Are Arborists adding the unsourced category? [closed]

Question

Arborist are you adding the category unsourced profiles to profiles that don't have any sources or information? Recently I started adding the category. We run into them everyday.

Should we add the category since we are  are most likely to stumble upon them.

Any thoughts?

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Unsourced_Profiles

Comments

Thnaks for pointing this out. I'll watch for them. Both ways.

---

Is this really a necessary category? Aren't there going to be thousands of profiles that meet that criteria? If you include all the Ancestry references there could be tens of thousands. Is there a cleanup team associated with this category? Won't a quick look at the profile tell you it is unsourced. Wouldn't it be better to somehow notify the profile manager and tell them to provide some sources? Maybe they are notified when the category is created on their profile? Sorry for the negativity but I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of such a category.

---

Michelle,

Good question and Eugene makes a valid point - Does using this category add value?

I had not been using it, I simply did not remember that the category existed, and I merge hundreds of profiles with no sources, or souces that are so bad as to be useless.   (- One World Tree without a url so all I know is that  sometime someone found something on World Tree.)

Can anyone explain the history of the category and how it was to be used?

If we are to use it  - what about those profiles where the value of the source is virtually nothing?

---

In my opinion, a category for working on sources should be for HSA profiles. There are literally hundreds of historically significant people that have not been added. Did you guys know that there is no profile for Christopher Columbus? Can you imagine how comprehensive the sources could be for him? Perhaps the ancestors of people marked as HSAs should be looked over. Many of them or not very well sourced at all. These should be a higher priority, sinced they effect a large number of people. Right?

---

I created that category, so I'll give my opinion as to its usefulness.

When I started the maintenance categories, my idea was that some people would try to work through them. Much like how some people look up records to answer G2G questions, and Maggie has spent a lot of time cleaning up profiles in Category:Long Profiles in Need of Cleanup.

I got the idea from Wikipedia, where there are backlog elimination drives for these sorts of things. Eg. On Wikipedia I'm a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. Every 2 months we have a backlog elimination drive, where we copy edit articles that have been flagged as needing copy editing.

---

Maybe the Needs Merging, Unsourced Profiles and Long Profiles in Need of Cleanup categories could be added to the Volunteers Needed page.

---

Good Idea Eowyn!

---

Great idea, Eowyn! I keep forgetting about that Volunteers Needed page. I see it's grown a lot since I last looked at it!

I'll make Category:Maintenance categories a subcategory of Volunteers Needed, and list the individual maintenance categories under Requests for Help.

---

So, what is the information we should be adding to the profiles then? Is this for ALL profiles that don't have primary sources?

---

I think "all profiles that don't have primary sources" would be too much.  Just profiles with no sources of any kind will be huge if they are all categorized.

---

---

I totally agree with Phil, Fred and Eugene.

---

In adding individual profiles of my ancestors I see LOTS (I mean lots) of profiles that are unsourced or that refer back to gedcoms with NO VERIFIABLE SOURCES other than ancestry.com or the likes.

So having an unsourced catagory would be (at best) a mess.  Time would be better spent telling the individuals who control a profile to list real sources or delete the profile.

---

Isn't that a tad harsh? I'm not perfect... there are quite a few in my own family tree that I have not put in sources for, but if you told me that I had to delete them... I would take serious issue with that! Most of my best sources have come from Merges and other outside assistance. Having the profile, along with a request for information has led me to some wonderful connects and finding my cousins! Take that away and this is just a bunch of work for popular people of history. My greatest ambition is to find new leads in brickwall cases. Without the clues from the profiles... I wouldn't find as much as I have so far.

Besides, what could be a mess about a category? Isn't categorizing profiles our way of organizing? An organized mess is better than feathers in the wind, IMHO.

---

We don't delete profiles on WikiTree, so that's not an option. They just have to be improved.

The idea behind the Unsourced Profiles category is to help WikiTreers keep track of their own profiles needing sources, and also to allow helpful WikiTreers to find profiles in need of some help. That's why I started breaking the category down by country (eg. Canadian Unsourced Profiles, Scottish Unsourced Profiles, etc.), so that it would be easier to find profiles you might be able to improve.

---

Perfect! I love organized things. I will be going through my watchlist and adding categories as needed. Thank you for your hard work, Lianne!!!
Question: do we categorize by Country of birth, or of residence?

---

With all the unsourced profiles and a category page where they can be organized, I'm wondering if there could be a new project where the project team makes it their business to work the unsourced category, finding quality sources for those profiles, in an attempt to keep the unsourced category empty, while the Arborists and others have a friendly competition trying to keep it full. In that way, we'd bring in some competitive fun while adding value to WikiTree.

---

I often am able to find sources when merging profiles. I know we have a lot of merges to get done but it takes just a sec to check Find A Grave or Google. If I can't find anything I add unsourced. Someone once made a comment here that sources are sometimes listed on a different family member's profile so I check there. I know you are referring to profiles where there just isn't anything there. Because of the collaborative nature of WikiTree, an unsourced profile has the potential of becoming a great family story at any minute! It is a good idea to keep a list so we know what needs work. It's great we have you organizers to help us with this!

---

Debby, I like that idea!

Robin, I've been categorising by both. Like, if someone was born in Scotland and died in Canada, I put then in both Scottish Unsourced Profiles and Canadian Unsourced Profiles. I figure that increases the chance of them being found by someone who can help.

---

That sounds fun, Debby!

That makes a lot of sense, Lianne. Thank you.

---

Questions......Oh my, after reading all the posts on the merging, unnamed sources and gibberish(lol)  I am so confusedddddd.....Seriously, as a Rookie, I have been doing the best I can with entering sources...but I am really at a loss as to WHY there are so many pages with just one entry??  No sources, nada, some are even anon.entered.

Some days, I laugh and think someone just picked up a newspaper and started entering partial names... next will be be just cities and anon..joking..hope not.

But my main question is...exactly who is entering ...and what is the source from..those 2 items should be entered at least.  Then another question is  -is anyone working for pay or is all  the data donated by folks who are generous and enjoy the results of the HONOR of a contribiting to the  WIKITREE (LEGACY) database?? I truely enjoy knowing I am a part of something my grandchildren will know I helped in creating. Thanks for allowing me to vent.  and Kudos to Ms,. Debby and Mr. Ted for your encouragement.

---

Hi Lana. You should always be able to see who created/edited a profile, because profiles can only be edited by members who are signed in. If you click on the Changes tab of any profile, you can see all the changes that have been done to it, and by whom.

WikiTree does have a small team of paid employees (see Help -> Contact Team in the menu) that run the site, but all of WikiTree's data is entered by our users; no one is paid to do that.

---

My earlier post that unsourced profiles should be deleted was a "tad" harsh of me!!!

 

It had been one of those sessions where most profiles I had seen that day were results of ged.coms and I did check further into those that listed a source address, to find that it was not good!

 

So I apologize most respectfulluy if I hurt anyones feelings.   I get sorta frustrated at times - I suppose that I'm the only frustrated individual around.

 

I do love WikiTree and must say that the majority of profiles I interface with are good -

---

John, Trust me, we understand! Everyone who helps to clean-up or categorize profiles gets to see the most neglected and incorrect information. Gedcoms that list only ancestry.com or similar sources, are an irritant! Those addresses are only good for the person who created that particular family tree. I have yet to find 1 good ancestry.com source. Sources to paid sites are all removed from my personal family tree as I find them, because they were no good to anyone but me, and I don't use ancestry.com anymore! I think all of us have vented our frustrations in the forum at one time or another (I know I'm guilty!) So, just know that we commiserate with you over the condition of some profiles. We appreciate your hard work, keep it up!

---

I get the" free trial offer" when I click on the Ancestry links so I don't bother trying any more. If they are useful to some of us, then so be it. Those Ancestry messages make me appreciate WikiTree even more.

---

User contributed information to ancestry.com is worth the sources it cites. That is true of any secondary source, whether it be ancestry.com, a family history bound and placed in the genealogy section of the library or, indeed, WikiTree.

Ancestry.com and other pay sites have digitized and made available many, many original sources that would otherwise be unavailable to most researchers without a trip to a distant courthouse, the national archives or a major library. The original source citation is always made available by site. I see no reason not to use and include a citation to such an ancestry.com source. It is by far preferable to no source at all.

---

I simply have to disagree. Ancestry.com is a partner with familysearch.org. EVERYTHING that ancestry.com has, can be found for FREE on familysearch, billiongraves, findagrave, archive.org... In my opinion, Ancestry.com is for suckers who think you HAVE to pay to get good information. Plus, if you absolutely MUST use ancestry.com, you can use it for FREE at your local Family History Center at any LDS church.

---

If someone chooses to limit their research to only "free" sources, well, to each their own.

The fact remains that ancestry.com and other pay sites (including, I would add, official depositories), provide access to documentation that can and should be cited in a  profile on WikiTree. If someone has viewed a marriage, birth or death certificate, census, or any other document on ancestry.com or another pay site, and they are relying on that source to support a fact,  they are doing no one - no one - any favors by excluding or deleting that source simply because it was viewed on ancestry.com.

---

Except for the fact that NO ONE can view the source if it came from your personal family tree on ancestry unless they PAY! I think the pointless links to ancestry.com only serve to frustrate the people that come here looking for sources that they can SEE! This is, after all, a FREE site. Sorry if I offend you by being cheap.

---

I'm not offended at all. As I said, to each his/her own.

The preferred citation is to a primary source document, which in the 21st century may be vieweable on ancestry.com, another pay site, or an official depository. (I recently paid the requisite fee - $17 -  to receive a digital copy of a death certificate from Cook County, Illinois. I loved that it was immediately available and I didn't have to wait the 4 - 6 weeks it used to take by snail mail, for the same $17).

While a link to a copy of the source document is nice, it isn't necessary and the lack of a free digital copy is no excuse for excluding a citation or relying on less reliable sources (for example, unsourced material on Find A Grave). Before online services existed, it was standard to say that the author had a copy of the document in his/her possession. I still do that on profiles I manage.

---

I fully agree about the convenience of modern technology. Paying a small fee to obtain originals of documents is perfectly reasonable, but we most often tend to do that only for our own families. When I obtain a document, I scan it in and share it! I agree also that findagrave is not a primary source, but I do use the obviously correct information that is etched in stone. Literally. Before online services, we had no choice but to take other peoples word on what they had in their possession. But now, instead of telling people that I have a document... I upload it! The great thing about cooperative work like this is that peoples different styles lend personality to the profiles.

---

Ancestry is licensed by many public libraries in the United States, who provide free in-house library use to their patrons, including anyone on their wireless networks.  Links to private trees won't work, but links to "stories" work great. 

---

It is wasteful to spend money paying ancestry or any other pay service. I have been doing genealogy for 35 years, and rely soley on free sources. The County Courthouses now charge too much also. But by networking online, you can find someone who has the information you need. Sometimes a cousin is paying ancestry, so get them to get you the info you need. But I strongly recommend using the public library if you must use ancestry.

The LDS Mormons have mircrofilmed almost everything in the world by now, except in heavily Catholic areas where access to documents has been denied. Italy is available on familysearch, but Ireland is doing its own thing. I think  Ireland needs to make its records free too. Paying Rootsireland is ridiculoous. I know  they are trying to increase tourism, but they might get more folks interested if they took down the pay wall.

---

Dear cousin (Sharon and I are 4th cousins),

I respectfully disagree. I pay for both Ancestry.com and NEHGS memberships.

I get value from both every single day.  Contrary to an earlier post, not all content on Ancestry.com is available on familysearch.org although I continue to be pleased with the increasing amount of resources that are available for free on familysearch. And in some cases, familysearch has access to records NOT on ancestry.

Also the quality of Ancestry.com's search engine is far better than familysearch's. I find things much more quickly on ancestry than the same thing on familysearch. My time is worth something, too.

It's not unreasonable for government agencies to request compensation for services that are not covered by our tax dollars-- agencies that are experiencing serious cuts to their budgets. It costs someone time and takes resources to dig out and copy records we request. Should we not pay people for their time and expertise?

Relying on the research of others is risky. Some have proven themselves to do quality work (and if we do rely on their research, we should cite them) but even experts like Robert Charles Anderson can make mistakes. I know, I've found a couple of them myself.

All of us should assess our own sense of value from any investments we make. I make that assessment every year when I receive my renewal notification. Sure, Ancestry's cost makes me clench every year. It's not cheap. (NEHGS membership is far less.) But could I do without it ? Not yet.

---

Jillaine,

I can understand your thoughts and use of Ancestry.com; however, my earlier remarks concerning the extensive use by WikiTree guests/members of ancestry.com as a source, is in my opinion, a way to build a tree with little or no true research.  I have no problem with providing the source material found on ancestry or other sites, but a source of ancestry.com alone is not a good source.

I have tried in many such cases by clicking on the ancestry source and found that it only refers to another ancestry source.

So do not think I am against using ancestry.  I just feel that one needs something more as a source.

---

What I object to is paying ancestry to put my tree online, and having to continue to pay them in order to access it.

I also object to ancestry as a source, and all the rewriting we have to do when someone uploads a gedcom full of ancestry sources which mostly just lead you to ancestry and its pay walls.

I think wikitree has a much better system, and we if need to use ancestry's databases, plenty of public libraries subscribe to Ancestry Library Edition. We all need to remember that ancestry itself is just a repository, and the real sources are primary source documents.

For professioanal genealogists like my smart cousin Jillaine, ancestry might be a real time saver, but for a retired librarian like myself, wikitree works better, as I have more time than money.

What is really great is that we all collaborate, so that we get a vast input of data from many sources, and the variety of opinions gives us all something to think about, and more ideas for research.

Sharon Troy Centanne

 

---

I guess I should clarify. YES, everything that is available on Ancestry.com IS available on familysearch.org, because they are both owned by the mormon church. The indexing we do, is done by volunteers around the world who give their time freely in service to God. HOWEVER, the records available on familysearch.org that you must also pay for on Ancestry.com, are available FOR FREE to LDS members. As of this year, all members have free access to ancestry.com and other affiliate sites. Your best bet for the free and open exchange of family information... find a Mormon!!!

---

Hi John, I was responding specifically to the comments of my cousin Sharon.

One of the challenges with discussing ancestry.com here is that most people -- when they say Ancestry.com-- seem to be referring only to the non public, usually unsourced family trees hosted by the service, but that is only half of what ancestry.com has. And I concur with you that using those trees as one's only source is undesirable.  (And Sharon, I also don't like hosting my gedcom there for similar reasons to yours. So I don't.)

But I am willing to pay dollars for searchable access to all the other records-- census, military, passenger lists, published and searchable genealogies, etc.  If/when familysearch makes such access avail for free to non LDS members, then I'll be happy to give up my subscription.

Btw, the bulk of my genealogy work is now pro bono. I do very little paid genealogy work at this time.

---

Sharon,

It is a common misperception that you have to pay Ancestry to put your tree online. You don't. A member tree or trees are free. Yes, you have to register, but you don't have to buy a subscription.

---

I think the point was that it's frustrating to look at a profile and have the only source citation be links to a pay service to which you don't have a subscription.

I agree.

I choose to pay for an Ancestry subscription, and since uploading my gedcom, I have slowly been working through my watchlist to convert all the ancestry.com links to actual citations to the source material. That way, if someone wants to access the primary material, they can do so regardless of their subscription or lack thereof.

We all know that Wikitree suffers somewhat from gedcom uploads, but it also benefits greatly from this function. If someone has a specific link on Ancestry they would like looked up to verify the source, I am happy to be of service.

---

Just one of the many things I just love about WikiTree is the comment from Sheila Small:  ".....I am happy to be of service."

In my opinion, it is thoughts like this that really make WikiTree a family affair!

Thank you Sheila

---

I am a paying member of ancestry.com and I choose to pay for it.  My family tree is on the website.  I can go there and usually find sources there.

I know the opinions of everyone here at wikiTree feel about the sourcing for Ancestry.  I am currently working on profiles of men who were killed at the Battle of the Alamo.  Most of these men  are not available on FamilySearch.  Then a few times, I find a link, and it REDIRECTS me back to Ancestry.com.    

I do not feel it is due just to Texas.  As the men were from all over the US as well as other countries.

Thus I agree with Jillaine, I am willing to pay dollars to find immigration, passenger lists military data of people, death records, And if an ancestor is present in the published genealogies, some are there as well.

Do not worry though \fellow wikiTreers I put the ancestors in one by one (as opposed to Gedcoms)  I do not source ancestry.com trees.

 I have tried logging into Family Search,  the next time it will not accept me.  

This is just me expressng my opinion just like the rest of you.

---

Hi Mary,

I don't think many here actually object to Ancestry altogether.  It's really "Ancestry Member Trees," "U.S. and International Marriage Records," "Family Data Collection," and many of their other databases, that are user-submitted, unsupported, unverified, and often just plain wrong.  FamilySearch has similarly dubious sources; "Pedigree Resource File," "International Genealogical Index," etc.

The other problem with Ancestry is that even if you cite a good source there, (census records, images of wills, ship's manifests, etc.) the links are inaccessible to anyone who doesn't pay Ancestry for access.  Whenever I see these, I will replace the link with a free link to FamilySearch or another free source for the same document if I can find one.

---

I think it is a great idea. I have been checking them every time I log in. I think it is a useful category. There are TONS of profiles out there that I can't help with at all, but now and again there are 1 or 2 that I can add legitimate sources to. If everyone just checked the "unsourced profiles" for an area they are familiar with, only once a week or whatever, many many profiles could be improved a little at a time. Isn't that the whole point?

---

Jilliane - You value the same things at ancestry.com as I do. Searching those records is a lightning-fast resource that my genealogically-inclined great grandfather would have marveled at. I've done more work in a decade than he and his two sons, working cooperatively, accomplished in half a century. It really is remarkable.

I do use other members' trees sometimes, though. People sometimes find applicable records which the search function misses; this has proven helpful again and again. Unsourced trees, or ones where the only source is another unsourced ancestry tree, are only good for provisional tips. I'll search on a parent or a spouse, especially if it's something I'm stuck on, to see if anything useful comes up. Most of the time it's a frustrating waste of time, but every so often, I'll hit pay dirt.

Mostly it's access to the records, but occasionally the other trees help, too.

It ain't cheap keeping something that big up and running, so I don't mind paying something for access.

---

Robin Craig, I am not sure I follow your response. I am not Mormom but I signed up for Family Search and have access to the records for free.

---

Carolyn - Robin is referring to ancestry.com not familysearch.org. Non-Mormons pay for ancestry.com, Mormons can use it for free.

---

I really hope sites the like of ancestory and their ilk go the way of the dodo bird. I'm curious if community projects like wikitree have the power to crowd fund some of these archiving and transcription efforts. I have no sense of the order of magnitude of things, but I'd be much happier shelling out money on genealogy projects if I knew the work went to enrich everyone, not just a single company.

I got involved in geni because my brother had started a tree there. I was a pretty sucky moment when I finally understood how the site operated.

---

I worked for Ancestry.com for a couple of years doing data entry validation, and I honestly think they have a great model.   It is there little waving leaf that is the issue....people attach records that have nothing to do with the person other than the same name, etc.   Familysearch.org is free and uses a lot of the transcriptions done by other sites.   Clearly, the difference with Wikitree, which is now being understood by other sites, is the focus on a Single Family Tree.   That inherently adds value, not only to the descendant, but, it provides the ability to take a lot of input and meld it together into something that is closer to the truth!   Thanks for your thoughts and keep promoting Wikitree!

---

prehaps the reason that some P M  are not adding a sousce is because it has to be done a certain way with symbols etc.I entered on one that the source was from my Grandfather`s Journal [which I now own ]  about the birth of his son.  but rec. message that  it needed a source .  I  could not make it any clearer then that so I left it the best way I knew how.

---

Hi Martha,

Just put the source under the section heading "== Sources ==" with an asterisk in front of the source text (e.g., "Personal journal of...").  If it's already been labelled "{{unsourced}}", just delete that text.

---

excellent idea!

---

Thankfully sometimes people know how to share the Ancestry records with public links. If I encounter a source ref that needs membership then I usually try to ADD an alternate source that is publically available.

Hi Russ, not sure if volunteers transcribing records fits with wikitree, but there are lots other groups doing that sort of thing. 

Obviously FamilySearch has many records transcribed (and many more still as images only still).

FindAGrave was originally a transcribing effort that grew into more. 

I know that in the UK, there are a few groups of ‘online parish clerks’ that transcribe the parish (church) records in their area (https://www.cornwall-opc-database.org/search-database/ , https://wiltshire-opc.org.uk/genealogy/login/ ), as well as separate group trying to do it UK wide (https://www.freereg.org.uk/ ) and similar for civil records ( https://www.freebmd.org.uk/ , https://www.freecen.org.uk/ )

Answer 1

It is preferred not to add the unsourced category to profiles with no sources, they all end up in one place and are difficult to sort through and fix.

There is a template you can add to profiles that have no sources which allows you to add a country to the category, this makes it easier for Profile Improvement members, or other members as well, to find profiles that need sources in a country where they have some knowledge.

To use the template add {{Unsourced|country }} to the top of a profile, replace country with the name of the area where the profile is from, such as {{Unsourced|United States }}, or {{Unsourced|German }} or {{Unsourced|Scottish }} . The space between the last word and }} is important for creating the correct Category name. As well as adding it to the category the template adds a text box explaining what to do.

If you do not know the country or it involves more than one you can add {{Unsourced}} as a last resort. This adds the text box and puts the profile in the general category.

Comments

Rhian I think we should start a new discussion making it easier for people to notice your post about the template.

---

this is exaltly what I am talking about . with   [[    ]]    space etc. why can`t a source be a simple source,with out the extra.

---

Martha, don't worry about the coding. The source citation is more important than the coding. You could enter it this way:

Martha Leger was born in the 1930s, daughter of Garland Beaugh and Martha (Richard) Beaugh. (Source: Birth Certificate - Martha Leger, California Dept of Vital Statistics, #12345... etc)

Answer 2

Does the following constitute a source?

 

* WikiTree profile Morton-2298 created through the import of Lutz-Amoroso Family Tree.ged on May 18, 2012 by [[Lutz-294 | Michelle Lutz]]. See the [http://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:NetworkFeed&who=Morton-2298 Changes page] for the details of edits by Michelle and others.

Comments

Right. I see you now. I DO get a bit lost sometimes... that's why I ask!

---

I agree a duplicate profile does not deserve credit. If the duplicate had a source the original profile didn't have then  credit should be given for the source they provided.

---

Technically it IS a source. It isn't a good source but the information did come to Wikitree from Lutz-Amoroso Family Tree.ged on May 18, 2012. Unfortinately yhat does make it a source. I think we can all agree that it is not an acceptable source but if there are no other sources included with the upload for that profile then it is all you have at the moment. I agree with Philip though and put it in the acknowledgements section.

---

Eugene: The distinction I make in this case is, did the person creating the profile add the source him- or herself? In the case of the Ancestry stuff, I would say they did not. All that stuff amounts to is gibberish created through GEDCOM uploads. It's not at all the same as if someone consciously wrote something in the source field.

---

Well said Micheal!!!

Having recently run into a lot of incorrect data on my family profiles (from gedcoms!) i like the term "gibberish".

---

Thank you. It should have read "him- or herself."

---

I use ancestry.com to find information and find it worth the $150 for a world membership.  But in attributing the information, it's silly to use ancestry.com as the primary source.  Usually they tell you where the information came from.  So the citation should be something like "Census of 1880, Providence, Rhode Island, cited by Ancestry.com."  That way the reader is directed to the original primary source.

---

It is helpful if the named GEDCOM is viewable, particularly with disconnected profiles as there are projects that use this info for reconnecting.

---

I used to delete all the non-source "sources" on the grounds that they aren't real sources. But people keep saying that it's helpful to know where the profile came from, even if it doesn't have a gravestone or birth certificate or census &c attached.

So, now I put things like "ancestry family trees", "pedigree resource file", the name of the gedcom (often multiple gedcoms) in the Acknowledgements section. I don't mean to give credit exactly, it just helps to show how the profile came to be.

---

This question from 2013 is closed. Most Info noted here is no longer applicable after some policy changes. Maybe start a new discussion to further the discussion if needed.

Answer 3

If there is a reference to a birth, death or marriage and no source to where it was found, then I think the information should be deleted unless the source of the information is found.

A post should be left for the manager of the profile informing him/her of it.

Comments

While I'm all about sourcing information, I don't think it's a good idea to delete vitals leaving blank date fields. At least with unsourced vitals, we are offered a clue where and when to look. With blank fields, we have nothing.

---

agreed!   :)

---

I list them under a disputed facts header and mark them as citation needed before adding to the narrative.

---

Jillaine agree that leaving those clues is a great idea. Just placed in a disputed facts under the bio.

---

Jilliaine,

With unsourced vitals, I would leave the vitals there as a record but with no sources. I agree with you that we are offering a clue where and when to look for the source.

---

Even unsourced information can provide vital clues needed for finding sources. The idea of deleting vital information from a profile simply because it's not sourced flies in the face of the need for vital information used to complete merges and really frightens me. This sounds like it could create an even worse mess than the one it's intended to clean up.

Please be kind to folks with profiles that are missing sources or that have garbled ones from Ancestry. I think it's really hard on new users to discover that the way the upload process works creates a garbled mess of their sources. Yes, much of that mess is created by other online programs such as Ancestry.com when they create the GEDCOM, but please remember that it is not the members' fault. Not everyone has tons of time to spend on cleaning up profiles, so they may not be able to move as quickly through those profiles as you'd like. I know that even though I limited the number of people in my GEDCOMS, I'm still finding it slow going to clean things up. But, just because the sources aren't usable here, doesn't mean there weren't sources to begin with, or that the data is incorrect.

---

I echo the request to be patient with those of us who are sort of new and methodically working through cleaning up a large GEDCOM file naively uploaded. All of the comments here have been instructive and helpful. It has taken me a while to learn where the help is located, but I'm still working at it! Thanks to all of you who are here!

---

Sometimes the source can be inferred.  If the item says "born 1643", you haven't a clue where it came from, but if it says, "born St. James Parish, Jan 23, 1643" you can suspect that the original source is a parish record.  You can also guess that it is probably not the birth date, but the date of baptism (christening).  

I'm a firm advocate of detailing how surmises came about.  I may put "1630" in the birthdate box, but then explain in the profile -- "George had to be born earlier than 1635 because he was an adult when he inherited property in 1656.  Since he married in 1651 and was likely 21 at the time, 1630 is a suggested birthdate."

---

Jack, while I'd love to agree with you, I've seen-- especially in the Puritan Great Migration space of the 1600s-- far too many equivalents of "born St. James Parish, Jan 23, 1643" that turned out to be either fabrications or references to other people by the same name (or even not the same name!) born on that date in that place.

Certainly it's a clue of where to go looking, but I wouldn't infer a source from such a date.

-- Jillaine

---

I think we're in complete agreement except I may be using the word "infer" as a much softer word -- better than "guess" but not by a whole lot!  I recently was researching a Day and came across a bio that gave detailed accounts of his baptism in St. Luke's Church, Shrewsbury, England.  Well, we'd visited Shrewsbury last spring (I wanted to see the birthplace of my ancestor Sampson Waring) and I knew the churches there and there was no St. Lukes.  So I googled some more and came an account of one of the "genealogical fabricators" of the last century who for a price would give you a line of descent from anyone.  They did beautiful work, and 80% of it was probalby true -- with the other 20% well disguised."

---

Perhaps the "birth" field should have "radio" button = to "bp" = 'baptised' ? - - this could help stop the confusion with pre 1800 dates - - cheers -john.a -

---

It's important not to make the datafield do to much work.  The work needs to be in the narrative where you can use complete sentences to describe exactly what the fact is and where it came from.  The number in the data field should then reflect that.  The data field already contains the possible notation "before this date."  If the date of baptism is known and entered there, then "before this date" can be checked.

Answer 4

This is a great discussion!  I come across several profiles that contain only one tid-bit of information and a source of Ancestry.com public trees.  I am uncertain that tagging such profiles with {{Unsourced|country }} is the valueable tool it was intended to be.  Perhaps, another pipe with the profile manager's Wiki ID would minimize these profiles.  If the profile manager is consistently adding what I consider "unsourced profiles" this may assist in limiting their ability to continue uploading gedcoms. A secondary value could minimize duplicates that need to be merged.

Any thoughts?

Comments

Thanks David!  That is a different perspective I hadn't thought of. I was thinking it was mostly Arborist that add them. I get tunnel vision by the time I get to the point I have to add to that category.

Answer 5

Hi Michelle! I've added sources for the danes on the list except one (couldn't find anything), but I see no meaning in adopting the profiles. By adding sources I've removed 9 profiles from the category.

Comments

Awesome Hans! Thanks for knocking some off of the list.

Answer 6

Just wanted to add that this is another one of the things on Wikitree that is too hard to find.  There are quite a number of these, from what I've seen.

If you use the pulldown menu "Find" and select "Categories," there is no mention of "unsourced" on that page.

I had to use my tried and true Google search to find it:

site:wikitree.com category unsourced

That will get you there.  But this, and quite a few other things on Wikitree, should be easier to find.

Comments

This question was asked over a year ago so the unsourced category has expanded quite a bit. It's listed under maintenance category.

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Unsourced_Profiles

Answer 7

This question probably needs to be closed. I asked in 2013 and a lot here doesn't apply when it was asked. Several things have changed since.