Errors 862 & 863

+4 votes
66 views
I go months error ( suggestion free ) and suddenly, today,  I have 53 of them.....862 & 863. It appears I forgot to insert <REF> at the front or end of my sourcing. Has some data doctor gone over the edge? This has nothing to do with proper sourcing or in fact proper genealogy.
asked in WikiTree Tech by George Churchill G2G6 Mach 4 (49.3k points)

2 Answers

+9 votes
 
Best answer
George, these are wiki syntax errors that may cause valid sources to "disappear" from a profile page (even though they may still visible in edit mode).

While it technically may have nothing to do with proper sourcing or genealogy, these types of errors can distract and confuse, and need to be corrected, in order to make WikiTree more legible.

Its not required that you fix them. Someone else will get around to doing so eventually.
answered by Dennis Wheeler G2G6 Pilot (316k points)
selected by Deb Durham
My point exactly; why should the missing <REF> create a syntax error. This does not happen in other genealogical software. Are we creating errors by tracking errors? Back to my main point..........does anyone track in G2G how many new members we lose due to technical issues and the complexity of the system. The data base program I use does not create these types of issues. It is simple and easy to use. The main issue is the loss of members. Simple sourcing should not cause issues.
This may be a poor analogy, but think of it this way... other genealogical software are like an automatic transmission, whereas WikiTree is like a manual transmission.

There are pros and cons to each. The power and flexibility of a manual transmission can cause all sorts of problems to those who don't know how to properly use it.

WikiTree is a wiki. Wiki's can be openly edited, but require some limited, but specific syntax knowledge. Wiki's are less complicated than straight HTML sites, but are more complicated than other standalone software applications.
+4 votes
George, I believe this is a new suggestion.   Just added to the reports.   I had a couple of them myself for the first time yesterday.   The actual missing <ref> had been there for several months, since someone else had added info to a profile that I manage.
answered by Cindi Clark G2G6 Mach 1 (18.2k points)
I appreciate you quick response Cindy. My point, however, is that this type of error classification has nothing to do with proper genealogical procedure or proper sourcing. It accomplishes nothing except that it is going to aggravate a huge number of members. Why do the powers to be at WikiTree waste their time and energy, and their members time and energy, on such wastful procedures. It detracts from the real aims and objectives of WikiTree. Why not just use a standard template for sourcing? The present system is getting to be a pain for everyone; especially newcomers.

Sorry, My Rant for Today.

George
The problem with the missing tags is that other people won't be able to see your sources and references with the tags missing. To show your sources in a way that others can see is a proper genealogical practice in my way of looking at as it means it can be peer reviewed.
A profile can look like it has every source under the sun but if it isn't showing on the public profile page then it is useless. These suggestions help make it better.
Toss away the tags and use a simple template. View the info the same way we view it in the biography. The real issue here is members using their valuable time to fix false errors. I follow G2G every day and hardly a day goes by that someone is not saying goodbye to WikiTree because of issues similar to this one.
George, these errors are typically simple typos with large consequences. If I hit the wrong key and type <.ref> instead of </ref> while editing a profile (or if I accidentally omit the closing > on "</ref>") when I copy a reference to insert somewhere else), it can cause major damage to the display of the profile I'm editing. I very much appreciate the fact that these typos are being identified for me.

George, if people are leaving because they cannot figure out how to use the Wiki system--as Dennis said above WikiTree is a wiki--then this is not the place for them.  A Wiki website cannot suddenly become something else.  Then it is not longer a Wiki and does not offer the flexibility of features we have.  I don't get to use coding to create my pages how I want to on Ancestry for Example.  It is all copy and paste.  I get what I get there and nothing more.

Which websites people use is a matter of personal choice and what works for them. Personally I love the Wiki system, but maybe that is because I am from a family of computer nerds and I can understand the Wiki language far better than other websites. Each person needs to go where they feel most comfortable. Changing the nature of WikiTree will leave us with...well a site like every other site.  No thank you.

Related questions

+5 votes
1 answer
53 views asked Jun 3 in The Tree House by George Churchill G2G6 Mach 4 (49.3k points)
+4 votes
0 answers
51 views asked May 2 in Genealogy Help by Laura Pham G2G Rookie (250 points)
+3 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
0 answers
54 views asked Dec 17, 2017 in The Tree House by James LaLone G2G6 Mach 4 (48.9k points)
+7 votes
0 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...