See my comment here ...
This statement "The more control leaders and coordinators want to keep to themselves the less involvement you will see by volunteer members." may instance seem true, but it creates a false picture of what actually might be transpiring.
A few observations:
* One has to ask one on what quantifiable indicators this statement is made, because ...
a) While the observation is in my experience also to a certain extent true, the actual reason though would be the steep learning curve that working within this WikiTree environment demands, and the restrictions WikiTree itself poses through it's own protocols ... (therefore not leaders, project coordinators or projects leaning towards or wanting to keep control - it is easy to interpret it that way and too easy to blame the projects, the leaders and the coordinators for this) ....
b) because one has to go to the situation that existed before many projects and project coordinators existed ... I joined WikiTree towards the end of 2013; after joining a project I co-initiated a project mid-2014, and before the situation was not that different - people were still either for all reasons above volunteering to join either WikiTree or a project and also ending up in either category ... people all over were leaving WikiTree in droves ... or became permanently dormant and inactive ...
c) Different strokes for different folks - even though we strive in WikiTree for clear (uni-clarified) protocols, diferent projects need at times different approaches. I for one still - after more than one hundred thousand contributions - do not understand how to edit US bio's (after merging for example), bacause of the unfamiliarity with US sources. When I do merge US profiles, I will merge those of which I do not have to integrate the bio's. This has nothing to do with laziness.
d) The continually changing protocols and boiler plates: example, two years ago the <references /> was supposed to go right to the bottom of a bio, now it has been ruled to go directly underneath the = = Sources = = heading. So while we had to collate countless of pre-1700 duplicated profiles in order to untangle and / or validate them (situation caused by WikiTree policy itself - not the fault of the contributors or leaders or coordinators), and also added references behind those sources, now suddenly they do not show up, because we are supposed to magically transform 15000 + profiles and add them directly underneath that heading, defying the notion of "a project as a work in progress" .... Example: [[Jaubert-11]]
* The comment of Dave seems to me to be accurate: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/522807/projects-and-their-members?show=522820#a522820
* What in my humle opinion is needed, is clear policy on adding to WikiTree or profiles with amongst the following:
- No GEDCOMPARE for profiles older than 1800
- Clear project policy, mission and objectives - this may vary from project to project depending the context, in order to be more inclusive ....
- This inclusiveness does not exclude less control if one needs to call it that, it demands though understanding the sense of community and the skills of the different members involved in a project; more communication is (as is evident in WikITree) not always effective as it does not necessarily lead to better clarity, even instruction films do not produce understanding ...
I propose a learning-how-to-edit program, designed to help increase the amount of volunteers who can actually improve profiles in a validatory fashion. This must be project geared (from within projects self).
Blaming the contribuants indirectly for trying to fit square pegs in round holes, is not something that leaderhip should be doing. And it is preposterous and unrealistic to suggest that projects should limit their watchlist to 5000 profiles. As if that would fix what that what is not broken but only perceived to be so.