Can a leader give guidance as how to proceed with validation in cases as these ...?

Question

Someone added (I believe via GEDCOMPARE) data / information that does nothing to validate any facts on the profile of [[Vos-555]]. The only real "evidence" we have is the marriage record. Even the place names are not historically correct or cannot be proven. I'm at a loss how to deal with this. Removing the input could amount to breaking the Honor Code, yet keeping the unedited data in this fashion is also devalidating and even more obfuscating.

What is exactly is the general WikiTree protocol on editing GEDCOMPARE new style? I'm asking also because Ancestry.com (the source of this data), is not regarded as a solid and trustworthy source, besides only being a tertiary source where secondary sources may or may not prove some things.

This was added today. Is this going to be the future for WikiTree?

Comments

This has already been noticed and commented on (there was a really nasty upload at the end of September that twisted current last names of a sizeable number of Aristos beyond recognition). Thank you, Philip, for bringing this to the leaders' attention as Chris had specifically asked for recent examples of the problem. This obviously qualifies.

That said, I would not hesitate to restore the data as it was before the Gedcompare upload. Gedcompare is basically merging its stuff with your profile without giving you the opportunity to accept the merge or choose which fields are kept. Which is, actually, against the Honor Code.

---

Thanks Isabelle. I will do so though I will inform the contribuant that I'll be restoring the bio (it is the courteous thing to do - she is only doing what is allowed by WikiTree and is not aware of the fact that she might be unintentionally de-validating an already murky profile with even murkier data ...

Answer 1

I've had a similar problem where someone merged one of their gedcom uploads into one of my profiles, leaving a load of ancestry "sources" that linked nowhere, just tons of meaningless # references that I felt obliged to clean up one by one and replace with something meaningful, as rolling the profile back to the previous edit seemed callous.

My grievance is, with regular merges we get 30 days. With this anybody can dump a ton of flotsam into your hard work instantly with no communication whatsoever. It's not collaboration, which is at the centre of Wikitree protocol, so why can't these matches go through the same 30 day rule that other merges do?

Answer 2

The honor code doesn't say "thou shalt keep everything, regardless." If you're talking about the unsourced dates just added, I'd give it a couple days in case the contributor comes back and adds a real source, but if the best that there is is "some tree on Ancestry.com says such and such", yeah, you're perfectly justified in taking it out. The accompanying message literally says "could you please confirm its correct" which doesn't make it sound like a confidently sourced datum.

For example, I just edited a profile where the Ancestry 1870 US census was cited as a source for the birthdate of a guy who was born around 1623. You better believe I deleted that "source". With Ancestry, a lot of the really nutso stuff happens when people get "Hints" and just accept them without looking at it or thinking too hard about it. The Ancestry hint AI is prone to making a lot of spurious connections, and people sometimes don't get that these "hints" are more like "wild guesses".

Comments

There must be a protocol regarding this new GEDCOMPARE. If the contribuant had not been kind enough to mention this, it would have gone unnoticed for some time. No names or dates (except for the "changes" tab) or fully cited sources to accompany, and even exactly which facts are being edited. This is an unpleasant scenario. I have to gauge which "facts" this kind contribuant added in the first place. It is also not very welcoming to merely reset and say "sorry, not good enough". That's what I mean going against the spirit of the honor code. We have issues enough with contribuants who do not take kindly to profiles being strictly protocolled by projects.

---

Besides, in a project with 15000+ profiles giving a few day time to add sources is not a realistic expectation. It would mean keeping even more mental notes (or tracking with excel sheets for example) and still there are no guidelines to deal with this new form of adding data directly into profiles.