Lesser of two wikitree evils

Question

I was about to enter a profile, 1870s-1960s, no living children, and discovered it was already in wikitree, but on a red privacy setting. Most of the manger's tree is in fact private or unlisted.

I asked for trusted list access and it was granted promptly. There is no information on the profile not publicly available. I suggested that the red privacy was not the most appropriate and was told that living people had raised issues about people both alive and dead. I don't think there's any problem been  raised in particular with this profile, but read on.

The manager's active, so any wikitree user with a strong interest can access the profile. I'm not about to argue with them about privacy.

 I have scanned birth, death and marriage certificates to attach to the profile and newspaper items. The father of this person is in doubt, so all the information I can add will help other researchers come to a conclusion. One of the possible fathers has a relative on wikitree who has done a DNA test.

If I'd managed to create this profile first it would be open and accessible to all researchers everywhere, not just committed wikitree users.

I find it very frustrating. My inclination is to just add my information and move on, hoping that the profile will be opened in ten years. But there's nothing to stop me creating a duplicate profile.

What's the lesser of two evils? A duplicate profile or information that is not public?

Comments

deleted (i hadn't fully read the original message)

---

Are comments allowed on red profiles? If so you could create a free space page that discusses the sources about the person's origins and link to it from a comment. That would be an alternative to creating a duplicate.

---

Thanks everyone. I settled for putting a link on the mother's profile to the daughter and noted that people should put in a trusted list request to gain access to the daughter's profile. The birth certificate appears as a thumbnail on a the profile so researchers will know something is there.

I felt this was a good balance of not putting the profile manager in a spot of bother with his family, while making the profile easier to find and access for those interested.

Answer 1

Hi Mark, I post something like this on the bulletin board for profiles that could be a bit more open, but they still maintain a strong privacy as far as edits are concerned,

"You might want to change your Privacy level to Private with Public Family Tree or Private with Public Biography and Family Tree.  WikiTree needs to see your Family Tree tab to make DNA and cousin connections along your family lines.  I use Private with Public Biography and Family Tree, so click on my name to get ideas of how that can work on your own profile. "

Also, I try to point out that if the person was in the USA 1850-1940, they are probably on the US census and other publicly available and published records. Keeping these profiles private leads others to consider creating duplicates (please don't do that on purpose!)  

Sometimes when I want to add a source to a private profile, I just post the source on the public bulletin board.  These are mostly for Smiths that I am not related to, so I don't want to be added to their trusted list.  I don't need more Smiths on my Watchlist, but I do spend a lot of time adding sources to Unsourced Smith profiles.

Answer 2

Lesser of two evils? That's kind of a tough call. We really don't want duplicates. Those have their own set of problems. And it sounds like this profile is right on the border of being forced open in a year or two anyway.

I hate confrontations too, but I really think the right thing to do is have the profile more open. Maybe file a problem_with_members report, if it comes to it.

Just my opinion.

Answer 3

Why can't we just respect that some of our fellow WikiTreers (like me!!) want greater privacy for the some of profiles (for relatives that we may have known well or feel especially close to) they manage?

We have updated the dates for which profiles are required to be open - for individuals born 150+ years ago instead of 200+; we even added opening profiles for individuals who have been deceased for 100+ years. For those not required to be open or unlisted, why is the remaining range of privacy not acceptable?

We have a collaborative process (Trusted List request, Private Message to profile manager; Public Comment on profile manager's profile) that works well - when we use it! However, we do need policy clarification and/or a fast-track option added to the Unresponsive Profile Managers system to deal with Absent/Inactive managers.

There is nothing evil about a locked profile; nor is creating a duplicate evil. We have guidelines for both scenarios; these guidelines were discussed, refined, discussed again, and ultimately created by fellow WikiTreers. They represent, in my opinion, reasonable compromises of majority and minority opinions regarding collaboration and privacy.

Comments

if you and I share close a close cousin -- who decides if its open or closed?

---

The profile manager decides, Dennis.

If we are both the profile's managers, then we evaluate the information on the individual profile to try to come to a logical decision that satisfies both our needs.

If we can't agree on a compromise that we each feel is fair, then we seek intervention from our fellow WikiTreers!

---

So the person who managed to get on wikitree first and create the profile and thus become profile manager gets to control the privacy level? first come, first served?

---

By way of agreeing with Dennis:  A person born in the 1870s, who has been dead for fifty years, probably has dozens of great (or gg) grandchildren and great grand nieces and nephews.  Why should we respect the wishes of one of those descendants, without regard for (or even knowledge of) the wishes of all the others?  What kind of respect do we show all the other descendants by denying them the information and connections that one descendant collected?  The person we should show respect is the ancestor, and we do that by honoring him or her with an accurate and detailed profile.  For people like the subject of this thread, who lived recently enough that living people knew them personally, I'm all for the 'yellow' locks.  I think the red lock is selfish and inappropriate.

---

Yes, Jillaine, that's part of the managers job. And I am a firm believer in the concept of first come, first served!

We respect the wishes of the profile manager who created the profile to be contacted by those who share his/her interest in the ancestor. That's how I use the various privacy levels.

Why is the profile manager the only person not deserving of respect, Herbert? Contact the profile manager and present your argument for greater access, instead of circumventing the collaboration guidelines. Most of our fellow WikiTreers will listen to reason.

---

Lindy, please don't put words in my mouth.  I did not say PMs don't deserve respect, only that they deserve no more of it than any other descendant.  We are Profile Managers, not Profile Owners.

---

I did not put words in your mouth, Herbert. You asked why the profile manager's wishes should be respected; my interpretation of your words are that you aren't giving the manager the same respect that you feel others (even those who have shown no interest in the profile) deserve.

I see nowhere in this thread that anyone implied that we should not respect a fellow descendant's wishes. However, the fellow descendant first needs to make his/her wishes known to the profile manager. Respect the manager by informing him/her of your concerns; only then can you expect a reasonable response.

---

Full context, Lindy:  "Why should we respect the wishes of one of those descendants, without regard for (or even knowledge of) the wishes of all the others?"

---

We are obviously interpreting your post differently, Herbert. I inferred an unequal level of respect based on the simple fact that you even asked the questions. I apologize if my interpretation clashes with your intent.

As a profile manager, I evaluate the wishes of those who make their wishes known to me; then I decide whether or not to change the privacy level to accommodate the combined needs of those who made their interests known.

I can only accommodate the collective needs for those who contact me; otherwise I do not accommodate my own needs and privileges that were promised to me (and to all full Profile Managers) when I joined WikiTree.

---

When my kids were little (and I remember doing it myself when my siblings and I were little), one would try to hoard all the toys placed in front of them, by reaching their arms around the toys on the floor and dragging them to themselves, leaving the other kids with none or few toys each.

As a parent, I would not allow them to be so selfish to their siblings.

I was not being unfair, nor giving the one any less respect than the others. They needed to learn to share with each other.

I agree with Herbert, we should be Managers, not Owners. Privacy being used in this way is about ownership and control, when it should be more about management and "open" collaboration.

---

How do we know the profile manager is using the privacy level "in this way," Dennis?

Until someone contacts the profile manager and asks about the chosen privacy level, this assessment is a prejudgment.