Can wikitree conform to standard genealogy practice and display women's names as expected.

Question

Every genealogist that I know and all software that I have seen adopts the standard convention of displaying people by their birth name, anything that happens in their lives that changes the name they use should be obvious from the facts of their life, and with wikitree we have the Biography section where such changes should be explained.

 As wikitrees aim is to build a family tree with well researched information, then that's going to require attracting people who follow accepted genealogical research practices. The current current practice of using women's married names the way we are forced to works against that, some genealogists have alreadt left and more may not have joined when they say the methods used here. 

I can see some times when searching that using a current last name is helpfull but in many cases search results show far to many hits because they include people who changed their name to the one searched for.

I know this has been asked before but I have been prompted to ask again as the previuos ansers were not acceoptable and things have moved on with the stucture of wikitree.

Answer 1

Let me begin by saying I will never be convinced to do anything simply because that is the way it has always been done... that is a lazy and indefensible argument - there needs to be a reasoning of why it should be done a certain way. Moreover, what is a standard genealogical practice may or may not best suit wikitree's needs.

With that said, I am actually somewhat ambivalent to the display of names on wikitree and can see specific benefits, justifications, and logic in different display formats.

The case I see for the current wikitree practice of displaying women with their 'married' names:

1. Wikitree (unlike standard genealogy) is trying to attract people using cousin bait, and tight integration into Google search results. Not just researchers, but anyone that could be a potential source who can add a personal memory about someone. They may not know standard genealogical practices, and they might only know their Great Aunt Mary by her married name. By using the names they were/are actually known by (whether that is a married name, a birth name, or some other name) increases the likeliehood that we will achieve this particular aim of wikitree.

2. Current Last Name, while it is greatly impacted by marriage, is not a married name field - it also includes adopted names, legal name changes, and names that change over a persons lifetime (for example translation/mutation as they move to a region with a different language) As above, this helps attract people who are non-researchers and may not know other names for the person; again while our focus is on genealogy we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are also trying to make it easy for family to connect.

3. As Kitty has already said, the Current Last Name should reflect how the person is addressed, or how they were addressed when they died - this allows for international differences of conventions (such as the oft-cited Acadians) as long as someone does not impose a current last name on a person who did not use that name. The onus is on the researcher/contributor to select the correct name. This naturally leads back to the other currently ongoing conversation on not auto-populating the current last name field for women on marriage, and I agree it should not be autopopulated as that 'imposes' a regional bias and 'removes' responsibility from an actual person.

Now the case In favour of the Genaealogy Standard:

1. A person can only be born with one name - every other name is 'transient' so using the birth name is the only 'constant' way to refer to a person. 'Limiting' to one name also makes 'cleaner' displays.

2. For many genealogists (amateur and professional) this is the way they are taught to do it, and the way they are accustomed to doing it; it is thus intuitive for many researcher that it should be displayed in the conventional way. It also agrees with much of the available literature on genealogical research. (English-speaking literature anyways) ***notice this is not an argument of 'because this is the way it is done' but 'this helps many people who are likely to become contributors use the system more easily'.

3. It is the format most removed from a regional bias as no matter where you are people are born under their birth name (I know that is a bit of a redundnacy to say but whatever...) however as Kitty also pointed out even the simple act of displaying first name before last reflects a regional bias so at some point any decision we make (within the current system capabilities) is going to contain some bias.

I am sure people can add endless arguments to both sides of this issue, but from the few arguments I make for each side I think the answer hinges on the question: Are we in this for ourselves (wikitree members, and genealogists) or for everyone (the general public of non-researchers).

Not to cop out, but as I said I am ambivalent to the issue and am not going to favour either case - my only concern is that we are not doing something just because that is the way it has always been done; by that argument wikitree should not exist and we should all be sitting in archives and libraries poring over microfilms - we must accept change when it improves desired outcomes and resist change for the sake of change.

Comments

Excellent, insightful summary, Rob. As usual.

 

We did go ahead and change the autopopulation of the current last name. That may help cool down the issue.

 

I like how you said this: "I think the answer hinges on the question: Are we in this for ourselves (wikitree members, and genealogists) or for everyone (the general public of non-researchers)?"

 

I think of WikiTree as something created by genealogists for non-genealogists. But for this to work, WikiTree has to have features and benefits to attract and keep good genealogists. There has to be a balance, and it's tough to find it.

---

Like. (Chris's comment.)

Answer 2

I like the  "first-name maiden-name married-name" format because I think it is most informative. However, I believe it is a best WikiTree practice to use the surname the lady preferred, or if not known, the surname on her tombstone.  This allows for various cultural differences around the world.

Comments

The name thing has become an ISSUE for me because I do not now nor have I ever used my first name.  I don't even know what F. Scott Fitzgerald's first name is because he never used it.  We have to leave room for the person's use of their own name.

---

Not arguing against, rather extending and modifying:

Computers are dumb. Databases are dumb.

People are messy.

We, genealogists, your credit card issuer, whoever..., or, more specifically, those of us who do computer data for a living, have to live with the problem of stuffing real people into tidy binary holes. It isn't pretty. We have to let loose of epistemology in favor of phenomenology.

Define your constraints:

"Attract the general population."

"Attract genealogy boffins."

"LIve in an Anglo-centric part of the world."

"Employ presently-available electronic data processing hardware and software."

...and so forth. Yes, last name before first name cultures get screwed up. Yes, women in patriarchal cultures get screwed up. (Database limitations are the least of their problems...)

Please, just feed the stupid machine and put the fuzzy stuff in the comments section. That's all that that mere programmers can ever offer.

---

Just like my mother and paternal grandmother. They hated their first names, never used them.

Then there’s the case of those who never used their birth surname, either because of adoption or because their mother had remarried. One set of children was sufficiently large that everyone referred to the combined sets by the same surname.

As for following standards, there’s a reason things become standards and it’s usually not laziness. It’s because in some way they make life easier, like, say, WikiTree’s own policies make working with it easier to collaborate - within WikiTree, but not with other genealogical resources.

Answer 3

I agree 100% with you Rhian. It is 'standard genealogical practice' to record a woman by her birth name not her married name. I really enjoy using WikiTree but this unconventional practice is a thorn on the rose.

Comments

I absolutley agree that the maiden surname name should be shown.  The way that Wiki Tree displays at the moment have even confused me when I looked at the information and it is my information and my tree!!.  I am used to seeing the maiden surname.   Stand practise please.

Answer 4

I tend to agree in the abstract that birth name should be the preferred display, although I'd rank the current practice more quirky and inconvenient than major flaw. However, if others are actually opting out of WikiTree for this reason, then that's a concern. I find the First Name (Birth Surname) Current Last Name display to be busy, and the information about the spouse is almost always displayed in addition when you want to see it (e.g. in ancestor/descendant charts).

But the real issue for me is what display is most likely to cause a new user to find a match and link up to a current profile rather than creating a new profile. That's the overall goal of WikiTree - one profile per person, one tree. Every technical decision should enable that goal.

Comments

Excellent point about the importance of searching and matching, Ellen.

This is important on WikiTree, and in Google searches. It's the Google searches that lead to distant cousins finding our profiles. Some will be searching with a current/married last name.

---

Good answer

Answer 5

I have to agree with Rhian, Eugene & Ellen (sorry Kitty)

If this practice is scaring away genealogist then can't we come up with a way to maybe match by both names? Yes, it is informative but isn't there a way to show the maiden name and married name as well?

Comments

Just to be clear, matching does look at both names, not just the current last name. The question here is really just about how the name is displayed in various contexts.

---

Thanks Lianne. I guess I should have finished editing my answer before posting.

---

Hi Michelle,

I don't know about the scaring genealogists away.  I am very sceptical about that.  But, if my answer is not "a best WikiTree practice to use the surname the lady preferred, or if not known, the surname on her tombstone.  This allows for various cultural differences around the world.". . . then please select a new "best answer" star. 

I believe the "best answer star" is designed to change your selection to the new best answer. I recently had a best answer, but I liked someone else's better and selected theirs as the new best answer.  Mine changed to a regular answer and hers was highlighted as the best. 

No hard feelings, folks. We all have value to share here.   

---

As far as scaring some away I know this to be true for some. As a greeter I have had a couple e-mails stating they didn't like the fact that we weren't using "genealogical standards".

Not sure what you are referring to about the star. Am I missing something here?

---

Click the star in the upper right corner of an answer to select that answer as the best.  That is how I discovered you can replace the best answer with a new best answer.  

What about Spanish names?  I am not Spanish and I don't know about other cultures, but I think that WikiTree has to attempt to be culturally flexible to all possibilities in a world-wide arena. Allowing everyone to enter whatever "current last name" the lady herself used (or her family put on her gravestone) is the only way I can think of to preserve this cultural flexibility.  Anglophone genealogical standards are not all encompassing which the Current Last Name field at least attempts to be. 

What about Chinese names where it is common for the family name to preceed the given name?  The cultural differences put WikiTree in a different sphere than traditional genealogical standards.  For some ideas, check out this WikiPedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_and_maiden_names

---

Kitty- I'm sorry but  I'm still confused why you keep referencing picking the best answer and how to click the best answer.

---

Is this maybe what you were referring to? I was asking how long to wait to pick the best answer not how to pick the answer.

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/44295/long-should-wait-before-answered-question-marked-best-answer

Answer 6

We should be considering each individual context.

For example, if search results return too many matches, then we should change the search tool. Maybe we could make including results with the current last name optional.

If there's a contextual display that especially offends you, let's talk about that particular display.

As an aide, you can use the name displays feature. For example: http://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Burn-128/1001

Comments

My recommended changes to the different displays:

Headline of public profile:

Mary (Burn) Grist

 

---

Top left column of profile if the viewing user is someone on Burn-128's Trusted List:

Mary Annie (Burn) Grist

 

---

Top left column of profile if the viewing user is not on Burn-128's Trusted List:

Mary Annie (Burn) Grist

 

---

When listed as a nuclear family member on a family members' profile if the viewing user is on the Trusted List of that profile:

Mary A. (Burn) Grist

 

---

When listed as a nuclear family member on a family members' profile if the viewing user is not on the Trusted List of that profile:

Mary A. (Burn) Grist

 

---

As the parent on a public family tree:

Mary Annie Burn
24 Feb 1901 - abt Mar 1980

 

---

In Activity Feeds as the object of a change (for everyone):

Mary (Burn) Grist

 

---

On surname index pages (for everyone):

   Mary Annie (Burn) Grist     February 24, 1901 Gateshead - March 1980

---

Thanks, Jillaine.

These sound like some good suggestions.

I'd recommend that you pick what you most want to see changed. Start a new discussion on it. Let's get people to consider the pros and cons of that individual change. Then we can decide. Then we can make the change.

I hate to sound picky on process, but that's the best way to get something changed. Otherwise I will put "consider Jillaine's changes suggested at X" at the bottom of a very long to-do list.

---

From discussions with other users here, not necessarily in this post, I think the genealogist will say that the form 'As the parent on a public family tree:' is what they would expect everywhere. The family historians would, I think, prefer something like Mary Annie Grist formerly Burn or Mary Annie (Burn) Grist.

One of the problems is that names are displayed in so many different forms, new users seem to get confused by it, I know at times I completely lose track of which William this is. I know some of it has to do with privacy but once out of the privacy area it would be nice to have names displayed in one form, everywhere.

It is quite impossible to get the genealogists and the family historians to accept that one form is the only form, what about a user setting that allows the genealogists to choose what form suits them and others can choose to have the names displayed in a manner that they understand. As well as trying to please all of the people you have simplified the displays for a more coherent feel across the site.

 

---

I appreciate the idea of the custom displays, Rhian, but that would be complicated to implement.

---

I concur that the different displays depending on different contexts is very confusing to the user. Why not have it be the same in all cases.

Mary Annie (Burns) Grist everywhere would (should) appease both the genealogists/family historians and the families.  And I guess in this case "Grist" should be "most recent name or name at death".

I personally do not have the bandwidth to take this on one at a time. 

 

 

---

"I personally do not have the bandwidth to take this on one at a time."

Me either. :-)

Of course, one step at a time is the only way anything ever happens.

If anyone feels strongly about one particular change we should make, spin it off into a new question.

---

I did not mean to pick a complicated solution, if life were simple we would all be winners.:)

This question was raised as a new question to bring together several discussions that were ongoing. I suppose asking it again with different wording is another step towards concensus.

quietly to self- is this where I say I have bandwidth to take this on?

---

"WikiTree as something created by genealogists for non-genealogists" That is my motto too, Chris , and I will stand by it . 

 

---

I would be happy to see  Mary Annie (Burn) Grist everywhere. When I see  Mary Annie Grist I have to take a breath. In doing genealogical research for almost 35 years the biggest challenge is tracing female ancestors whose maiden name you don't know. After 15 years of research, and finally discovering that my female ancestor was born a MacLean it really bothers me to see her name displayed as anything other that that. That said I would be happy with the maiden name showing up in brackets before the married name, as above. My only other suggestion would be that female children be listed by their maiden name on their parents profile page. 

Answer 7

Just today there was an improvement in this area. On the edit tab of a profile, along the right-hand side where family members are shown, parents and spouses now show just the LNAB instead of just the current last name, and siblings and children now show both instead of just the current last name, ie. Firstname (Birthname) Newname.

I know it's just a change in one spot, but as I've been saying, change is easiest to make one thing at a time. I suggested to Chris that that one was a straightforward change that no one would disagree with, and he agreed, so it was changed. So I encourage people to start G2G questions for specific things they'd liked changed; it will be more effective than general questions about name display across the site.