Do we care if there is more than one "project manager" per profile?

+28 votes
As lead of the US Presidents Project I had made an arbitrary decision that we would only cover 4 generations of US Presidents Ancestors.   My assumption was that some other project would pick up from there....NNS, PGM, EuroAristo, get the picture?   Because we were the "experiment" with Project Manager profiles, we actually took on more than just 4 generations in many cases.   Where we notice that there is another project managing a profile, we remove the US Presidents Project as a manager.   But, that has created a real inconsistency in how deep we go into a US Presidents Ancestry.    

My question is "Do we Care?"

1) The real reason the US Presidents Project was watching ancestry was due to all the false claims on the ancestry of the US Presidents.

2) I do not believe we have had any issues with conflicting project approaches, or when we did, they were easily solved.

3) With all the discussion of Project boxes, etc, do we need a common approach that is "one project in charge" approach, or is this a non-issue?
asked in Policy and Style by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (455k points)
I'd like to see Presidents as profile manager, with full profile manager rights, back to seven generations, in the direct line, primarily to facilitate needed merges. It's frustrating to have merges rejected for no good sustainable reason by newbies surfing pendings or by folks who just resist joining the "common herd".  Such rejections have happened nine times just this past week.
I want to clarify for everyone....

This discussion is NOT about Profile managers and how many we have on profiles, nor is is about how profile managers are treated when a project is added to a profile.

This question is strictly about, do we need more than one project managing a profile?
Hi Robin

When you say so many are not correct in claiming President as kin, do they not use family finder or is there an issue with family? I used family finder on all of my finds. I think everyone would like to be kin to Presidents but would prefer not to be in error.

Using relationship finder and the connections within Wikitree is the right way to go!

What I am referring to are the "false genealogies" that are out on the web.   No sources, lots of guesses in order to connect all the US Presidents to each other, and therefore, to oneself.   For the most part between our project and the Magna Carta Project we have kept most of those unproven falsehoods off Wikitree.   But, every once in a while we find someone who tries to re-connect where we have proven it incorrect.
As someone with no known ancestry in North America and almost exclusively within the UK for the past 1000 years, it seems to me that the US Presidents project can administer the profiles of as many generations in the USA as it chooses. However it seems to me to be totally inappropriate for it to administer the profile of any Presidential ancestors who came from Europe. We have projects which cover European families staffed by experts in European genealogy and as long as the projects co-operate, what is on the west side of "the pond" should be governed there and what is on the east side of "the pond" should be governed here.

Speaking personally, if I happened to be a 2nd or 3rd cousin of a President, I might get very upset if someone who was not a member of my family tried to prevent me from amending details on the profile of my ancestor.

12 Answers

+14 votes
Best answer
Much of it depends on how well the projects work together and how their standards compare. We have had issues with various projects having an interest in a profile, but their approaches to managing and improving the profiles differed enough that there was conflict.

In those cases, I have recommended the project that best suits the profiles take the lead as the primary project account manager for the profile, while all the other projects who also have an interest in the profile be on the trusted list so they see updates to the profile, but do not get every merge request or trusted list request.

It has been the best approach for making sure those who best understand the needs of the profile are making the big decisions (but still keeping others interested in the loop).

An example-as John mentioned Notables and European Aristocracy have a lot of crossover. That said, Notables doesn't always know which House name would be best for a LNAB for a profile, or the best places finding sources to make sure family lines are correct, especially in very old lines. Those decisions for merges or name changes are best left to the EA folks. But, it doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial to have Notables watching changes, or that they might not want to know anniversaries to feature a profile in something they're working on.

We do not currently have a policy for insisting on only one project manager per profile, but we may need to lean that way if we're finding that there are too many disagreements in how a profile should be managed.

Collaboration between projects is as important as collaboration between members. Discussion should happen before major changes happen-expediting where discussion hasn't happened often causes conflict that can be avoided by talking first. G2G is a great place for this so all interested parties can participate.
answered by Abby Glann G2G6 Pilot (371k points)
selected by Helen Ford

Thank you Abby. That sounds just great. :)  

I stayed out of the discussion and mabey I should have stayed out again but this all hurts my WikiTree heart.  As............ I am so sorry this all happens. Just because of ONE person.. even how valuable at WikiTree but destroying appointments and efforts of years of soooooo many,  

I thought policy and collaborations were working great for years according to agreements made and discussed years ago over a long period. NNS and the DRP were working great together. Agreeing and disagreeing in peace. But always collaborating and solving. They worked on profiles together and used hours and hours to work things out to find the best on the right sources and names, Now one seems to be able to make all that work undone. That is why I am reacting. 

All I ask of you Abby is to be even wiser than yourself and I value you! You re facing/in the middle of a hard job. 

Collaborations is the cue at WikiTree. Are we here now??? NNS and the DRP always were! Why things changed at once? One  in contradiction able to change all?  Come on? 

Now I see one person is trying to change those policies, that are set years ago, (yeh old policies needs sometimes to be reconsidered if they do not work anymore,  But  this is about one s in a lastname!! not at LNAB but at LNAM and misreading a patronimic) after long G2G threats and discussions by many, years ago- now one!!!!!!!! just one!!!!!!!! is changing this all?????? Why? If I started this discussion- N O N E - would have started this all, I  think I would not have beeen able to!.But I am not as "important" at WikiTree. 

Just to set things to normal. If I had started this nothing would have been changed. But a Leader, knowing WikTree rules (not abidin them though), taking spellings of adults more important at marriage?? than -  as WikiTree policy, says - spelling at LNAB!!!. Saying LNAM(arriage) is above WIKITREE!! policy of LNAB??

This is not only affecting the NNS and DRP profiles but also all of my  3955 profiles. I added all LNAB s on the birth or baptism records. Now I all have to set them to LNAM(arriage)? Come on! 

This person is very valuable at WikiTree. Doing great things. This is never! personal! But this person is not able to read old Dutch and not even understanding how patronymics work. My pain is that this person is changing rules without even understanding enough (not saying not at all!!) Dutch history. Not even understanding WikiTree policy at LNAB  as if this is continued all hours of searching and hard work at the collaboriation at the former great collaboration between the DRP and the NNS is thrown away but all hours are thrown away at all personal profiles. 

If this will be the standard WikiTree will be killed. I signed the honour code:

Our Honor Code

  1. We collaborate. When we share ancestors we work together on the same ancestor profiles.
  2. We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes.
  3. We know mistakes are inevitable. We don't want to be afraid to make them. We assume that mistakes are unintentional when others make them and ask for the same understanding.
  4. We know misunderstandings are inevitable. We try to minimize them by being courteous to everyone, even those who don't act accordingly.
  5. We respect privacy. We privacy-protect anything we think our family members might not want public. If that's not enough for someone, we delete their personal information.
  6. We respect copyrights. We don't knowingly copy information that's owned by someone else. If we ourselves want to preserve a copyright, we're clear about what's copyrighted so others don't accidentally copy it.
  7. We give credit. Although most genealogy isn't copyrighted, researchers deserve credit for the work they've done.
  8. We cite sources. Without sources we can't objectively resolve conflicting information.
  9. We are united in a mission to increase the world's common store of knowledge. We always respect copyrights and privacy, but we keep information as free and open as possible.


The rules were clear. Settled by a long discussion for a long time at G2G  and working. Again I just wonder how one person can destroy that all. Give me good reasons why one can ignore all rules and get supporters and make all down. 

Mabey not even realizing how long it takes all at WikiTree will be adjusted again at new (wrong) rules by all. 

Abby I understand your in a split. I love you try to solve. BUT it is not right in my opinion. 

For me it is easy. As long as they are on the Dutch grounds they are worked and treated the Dutch way. And LNAB is as written here as shown at REAL documents. Although there are spelling mistakes of course by the ministers of those days. :) But LNAB is LNAB. If I write my name different than as at my birth it is what I made of it. DOT. 

After they left here they are part of the Project they went too. Not changing anything at the part of the profile as they were Dutch and documented here. There is space enough at any profile to add new names used later. To find those profiles back in history they need the LNAB as spelled at Birth!  

I admire you all like to settle. Thank you. I will stay out of this discussion further as I think it is just a waist of time. I just liked to share my opinion and I think of most Dutch. I think this time waisting discussion because of one and I am sorry but that is how it feels - self evident and not able to cooperate, not seeing and admitting limitations, just being crosswise with no good arguments but somehow getting you all to discuss and think over all this. 

As I am just sorry you leaders are using time on things that were settled fine and were verrrrry clear I great you. I will not ever ever ever do anything at our ancestors ruled by the NNS unless we have one that understands cooperation and can read Dutch docs and understand Dutch Patronymics or one that gives in they do  not trusting those knowing better. Have fun with one followed - great at many - but uncompatible at the Dutch. Let us move all born Dutch to that person!! Hurray! .......... Out............... WikiTree regressing on one person. Thumbs up! 


Remaining back in silence. I know you all do the best you can. Just realize that this is soo wrong. 


A. I m sorry for misspellings....... but I always think my English is better than your Dutch :D 

Here to say I hate long G2G discussions. Many interferring not knowing half what things are about. Now bye to all. Wishing you so much luck and wishdom  <3


So BTW the answer is no. Unless the other profile manager is WILLING TO COOPERATE, and seeing own short cummings. :) 

Astrid, I have had similar problems with a project as you voice here, specifically with an unsourced claim of ancestry, again in apparent violation of honor code and Wikitree rules. After being black-flagged on G2G by the project leader for questioning project policy, I left that project and joined DRP instead. All I can do is leave comments on the affected profiles questioning the deviation from WT policies. Also, in the last ancestor in a lineage of mine before the line passes under control of this project,, I will leave a profile comment stating that immediate ancestral profiles that are project PPP may be invalid and to look at profile comments for specific objections. I am not the only source of such objection comments. I have such a good time collaborating on genealogy here at WT, it is very sad to find such a situation. I feel your pain, and I know when a line of mine passes through the troublesome project, it will be in good WT hands once again. I have just asked a guestion on Policy and Style G2G whether other WTers think there is justification for Project-specific cultures within the WT culture. Only one answer so far; a person senior to me does not see any place for Project subcultures. It certainly seems to me that such a sub-culture concept would cause all kinds of problems at WT, as is evident by your discussion here. Best regards to the DRP team and their wonderful work. Most of us here would remain forever in the dark about our Dutch Roots without your efforts.
Hi guys,

Just a note, this situation is not about only one person. It just isn't. One person is taking the lead in discussions because they are a Leader. It is what they're supposed to do. Many people are involved. That one person has taken some serious personal attacks that were unnecessary (not from you two, but in the process from others).

The agreement we came to makes sense. If the person was born in the Netherlands, but immigrated to the New Netherland colony, their LNAB needs discussed. No assumptions can be made as to what it should be. Period. An English ancestor of mine immigrated to the Netherlands before going to American. They had a child in the Netherlands. I guarantee you, even though they were baptised in a Dutch parish, they were not born with a patronymic, even though it would seem so if their history were not known. These exact situations are what we're trying to help with. Through thoughtful, respectful, discussion a LNAB can be realized. Sometimes farm names were used, and not patronymics. If a patronymic is written in the baptismal record, then there's no argument. NNS has simply requested, when the patronymic is not actually written down, both projects discuss first in order to come to an understanding. Sometimes a LNAB cannot be easily found, so yes, later marriage documents might be used to puzzle it out.

Collaboration is still happening, just far slower so that everyone has a chance to discuss first. There has been a lot of expediting of changes, which is okay within one project, but when more than one is involved, things will need to move much slower in order to make sure the changes are all well-sourced and the best we can do given the information we have access to.

The Dutch Roots/New Netherland discussion doesn't need to continue here. It's being worked on with the Leaders of both projects to make sure we come to a reasonable agreement. This particular discussion is specifically about project management overall and when it is appropriate to designate only one account as manager versus multiple.
+13 votes
I had to think this over, as I've noticed that from time to time, key ancestors or famous ancestors do tend to accumulate their share of Profile Managers and residents of the Trusted List. From a Notables Project perspective, I see similar things to what you have mentioned - extending the influence of the PM for the Notables Team out into profiles that are restricted, but we don't go out beyond any non-public profiles. Once the profile is public, there isn't much need for us to have Notables as PM.

However, on these non-public profiles, the tendency is to add more to the Trusted List and less as PM. PM seems to have a few additional functions (ability to change LNAB, for one) that when you have a fairly fixed component (LNAB is well-known, for example) would not really be essential.

So typically, the Trusted List is good for 99.9% of all features and functions (LNAB and privacy list are the big ones). Considering this is the situation, I would gravitate towards adding others to the Trusted List and less as PM. Now for existing PM's, especially when merging, I generally leave things as is as much as I can. If I'm going to remove someone as PM, I'll usually ask if they care, and mention that they'll still be on the Trusted List and that it won't impact their ability to edit most things. If they respond and aren't wanting to be removed, then again, generally I'll leave it alone.

As you mentioned, I have rarely seen someone who is a PM cause issues that they couldn't do while a member of the Trusted List. Since the LNAB and Privacy Level is not something that would change often on most of these profiles, it would be very unusual for someone to go in and flip things around without discussion unless it was purely for malicious intent. And that's going to happen VERY rarely (if at all).

So maybe this will help begin the discussion. Most of this is pure opinion, as I don't think there are clear guidelines on how many PM's (can dance on the head of a pin... oops... wrong story) are needed to manage a profile, or whether projects should be the sole manager of a profile and others as trusted list only, etc.

Perhaps there are other thoughts out there.
answered by Scott Fulkerson G2G6 Pilot (349k points)
Scott, I have no issue with any of the thoughts and ideas you expressed - in fact, I'm in total agreement with everything you said.  The only thing is that - unless I'm wrong on this - I don't think your answer is responsive to the question.

As I understand it, Robin is starting a discussion about having multiple projects as PM on a single profile, not related to having multiple members who are PM of a single profile.
Ah - perhaps I did miss the point then.

Well - multiple projects in theory shouldn't be much different, although I suspect we wouldn't remove the project from the profile, I would think. In reality, you would think multiple projects would be a good thing, as they would all bring resources to the table to improve the profiles? Right?

But I also see the potential issue too - each project has their own quirks, unwritten standards, etc. that they like to follow and I do see the potential for conflicts when the quality of work doesn't meet a project's standards.

Again, in theory, these things should be workable and I would plan ahead to have collaborative efforts for improvement so that profiles that cross the boundaries of one project to another are not neglected (I thought YOUR project was handling this) or not competing over slight differences in standards.

Perhaps this is more along where we are heading with this?
At one project I'm involved with, there's an ongoing effort to trim back to having no more than one project profile serving as profile manager, for the reasons that Scott mentions (so that profiles aren't neglected and so that competition over standards doesn't occur).
+11 votes
Robin, is this a general question, intended to be applicable to all profiles, or are you focusing just on profiles managed by projects?  I probably would have tended to agree with Scott had I not read the long thread yesterday (resurrected from a few months ago):

In that thread Dodie and Karen complained about the behavior of projects when they take over management of a profile, and their failure to communicate with the person who originally created the profile.  I went into that thread with an open mind, and didn't comment, since I have not created a profile that has been taken over by a project.  But in my view, the incredible arrogance of some of the comments offered in defense of the behavior of the projects completely validated the complaints.  I came away agreeing with Dodie and Karen that the projects need to be subject to the honor code and the communication before editing guideline, just as regular members are.  So, long story short, if your real question is "When a project becomes the manager of a profile, is it OK to throw the current project manager and the creator of the profile overboard?" my answer is it's absolutely not OK.  Play by the same rules as the rest of us.
answered by Dennis Barton G2G6 Pilot (227k points)
I can honestly say that in 99.9% of the situations, I'm not considering removing any PM's as a part of adding the project to a Notables profile - the only time I consider it is when there have been multiple merges, multiple PM's added, and its more of a clean-up step to see if the current slate of PM's on the profile are still active, and still care about that particular profile. Often I'll find someone who dropped by, sent their GEDCOM over the wall, it exploded on the other side, and they ran for the hills. In those cases, I'll message them, give them some time for a response, then remove them if they're unresponsive. Their current activity level plays into this as well. So I don't care much for arbitrarily removing without warning, but I do think at some point you have to attempt to clean up profiles that have a lot of hanger-ons who aren't really around anymore. And yes - communication is the key. :)
Dennis, you wrote, "But in my view, the incredible arrogance of some of the comments offered in defense of the behavior of the projects completely validated the complaints."

I take it you are possible referring to comments that I made, and I think your assessment is a bit harsh.

It is not arrogance, and it is certainly not "incredible.". It is simply stating the fact that if people are going to involve themselves in areas of the tree that run into project territory, they are going to see projects assertively working on such profiles by project guidelines and standards. That is just fact. Projects exist for that purpose.

You can think of projects as a culture, perhaps. People cannot come into a culture, and then expect the culture to adjust to the feelings of the random stranger who entered. When a person creates a profile in a project area, that person is entering a project culture. So it is up to them to adapt to the culture.

In my opinion, the opposite of what you say is true. It would be arrogant to go into a culture and then expect people in the culture to answer their every question and treat the person with the most gentle, time-consuming care, when the new person does not get what is going on, and does not make much attempt to learn the basics of the culture.

Adapt to the culture. Don't waste time complaining that the culture should be different, to accommodate each random new person who enters. Those are just facts of life, to get along.
Well, if the shoe fits …

I suppose you can read whatever you wish, or put whatever spin you like, on somebody else's words. But the other thread was not, as you suggest, about “random strangers” intruding into someone else's unique “culture” and then expecting the “culture” to adjust to their whims or treat them with “gentle time-consuming care.” Nothing like that was said. The complainants were addressing the situation where a project takes control of an already existing profile and then supports no further communication with the existing profile manager (probably the creator of the profile and a direct descendant of the subject, although that point wasn't emphasized). There were two cases mentioned of improper merges being done without any communication or approval of the original PM. The complainants were asking only for communication, collaboration, and common courtesy, theoretically the basic hallmarks of this site. And they came across as being quite reasonable and cooperative, not at all demanding as you imply.

As I said, I read the thread with an open mind and no personal experience. I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but you managed to convince me that the complaints are absolutely valid. You seem to suggest that a project has some sort of god-like powers and entitlement over whatever it determines to be its own sandbox, and is in no way subject to the basic policies of communication, collaboration, and courtesy. I haven't seen that written anywhere in the policies, and I don't buy it. To me it's totally arrogant, and if that's harsh, so be it.

With that, I'll have no more to say on this subject.  The link to  the thread is above, and anyone interested can read it and make up his own mind about the interpretation of the "he-said-she-said" dialogue.
Steven Mix, I disagree that projects should be independent cultures, except in the lightest sense of naming conventions of the period and such. When a project's culture starts stepping on Wikitree rules, such as asserting facts with no sources, as I have encountered here, and the culture includes 'firing' the profile manager who created the profile with original research, without notification courtesy or explanation, as I have encountered here, and when the PM black-flags comments on G2G that push back (gently) against 'the culture', as I have encountered here, then perhaps other WTers might join me in disagreeing with you as to whose foot the arrogant shoe matches.
Dennis, you wrote, "Well, if the shoe fits …" well then I guess you are just going to insist on being rude. Which really kind of negates the point you want to make about how projects should behave considerately with "courtesy."

I did not read it that the merges were done "improperly" by the project. They were simply done, without involvement of the PM. Big difference.

Since you admit to having no experience with projects, then you are basing assumptions on absence of data. Projects are simply groups of people who share a common interest in an area.

Weldon, the culture analogy was to hopefully give you guys an idea of why random people will run into personal conflicts with projects. Projects exists for solid reasons. If you work a lot on projects, you will come to realize what issues they contend with all the time.

If the profile you have created is very good, and the sources are excellent, then your profile will be smoothly incorporated into the project. If that is not happening properly, then it would be an option for you to join the project, with good will and earning trust, in order to help make sure that it is happening with consistency to your standards.

But frankly, I think I have seen that most people have no interest or intention of going there with projects, because most people only care about their own particular path, and the rest be damned.

If the desire is to just complain about projects, what's the point? It is kind of like the weather, or like highway traffic. Another couple of faulty analogies, but projects exist, and will exist, and will never be able to make individuals happy. So you can work to improve them, or you can take the path of least resistance and avoid them, by not creating profiles in the area they cover.
Steven Mix, you presume and overgeneralize. I admire all Project managers for their service. I recognize the great value of projects. There is only one project at Wikitree that I have a problem with, for the reasons stated. I joined that project, found its culture to be incompatible with my understanding of the general Wikitree culture, and especially lacking in friendliness and common courtesy, and then quit the project and joined its umbrella project instead. What a difference. You are correct that most WTers are concerned primarily with their own lineages. Projects should be extensions of these individual efforts, not demeaning of them. We shouldn't be entering a strange new world when our ancestor falls under a project umbrella. You seem to assert some all-knowing expertise about quality of other's work and when it deserves to be treated with respect. Looks like the shoe fits.
Weldon, I don't know why you guys want to keep making it personal about me. "the shoe fits." What is that?

I am not asserting "all-knowing" nothing. I am just giving my opinions, for crying out loud. What is with all this personalization hostility? Can't people just discuss ideas from differing viewpoints without accusing people of "incredible arrogance" and "asserting all-knowing" and rude "if the shoe fits" insults? What the hell?
Steven, in your first post you quickly recognized that I was reacting to your comments in the other thread, even though I didn't name anybody or identify any specific comments.  That's what prompted the "if the shoe fits" remark.  No hostility was intended.
Steven, I apologize if you feel personally attacked by me. I hope I would never do that to anyone, let alone to such an established Wikitree volunteer with a long track record of good works. I am but a junior member here and try to listen much more than talk. Yet I feel it necessary to push back when I disagree strongly with things being said; you said some such, and in a somewhat lofty tone. Food for thought:  --We are all a big team here, and many are smart, big-hearted, and diligent. We are not just random, negative people that can't get along. --Projects should not be unique cultures here. There is only one culture, the WT culture. --You say if a profile is good enough, a project will incorporate it smoothly. Are you a WT judge? I want all profiles I offer to be treated with full respect by projects. If one is deemed insufficient, don't throw me and it under the bus. Work with me to make it better. Don't suggest that you have too many better things to be doing. --I would venture that virtually all WTers show priority to their own lineages. Only after we get that part perfected are we free to volunteer on other lines. But I have never sensed any attitude here of not giving a damn about other's work, as you allude to. Ultimately, my lines and theirs may intersect, and I want us both to be proud of the joint work.

I also commented on that same thread as Dennis is refering to. I understand the context that Steven Mix is coming from, and agree on many points that he is making. So perhaps the proverbial shoe fits me as well (like with Cinderella though I'll humbly let the shoe decide).

I do not want to go in to all the separate points made regarding to issues referred to here (I'm not sure even if it is still relevant or anwering to Robin's post in many aspects), However, any which way one argues, if one does not do so in a non-personal fashion and stay courteous, it is an ultimately self-defeating venture in trying to explain viewpoints.

If I work a profile everyday ,  research is on going on my part for several hours a day ,  then I am not a " random person"  I am a diligent profile manager.  Project culture as Steven calls it is the reason I no longer work a profile that is important to me.  The " Project" people are unaware of deeper research.  Are not thorough.  Have had a project leader tell we don't use " second hand info"  only to find incorrect and incomplete info sourced to fit the way the project members want to back up their theories as proof.  When their theories are not fact.  I have had research notes on I have left wiped out.  For the good of the tree.  There is a very grand amount of arrogance in many projects.  There is a decided favoritism by some leaders to certain members.  I think only one project at a time sould be management.  The " The Project Culture"  Steven mentions has become Wikitree Culture.  Wikitree does not want a certain type of people here.  There are many who will bully people out.  Colaboration and coopertation are not at all part of " The Culture of Wikitree"  I have busted my backside researching Carter-4290 his parentage ,  his wives ,  his children and business only to have project members bull doze over me.  Steven let me ask you this,  why have pms if we are just random people.  I guaranty. I have more info and have done more research on Carter-4290 than the Project.  
Robin brings up a good point.  Too many cooks spoil the ststew.  I did a lot of work trying to work out Jimmy Carter's line down from Augustine Hunnicutt and Mary Carter only to have other people wipe out work in the name of " Projects"   there should be protocol.    A lot of you will look at this post as just another complaint.  A lot of you will make excuses for why you can do the things you do.  And that is too bad.  Wikitree was a good idea.  Now it is every bit as inaccurate as other on line trees..  Dispite the work people have put in to it.  
Everyone is is such an all fired hurry to build the tree you don't care about dozing over someone taking time to get right.  The the big question here should be who and how many managers should a profile have and how to keep people from totally disrespecting others.
Robin brings up a good point. I beg to differ with the last comment. For exactly the reasons given by the last commentator.
"Steven let me ask you this,  why have pms if we are just random people."

That is a good question, Trudy. And frankly, I think it is a colossal mistake to have the system built in a way that individual PMs are on deep, Open profile. It is a flaw in WikiTree. It leads people to the mistaken impression that they should be personally attached to and responsible for any particular profile.

Deep ancestor profiles should be merely placeholders, that people with skill can work on. There should be a sort of committee and suggestion process for any edits, for them to be put under consideration, approved, or declined. If I were to build a site, that is what I would design.

PMs should only be involved on Private profiles, and possibly on Green Public profiles a bit deeper in the tree.
+6 votes
The chief reason I can see for limiting the number of profile managers is to limit the number of people who get notification email when someone requests trusted-list access, posts a comment, or proposes a merge.

I  often think twice before requesting trusted-list access on a profile with a large number of managers because I know that all those people will get emails. Then typically several of them will add me to the trusted list (generating messages to me each time) and at least one will send a message informing they don't "trust" people who aren't close family members. And if I decide to cancel the requests to the managers who haven't replied yet, alt least one of them will write to me apologetically to say they tried to add me to the trusted list but they couldn't access my request.  Yes, I often could bypass that by sending email to a profile manager whose address I have, but typically that person will respond saying it would be so much easier for them if I simply sent a trusted-list request.
answered by Ellen Smith G2G6 Pilot (868k points)
Reflecting on this, when there's a project profile in the manager slot, it might make sense for that profile to be the only recipient of the trusted-list request email.
That is an important thought Ellen. Don't let it get lost in this thread as I think it has merit. I would add that if there is more than one project as manager, all projects should receive the trusted list request.
I like this idea, too.
Ellen in theory I like this idea but also don't want to see original profile managers left out of the loop when a project comes in and swoops up a profile. (This does happen sometimes.) Simply adding this thought to the discussion.
+10 votes
I think where there a couple of projects that 'touch at the edges' it's not a major problem, it's where there is massive overlap that perhaps some decisions need to be made.

For instance I would guess that at least 50% of Euroaristo profiles would also fit into the Notables project.  Some of the 'roots' type projects also have a lot of overlap with Euroaristo.  Notables and US President projects also would have many profiles in common?  There are probably other overlaps as well.  Do we need some general 'rules' about how projects share these profiles?  

The other issue is that at the moment the recommended number of profile managers for a profile is no more than three.

If we are going to have multiple project managers than it doesn't leave room for any individual profile managers.
answered by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (312k points)
In regards to project boxes/templates, there has been a comment that there shouldn't be anymore than 2 of those.
+5 votes
I would not be in favor of limiting the projects that can have an interest in a profile and co-manage it.

I co-lead the Acadian and Louisiana projects. Over 3,000 Acadians emigrated to Louisiana from ca1765 to 1785. Until 1755, most of these families had lived in Acadie for over 100 years. Many families split up during the period of exile, with some returning to Canada and some settling other places. To me, it makes sense for both projects to help manage the emigrant profile--the one who was Acadian and eventually emigrated to Louisiana.
answered by Jacqueline Girouard G2G6 Mach 4 (41.6k points)
edited by Jacqueline Girouard
+7 votes
It's mentioned in the comments, and framed as if the principle is merely a comment, (that this relates to project boxes, limited to two.)

The issues are closely connected (project boxes & project managers associated with a profile).

A general aim is to get significant profiles up to a standard such that they'll be qualified for project protection.   A profile will ultimately then be under the protection of only one project.  This is the formal (not aesthetic) logic in limiting project boxes on profiles.

If one project could be construed as having a narrower focus, I think the pattern for project protection might follow the same idea of having a narrower category prevail over a broader one.

That said, this is all to make it more obvious what project is responsible for the profile, and I don't see any arguments that would suggest additional project management accounts on a profile would be of harm.  

In the case of project boxes, the aim is clarity (and reduction of clutter) as to what project the profile is under (esp. when protected) - but other projects are easily associated via categories.

Profiles that are of concern or interest to multiple project headings are opportunities to enrich the community collaboration between projects.  Having more than one project manager account on a profile should not diminish clarity if there is one project box declaring the basis of project protection, and it allows us to see the cross connections, and more importantly provides a convenient tool for notification of project leaders in the related projects.
answered by Michael Maranda G2G6 Mach 6 (62.5k points)
+5 votes
personally, I think every project-managed profile should have at least one person listed as a manager (regardless of how many project accounts are listed as managers). And for profiles that do not have a project as a manager, I think multiple managers is better than just one - so long as all managers are active/responsive WikiTree members.
answered by Liz Shifflett G2G6 Pilot (306k points)
+3 votes
Great discussion so far.

Could it work to only select one 'primary' project for a profile, a project which admits all profiles for a given geo-region and optional historical time period (e.g. PGM, Dutch-Roots), and then allow secondary projects related to selected profiles sharing some ancestral condition that potentially spans multiple primary projects?

Could it work to not have any individual profile managers after a profile becomes 'projectized' by a primary project, but to ensure all prior managers and all secondary projects remain on the trusted list?

Could we have a summary Acknowledgements section that provides a link to each individual creator of a merged profile, prior to the consolidated profile being 'projectized'? If an accessible history of profile merges is maintained by the WT sysops, this could be generated automagically. Else each former manager could roll his own entry under a general profile Acknowledgements section. Respect for prior work is sometimes lacking here in my experience; hence WT should go over the top to appreciate and support recognition for work accomplished, particularly on our own ancestors.
answered by Weldon Smith G2G6 Mach 1 (15.9k points)
+4 votes

 I think perhaps it helps if we explain a bit what Project Accounts are and why we started to work with them ? I have added something about it a while ago in a different G2G  and I know many people don't really understand or are still wondering about what they are for, so I will add some here as well..

Projects and Project Profiles are not just one leader or one Project leading team, Project Profiles and the Google Groups attached to them all are representing groups of Project/WT members who share their interest in a specific group of profiles or ancestors. WT of course is huge, thousands of members from all over the world and they all bumped into similar things or problems they would like to see improved or solved... so that's why Projects were started..

Projects didn't have a watchlist or something where they could see what happened to the profiles, there were no tools to protect, monitor or keep track of the profiles falling under the project. So first PPP was invented to protect and lock the LNAB field and add the message the Profile is Project protected, but even though profiles were PPP't it still happened profiles (bio''s) sometimes  were ''messed up'', no cleaning up after merges, no integration of the Bio's, parents were removed or changed unnoticed,bad merges still happened and often work that had taken months or years, because of all the things that were going on unnoticed, had to be done all over and over and over again. 

So the changes to hopefully improve things were, first PPP later followed by PPP also ''locking''  parents, then we had the Pre-1700 test + badge, followed by the Pre-1500 import stop + badge and the Pre-1700 Gedcom import stop.

But..Project / WT members / teams still felt like they were running around in circles sometimes and still couldn't really keep track of things, there was no project read only watch list or feed. Things were discussed a whole lot in G2G and at some point the project profile was invented and we all were experimenting at first how it could help, and experimenting we all noticed it's a wonderful tool especially for members that joined and used the Google Groups of the Project Accounts (if ... you understand what it does and is meant for, and how it works exactly and if it's used correctly) 

The Project Accounts, if added to project profiles as manager, are attached to a project (profile) google group, which is actually a huge project (profile) watch list and feed we now all can share, 

Projects and members can use these groups as a tool for project management and collaboration, it is a great and probably the only way, that makes it possible to share and work on all project profiles with thousands of Project-WT members at the same time, without them all added as profile managers or to the trusted list of those profiles. 

Now by joining a Project and the Project Account Google Group they all are in fact co-managers, because the Project Account Google Group is actually sort of the e-mailbox of the Project Account, so all daily notifications of all posts, help requests, merge proposals can be seen and read in the Google Group by all members who joined these groups, so now they can collaborate, participate and respond or help immediately if someone asks for it in a post added to a profile or something.

 The great advantage for all members is, we all can keep our own watch list within limits or reduce it to a level that is manageable for one person and all Project/Project Account Google Group members now can help manage and assist with all the work that needs to be done within the Project, without receiving tons of email, because now only the Project Account(s) that's (are) added as manager is receiving the daily notifications of requests, or posts that are added to profiles, merge proposals etc. so members now every day can just take a look at the project Google Group where all daily Project Account notifications/requests are coming in and visible.

So it is not something that's thought of by just some leaders or project coordinators or to do or have things done their's meant as a tool for all Project members, and it just makes it much more easy for all of us to participate, collaborate and stay updated about everything that's going on within the Project.

If Projects have an overlap and if for some reason it's pretty much impossible to say there's only one Project that best understand the needs of these profiles, so if they are in fact equally important for a specific group of profiles, one will stay or be added to the trusted list and the project that's visible as manager will be responsible for the normal daily stuff and merges, but the big decisions are going to be made in G2G and by members of both Projects.

The only disadvantage if a Project Account is on the trusted list, is the Google Group will no longer receive the daily notifications for these profiles, but they will still receive the weekly feed, but if members really would like to receive the daily feed, they of course can join the other Project and the Google Group of that project as well or just send a request to be added to the trusted list if they are only interested in a specific family or just a few profiles . 

answered by Bea Wijma G2G6 Pilot (237k points)
+2 votes
No. They can be more than one but the profile managers need to somewhat agree on most actions.
answered by Gerald Jones G2G5 (5.8k points)
+2 votes
IMHO I would say that to have only one profile manager should be avoided.the reasons that follow are only a few of many. More than one person with the authority to merge. Less chance of problems due to indisposed or uncooperative managers. More collaboration,i.e. more than one person looking at and checking the facts.There is certainly more what do you think?
answered by James Collins G2G6 Mach 2 (23.2k points)
I think we all agree that profiles should have more that one profile manager, I was asking about PROJECT MANAGERS.
A project has many members and ONE leader correct? So if a profile has only a "project" as a profile manager is that not in effect the same as having one profile manager? Before you tell me about project "co-managers" Someone must have the final say in the group or is there just chaos? I know that I can not be the only one to realize this.
I think Robin was asking about more than one project being involved ie Notables and EuroAristos or as mentioned in the opening comments  the ancestors of US presidents who might very well be part of another project (perhaps British Isles Royals and Aristocrats or the PGM project or both of them)

That would not mean that other members could not also be profile managers; there are many profiles that have both projects and individuals as profile managers. ( Far too many managers sometimes and in my opinion, too many that have done nothing more than add an unsourced duplicate that has had to be merged)

Did you hit the best answer button in error?  I know that's easy to do on some devices.

 Personally, I think that there are more than one good answers and hate to choose  so have reselected the one that was marked when I read this page earlier today.

My wireless mouse has a mind of its own sometimes. I would not be so bold. I think that the original question has morphed into a much bigger one. With the original question being only a part of something larger and more important. Liz said " personally, I think every project-managed profile should have at least one person listed as a manager (regardless of how many project accounts are listed as managers). And for profiles that do not have a project as a manager, I think multiple managers is better than just one - so long as all managers are active/responsive WikiTree members."  I agree. But I would add the fact that if there is more than one profile manager unresponsiveness and disagreements have less impact on the profile. Bear in mind what I said about a "projects" management of a profile having the same effect as an individual. Regardless of what anyone's concept of what a manager is the fact remains that egos,opinions,etc. will always get in the way of collaboration. Projects should have ONE leader, thus a profile managed by a project has one profile manager. If a profile has two projects as managers then that profile has two profile managers etc. If there is a problem within the project itself that is for the leader to deal with. If there is a problem between two projects then that is for the two projects leaders to deal with. We must remember the reason for any of us to even be here, the PEOPLE that the profiles represent. If problems within the "project" or between "projects" get in the way of our main purpose, I say maybe we should rethink the value of the "projects" I also agree with this  "Ellen in theory I like this idea but also don't want to see original profile managers left out of the loop when a project comes in and swoops up a profile. (This does happen sometimes.) Simply adding this thought to the discussion" This quote is from Cynthia. If any one thinks that any group of people can function without some disagreements they are fooling themselves. Is it possible that some "project" members have allowed their ego to cause them to forget the concept and structure of Wiki? To sum up what I am saying is that ideally all profiles should have at least 3 profile managers. One should always be the creator of the profile, plus two more. It does not matter if the other two are 'projects" or individuals. The effect of someone duplicating a source or other trivial thing can not compare to the effects of the alternatives. I would hope that my thoughts are considered carefully with an open mind. Thank you.



Related questions

+15 votes
5 answers
+18 votes
6 answers
+19 votes
6 answers
+23 votes
9 answers
+7 votes
0 answers
+28 votes
7 answers
+6 votes
0 answers
+12 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
2 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright