you are doing that regularly you should apply for the badge. You have 2 years of wikitree experience.

---

Nope, don't need to be the manager to do that and I don't think I manage any pre-1500. The furthest I've come in my own family is mid 1500 so I can manage without the badge.

The only time I adopt profiles is if they fit in my ancestry or I propose a merge of an orphan profile, then I usually adopt that profile until the merge is done and I cleaned the merge up.

---

Possibly Maggie, but it's a pity you don't apply for pre-1500 certification you would be a great asset.

---

Thank you for those kind words Isabelle.

I might consider it later on, summer is filled with work and after that I will read up on categories and templates and try to help more within the Swedish project.

---

I agree with Isabelle. I think the certification is a small hurdle for good genealogists and definitely worth considering for anyone who is able to handle the period.

---

Maggie, I recently adopted pre-1500 profiles in my family's ancestral lines without having certification with the intent of becoming certified. Picking a profile for the certification process and following through took longer than intended.  When I could not handle a merge requiring pre-1500 certification,

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:MergePerson&user1_name=Ireby-8&user2_name=Ireby-6&action=compare

I made certification a larger priority and requested it. The process was much easier than expected.

Both of the profiles are unsourced. The one I managed is from an old GEDCOM dated 19 October 2010. The other has this comment which was entered on October 21, 2013 under Sources:

'No sources. The events of Gelsone's life were either witnessed by xxx or xxx plans to add [[sources]] here later.''

I have yet to find any sources! Why should caring enough to adopt an orphaned profile put my certification on the line.

---

She's supposed to be Unknown Gibson, of Ireby Hall, though Unknown Unknown might be more accurate.

I've posted sources on James.  His mother Alice Unknown has got confused with his wife.

---

RJ

Thank you! I added a couple of sources to the Research Note section of [[Ireby-8|her]] profile.

---

@ Pat 

Why should caring enough to adopt an orphaned profile put my certification on the line

This is not the cases I'm talking about. This is an example:

Working an Swedish DBE error concerning parent and child, there are 91 errors, ie 182 profiles. Of these profiles XXX is the manager of 63 profiles and co-manager of 51 profiles. 

OK, you need the pre-1500 certification to correct them and XXX has had that for more than a year. But on most profiles nothing has been done at all since the gedcom import in 2011. Some has work/research done by someone else than the manager. 

As a pre-1500 badge holder you should "demonstrate a practical understanding of the principles behind our Honor Code and Pre-1700 Self-Certification, especially regarding sources "

That's why I think that maybe the badge should be renewed within a specific timeframe. If you no longer have the interest in upholding the standards required you should not have the badge.

---

Maggie,

That is an issue that should be dealt with. However, requiring that all pre-1500 certifications be renewed annually is not the answer. How many would not bother to renew it. Once I get the few profiles on my tree properly sourced I might not want to bother with being recertified. What is to stop someone from doing the bare minimum for recertification and leaving the rest of their profiles with no improvements. There should be a process to remove those who DO NOT "demonstrate a practical understanding of the principles behind our Honor Code and Pre-1700 Self-Certification, especially regarding sources."

btw, I noticed that you are not pre-1500 certified. WIth your high standards maybe you should consider getting certified.

Answer 4

Certainly a to do list is a good idea. A lot of the problems I'm seeing are not going to be helped by just focusing on  the one profile that is highlighted as having a database error.  When you start to research and go forwards in order to correct that error you discover that  it is  often not a simple error. The one recorded is   just a symptom of  massive problems within a lineage . These  problems often straddle the 1500 date ie: fictitious and semi-fictitious ancestors of later well known families and/or those that are thought to be ancestors of those that went to then  'New World'.

I think therefore a to do list of 'important'  families  would be a good idea .

I would certainly love to work on some of these families (eg to cite one of my local examples, the Churchills who in my opinion are a total muddle ). I am sure  there are families centred in every county in England with  similar examples.  But , rather than go it alone,  I would  far rather work  with others on these lineages  to help give  validity to the work.

(edited  for better clarity

Answer 5

Good proposal. Obviously many of us do post notes aimed at letting people know of work to be done andvthe G2G links help also. But being a wiki work has no deadline so can become hard to recall.

Answer 6

We do have this template available for situations such as this:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Euro_Aristo_Repair_Work_in_Progress  The wording isn't what we want, so I'm going to change it right now.  Comments with regard to wording are appreciated.

If people were to use/place this template on the profiles that need help, research, cleaning up, etc., we would then be able to go to that category and see the list . . .  If you go there now, you will see there are a LOT of profiles that need help!  :(

Darlene - Co-Leader, British Isles Royals & Aristocrats 742-1499 Project

Comments

Darlene, can I use it on some profiles of the Vermandois family that were victims of an unfortunate merge of Hugues Capet and Hugues de Vermandois (several years ago ! )? Like https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Capet-434, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Capet-620, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Capet-658... that family group ?

---

Isabelle, yes you can.  The template was actually created initially for posting on bad merged profiles.  I changed the wording to include errors and/or work needed . . .

Answer 7

I also think it would be a good idea to have a list of

1.  Known frauds  (like a 7th wife of Henry the VIII)

2.  Bad sources.  (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory)

3.  Good sources

4.  Great references for different locations and time periods.

These would be great on a free space page as references for all of us.