Is there a flaw in the checks and balances on Privacy?

Question

This is one of many profiles created in the past month where the privacy clearly should be OPEN, but the profile manager was able to make it private.   What's up?

Comments

This is indeed strange!

Answer 1

The creator marked one daughter as still living  (which she obviously wasn't) instead of adding dates.  This made her private and also makes all closely connected profiles (parents, children,  etc) private.

Comments

I have now looked through the database "116 errors" in general, of which there are over 20,000 errors.   In most cases it is caused by one profile having a setting incorrect....like "still living" or just no dates....then the profiles surrounding that profile become private.   So, one error becomes about 10-15 errors.  Maybe we need to think about the logic?

---

In trying to change something automatically, what we run into is the risk of private information being public that shouldn't be because someone made a whole series of typos, maybe putting 1790 instead of 1970. In general, WikiTree errs on the side of caution. If someone marks someone as still living, we try to honor it or take the situations one at a time. I know Paul and a few other Team members spend a bit of time looking at open profiles that should be private and private profiles that should be open, and discuss ways we might be able to expedite either privatizing or opening them. Unfortunately, all too often it comes down to no, there isn't an easy way, because we have to account for human error and not wanting to expose the private information of people who joined under our promise to keep their living family private.

---

I am glad that it errs on the side of caution and keeps it private, rather than open it and exposes information.

Answer 2

That is a good find as they are suppose to be Open and thought it wasn't suppose to have an option to be anything else unless a Leader does something with it. :/

Answer 3

There are a few situations where profiles might become private, but should be open. One that comes to mind is where an incorrect merge has been made with, say someone born in 1720 and someone born in 1920. In such cases the system would err in favour of Privacy. Once the incorrect merge has been fixed privacy levels can then be changed to open.
The profile (Catharine Creveling) has been opened)

Comments

Thanks, Paul.

When we find these kinds of errors, should members file open profile requests? Or does correcting an upstream or downstream error allow regular members to fix a privacy error without getting the team involved?

---

Most likely it will need to be between the profile managers involved, particularly when there is a lack of sources. The managers will have more knowledge of where errors will lie than a Team member.

Perhaps start with a Trusted list request and a message to the Profile Manager. If there is no response, then an Unresponsive Profile Manager request can be filed.