Confirmed by DNA via non WikiTree user?

Question

I've been getting notices for several of my profiles that the 'Confirmed by DNA' tag has been removed by data doctors due to lack of proper citation.  To some extent I probably have been lax in completely providing an explanation of the proof behind the tag, but I'm not sure if it's possible to provide a citation matching the examples of proper citation since most of the DNA matches that the proofs are based on are not WikiTree members and so do not have a WikiTree profile. Is there a way to provide an acceptable citation for a 'Confirmed by DNA' tag without tracking down each one of them and having them add themselves to WikiTree?  If it matters, I've had this happen for cases where it was an autosomal triangulation as well as Y-DNA.

Comments

I agree there is confusion, also constant change in requirements for DNA confirmation statements. Every time I do a new or add to an existing I check requirements.

So, some of mine carry start and end points of the matching chromosomes, those I like, some can be confirmed per Gedmatch, some will feed in by using FT chromosome browser and seeing the start and end points. Honor code is important!

However more recently, use of start and end points of matching segments is discouraged, and the use of initials only for those not present at WT is encouraged to protect privacy.

In the end, not everyone we connect with per DNA is available on WT, so we have to work together to provide an environment that ensures privacy yet allows us to share our combination of the science of DNA findings WITH our research trails.

Answer 1

To protect the privacy of living relatives who are not on Wikitree, I usually add a citation similar to this:

*Paternal and maternal relationships are confirmed with an AncestryDNA test match between William's daughter and her first cousin once removed with MRCAs [[Taylor-41272|Stephen Taylor]] and [[Gibson-11985|Julia Gibson]]. Predicted relationship reported by AncestryDNA: 2nd cousins 569 centimorgans shared across 20 DNA segments; Confidence: Extremely High

See https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Taylor-41271&public=1

I've marked the relationships confirmed by DNA for now, but I accept that a data doctor may decide to change the flags.

I think it would be useful if we had an additional flag of "Confirmed by DNA with non WikiTree user"

Comments

Nice one!

Actually, a Data Doctor will not even see this so there is no reason for anyone to interfere with what you have done. As long as you have both the DNA confirmed flag and a statement with the keywords "Paternal/Maternal" & "relationship" in the bio, then there is no error code generated.

On the other hand, this type of statement is analogous to adding a source reference to a private tree (or an old tree that has been uprooted) at ancestry.com. It may be completely true, but no-one can independently verify it.

---

It is my understanding that Wikitree doesn't allow for evidence that can't be independently verified. Your AncestryDNA evidence is no different than a FTDNA Project leader with access to both trees and DNA results.  These people know if the DNA supports or refutes claims related to DNA, but this is not evidenced acceptable by Wikitree.

I would think that we would still need the complete paper trail (all birth certificates for example) and access to the AncestryDNA accounts to independently validate what has been stated is true.

I think if we vigorously enforce the current rules, we will see why these rules/guidelines just don't work.

---

I've put a similar citation here https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Dunkley-340  who is the mother of my second cousin.   I am not willing to create a profile for a living person who I traced because of the DNA connection.

I  haven't marked the trail as confirmed; yet in my head it is.It also confirms that my mother was my mother and her grandfather on the paper trail, my great grandfather.

I have a similar though slightly more distant connection through my mother's x chromosome (with its peculiar pattern of transmission.)  I researched and found the paper trail link but again the match is not on wiki-tree and  for privacy reasons, I am unwilling to create a profile for this person or their parent

My father also tested whilst he was alive and I can definitely  say he was my father .  I made an initial error in confirming this (rightly pointed out, I ticked him as being confirmed rather than the link to me)  Rather than correct it, I made the decision to remove DNA confirmation entirely because I really don't see the point at the moment. If I discover any matches that I can trace a documented  trail to, the same problem will arise as it will inevitably start from a living person.

---

It is my understanding that Wikitree doesn't allow for evidence that can't be independently verified.

Ken, I think that's just BS. In order to "independently verify" a given source, does not mean it has to be transparently available via a Google search. You may have to write some letters, or make a few phone calls.

---

Dennis, If we were only discussing Open and Public profiles, I would not have any disagreement, but the problem is those considered Private Profiles using Traditional Genealogy.  

There are no letters or phone calls that will get you the birth certificates for most people who are living today.  The problem is that you have to "provide" a paper trail between two DNA testers, that can be independently verified. The main argument is that people can say anything.  There is no distinction between a 20-year-old DNA tester and someone born in the early 1800's.

There is a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to DNA.  The problem that some see, is that if you allow a person's statement, without providing the documentation for a DNA Testers, then you have to allow them to report the findings of 2 DNA testers, who are private. People are reluctant to share birth certificates for DNA testers.

If you allowed someone to keep part of the one-to-one paper-trail out of the public view, then FTDNA project managers could confirm 100's of ancestral lines that are open profiles, without revealing who took the test. Wikitree believes this is a bad thing for them to do.

---

Ken

There is no distinction between a 20-year-old DNA tester and someone born in the early 1800's. ???

I can think of a couple of fairly obvious ones, the 20 year old is (hopefully) still looking at the daisy's rather than pushing them up, and the person from the 1800s is rather unlikely to have taken a DNA test.

More importantly, the 20 year old has a choice of whether to appear on wikitree, and I don't think that it is a prerequisite for them to provide a copy of their birth certificate in order for them to do.

Helen makes a very good point above, there are DNA links that we all find with people who, for whatever reason, do not wish to either be on wikitree or to have their DNA mentioned. I don't pretend to understand their reasoning, but I respect their choice.

For DNA matches that I find outside wikitree I offer to add their lines, a profile for them and a DNA badge - no effort on their part and the option for them to take over the management of their profile should they so wish.

So far I've got about a 70% take-up on this offer, though none have taken over the profiles.

I don't expect them to send me a copy of their birth certificate. I'm quite happy to go on with my naieve belief that they're not lying about who their parents were.

---

Derrick, we are mostly in agreement, so let me explain it this way.

Every parent/child relationship requires the sources to be cited in the biography so they can be individually verified.  The person name, parents, age, etc. 

Wikitree requires, as we have been told over and over, that to "Confirm with DNA," you need first to prove a relationship between 2 DNA testers using traditional genealogy and that the sources need to be independently verified. This involves making public those private profiles and include the same supporting documentation that can be independently verified.

We are told something like "otherwise, the person making the claim could claim anything. It needs to be independently verified, not relying on the statements of the person making the claim.”

I and others advocate that some statements should be accepted on faith, as is customarily done outside of Wikitree. Such as a FTDNA project manager who has access to both tests and family trees They could “Confirm with DNA” 100’s of family lines but are prohibited under FTDNA rules of privacy about revealing private information that Wikitree requires.

IMO, many of us want to change the answers to the following questions to YES.

(1) Can you ‘Confirm with DNA’ any parent/child relationship, public or private,  if there is no documentation publicly available to verify?  The answer has always been NO. 

(2) Can you 'Confirm with DNA' if the relationship between the DNA testers cannot be independently verified or the identity of the DNA testers is unknown?. The answer has always been NO.

(3) Can an individual who has access to private records and reports, ‘keeper of records’ makes a statement about those records and reports to be used as evidence in a way that preserves the existing privacy. The answer has always been NO.

I have always advocated that the “keeper of records”, such as yourself, should be able to make a statement such as

“I have confirmed that DNA Service FTDNA reports a genetic distance of 0 between 2 DNA testers, grandchildren of Smith-xxxxx and Smith-yyyyy.  This resulted in ‘Confirming with DNA’ the father’s in each profile included in this the one to one relationship between these two grandparents.”

Currently, this language is not accepted because it can not be independently verified.

Since an FTDNA report is not public, we are required to upload yDNA results to ysearch.org, even though the site is no longer supported.

The second problem is that we have to connect the test to the actual profile and be able to independently verify all the parent/child relationships.

The claim that we are already doing it, seems to have been completely ignored.

So why not enforce the guidelines as written to see what happens? :)

---

Thanks for that explanation Ken, I now understand far better where you are coming from.

Picking up on your last point, I do try to work to the guidelines and what happens is that some stuff gets added and I don't get any complaints from people that I have somehow invaded their privacy. I guess that is one thing that those who wrote the guidelines (whoever they were) were after.

The downside is that there is an awful lot that I could add to the tree but don't. If someone won't give me their consent then that bit gets left out.

Would I prefer a system such as you suggest?

I'm honestly not sure. I have come across a wide spectrum of ftDNA project managers and multiple kit managers at ancestry.com. Most are like me, wanting to present a scientifically and genealogically unbiased view of the results. Others (thankfully view) display a distinct bias in the way they report results as they have a personal axe to grind.

The danger is that if you place the power to say "Believe me, I'm the expert" in the hands of a biased researcher then you end up viewing the world through their rose tinted spectacles without the power of redress through independent verification.

I really don't have an answer. My personal preference would be for a system such as you propose, but only for me because I trust me. There is no reason why you should trust me, you only know I'm a good guy because I say I am.

---

I am only suggesting a solution that that states facts as they appear to you but are not public and interpretations that are determined by authoritative sources.

For example, make something like the following statements....

(1) The comparison uses FTDNA yDNA matching.

(2) The 2 individuals compared are the grandsons of Frost-12345 and Frost-5678, 

(3) The 2 individuals are known to be 6^th full cousins.

(4) Frost-12345 compared 67 markers to Frost-5678 which resulted in a genetic distance of 0.

(5) The Frosts share a common Ancestor 7 generations apart.       

(6) FTDNA Tip report indicates that “In comparing Y-DNA 67 marker results, the probability that Frost-12345 and Frost-5678 shared a common ancestor within the last 7 Generations is 98.96%.

(7) The probability 98.96% being greater the 50% results in a conclusion that a Non-Paternal Event for the relevant profiles did not occur.

(8) There are no unique circumstances worth noting that would affect these results.

---

"Since an FTDNA report is not public, we are required to upload yDNA results to ysearch.org, even though the site is no longer supported."

YSearch and MitoSearch should not be required. They are not supported any longer and in the not too distant future will be too outdated to be considered reliable.

Currently for Y DNA analysis, SNP testing is becoming the much preferred standard for confirming connected lineages. The databases at FTDNA, YSeq and YFull make the best use of SNP data.

Having said that, it may become true that STR data will become much more relevant again as FTDNA upgrades from 111 reported  STR markers (as offered in their highest level STR test) to 500+ STRs included with their Big Y test. When this happens the combination of SNP and STR data will, IMHO, take the guesswork out of "confirmed with DNA". (YFull includes extra STR finds in their anaysis of Big Y now)  If two or more individuals share a terminal SNP and match 90% or better of their 500+ STRs it would seem to be folly to deny their relations was confirmed to a known MRCA.

That is Y DNA though. Autosomal and mtDNA confirmation will remain more difficult, especially mtDNA.

---

Straight from the guidelines:

"If your match does not have a WikiTree profile:

• Whether the father or mother is confirmed by the DNA test comparison.
• Your WikiTree ID and the initials (or another anonymous identifier) for your match. You can include your full name but do not publicly reveal the identity of your match.
• Name of DNA testing company or third-party website where the tests were compared.
• Predicted relationship from the DNA testing company or amount of shared DNA.
• Genealogically-known relationship between you and your match (e.g. "second cousins").
• WikiTree ID of your most recent common ancestor(s)."

Presumably that allows the testing company to verify the match for you, without having to identify the person and any living parents publicly?   I find that matches on ancestry are happy to play ball, as are Y-DNA and mtDNA matches on FTDNA.  Why pay all that money to then do nothing with the results?  And Ancestry now matches your trees to figure out who your MRCA actually is, removing the tedious tree-trolling to figure out the match, which may lose its novelty for some people.  In contrast, about half of the 23andMe matches can be an elusive bunch; I'm assuming because they tested for serious health information, not for family tree fun.  

Answer 2

It is not an answer, but here is my similar question.

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/538683/expand-the-acceptable-dna-citations?show=538683#q538683 

Answer 3

When you signed the Honor Code you agreed to cite sources. When you mark a parental relationship 'confirmed with DNA' you're expected to cite your source for that information. If the profiles for the test takers are not on WikiTree and/or their DNA test information and relationships to one another aren't available for others to view, then you haven't documented your sources for the DNA confirmation. I recommend that you mark the parental relationship 'confident' and explain in the biography the DNA information that gives you confidence in that relationship.

Comments

Kay, you said "When you mark a parental relationship 'confirmed with DNA' you're expected to cite your source for that information. If the profiles for the test takers are not on WikiTree and/or their DNA test information and relationships to one another aren't available for others to view, then you haven't documented your sources for the DNA confirmation."

Adam asked about people that don't have a Wikitree profile.  It isn't that he isn't citing his source.  Many of us involved with genetic genealogy have triangulated matches, the bulk of which are with people with no Wikitree profile.  The relationships are just as 'proven with DNA' as the triangulated matches with others that have Wikitree profiles.  It shouldn't have to be left at 'confident' when it has been confirmed with DNA.  There are a lot of people with absolutely no desire to be on Wikitree nor to have their relatives -- up to the shared ancestor -- on Wikitree.  So long as you note on the profile the information regarding the triangulated match, you should be able to mark it confirmed with DNA.  My two cents worth . . .

---

Kay, shouldn't the profiles be required to be at least "Public".  In order to independently verify claims of a relationship between siblings for example. We should have access to both birth certificates, and access to the biography.  This way we don't rely on the statements of the person making the claim as seems to be a Wikitree requirement.

Doesn't the Paper Trail evidence that proves such relationships exclude evidence that relies on statements made by the person(s) making the claim or evidence that exists in the biography but the public doesn't have access to it?

---

Kay, it must feel like you're on the hot seat now!  And I don't want to add any more heat, but I do have a comment as to why there's heat.

It seems inconsistent to me to begin applying a strict enforcement of sources for one fact to the exclusion of other facts.  It makes it seem like the DNA confirmation fact has been singled out, when there are many other facts without even a pretense of sources, such as many birth dates, birth places, wedding dates and places, death dates and places, etc.  I think it's great that we are trying to ensure there's a specific source for a confirmation fact, but what about specific sources for birth and death dates and places?

In general, we want the best primary source for every fact, but accept even tertiary sources, in hope there will be better 'some day'.  Many of the suggested citations do sound like tertiary sources to me.  Shouldn't they be acceptable?

What I think causes so much discontent is the inconsistency of this policy with the general policies and practice, especially when it results in the removal of someone's work.  Perhaps it would be better to work with profile managers to help them improve their citations.

---

Perhaps we need 2 confirm's - replace the current one with "confirmed by DNA by PM (citation below)" and "confirmed by DNA by WikiTree".  The second could be by an automated WikiTree process.

---

The Honor Code doesn't say that we need to make all of our sources available on the Internet for scrutiny by the entire world.

---

No Ken you can not take info Into a cybervault and charge money for it =). Sorry If misunderstood you when you said "''' shouldn't the profiles be "required" to be at least "Public"? In order to independently verify claims of a relationship between siblings for example(only if permitted,non required. Any ungiven info may lead too innacuracy). We should have access to both birth certificates(not always applicable nor needed), and access too the biography. This is why we don't rely on the statements of the person making the claim as seems to be a Wikitree requirement."''' But unless you misplaced your words it seems quite clear too be a general motive.You can certainly ascertain enough evidence too produce concise whether it is disputed or, it is highly confident and disputed.

---

Let me try and clarify.

Using Traditional Genealogy, we make claims of familial relationships by citing sources.  We cite the sources so that we can independently verify its accuracy by independently requesting the documentation from the public source. There is no disagreement here.

Using Traditional Genealogy, also stated in the Honor Code “We respect privacy. We privacy-protect anything we think our family members might not want public. If that's not enough for someone, we delete their personal information.”

There is no disagreement about open profiles but information “we think our family member might not want public.”, is different.

Much of my opinion on the subject is based on my experience on 23andme.  There was a small but very vocal group of genealogists and adoptees who advocated that 23andme make public contact information and DNA segment information, even though they had not given their explicit consent.  They claimed that 23andme was choosing to hide the information to protect the identity of the biological parents from Adoptees and that this was a moral choice, not a legal one.  They advocated an all or nothing approach, either the user makes everything public, or not be allowed to participate. 

These same arguments seem to me to be the same as “confirming with DNA.”  You can participate in the Confirming with DNA only if you provide everything necessary to independently verify the paper-trail between 2 DNA testers and access to the DNA to confirm further what you have already confirmed. Otherwise, we prefer you not participate at all.

Every DNA service allows users to allow a user to grant access based on a trusted list, which may be individual or to those biologically related.  It seems to me that Wikitree went out of its way to make sure that you could not use a trusted list for autosomal tests.

It is in almost every case, impossible to independently verify the paper trail between 2 living people, the DNA test results, or the test result is actually the person claimed. This is because the Keeper of these records, will not make them available. This is also why every other place takes these limitations into consideration.

Edit: Just in case it wasn't clear, You cannot independently verify the parent/child relationship if the biography is hidden from the public.

---

The guidelines agree with you - see indented reply above.

---

I get where you're coming from Lindy.  It seemed very loosey-goosey to me too at first.  But when I found myself being the long-awaited "third leg to the stool" for both my maternal and paternal earliest known ancestors, I dug into it more.  What makes it valid on WIkitree is the assumption of a sourced paper trail for all the parent-child relationships in the lineage up to the MRCA.  If there is a "weak-link" ancestor in the lineage, then presumably they wouldn't have a profile on Wikitree = no false information.  The one-name and regional studies outside of Wikitree seem to also give a lot of weight when both matches had independently submitted family trees, that had exact overlap not just with the MRCA, but also with a healthy representation of his/her descendants.  Just goes to show ya--don't blow off the siblings! :)   Ironically, we don't have that advantage at WIkitree--one person one profile.  One person could falsify source information, and go unchallenged for years, if not forever.  In the one-name studies, it tends to be some admin or board's final judgement to accept the match, and you're right that they are probably biased toward wanting to accept matches vs. deny them, but at a certain point, you have to count on their integrity.  By definition, they also get to a point where they know all of the ancestors on a first name basis, and multiple people are trolling through the lineages constantly with every new test that comes through.  It would be difficult for them to cover up a trumped-up parental relationship for long.  I guess the idea is that Wikitree in general will be become full of such "beaten paths" over time.

---

@Kayleigh, I think you may be talking about something different than DNA.

Regardless, G2G is public and is not a good place to discuss a problem with another individual member.  Send a private message to a Mentor who can give you private advice.

Answer 4

See this How to Guide:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:How_to_Get_Started_with_DNA

Since Wikitree doesn't do DNA tests, IMHO everything is outside of Wikitree. My favorite site is to use for comparison is GedMatch.com.

Hope this helps.

Comments

Great if they are on Gedmatch. Only some people are on Gedmatch. Gedmatch doesn't have the trees like Ancestry does. It is much easier to see how people match if the trees are shown. There needs to be a way to show what is available from each source. So much more could be shown. Please help.

Answer 5

Very good question. Some cousins are only on Ancestry or 23 and me. They are listed as cousins with the DNA shared. I sometimes add their dead ancestors. It would be good to have a way to say this is an Ancestry or 23 and me connection. Surely we could have a template or something to mark on the tree. Confirmed may be too restrictive. Maybe just list it as a match with the testing company named and the information available. Maybe even list the number of matches say on a DNA circle.  Please give us a way to put this information on the tree. I don't need confirmed.

Comments

I much prefer the idea of "Consistent with" rather than "Confirmed by" as a tag that actually means what it says.

---

Thank you, Derrick, for putting into very nice words something I've thought for a long time but couldn't articulate.

Answer 6

This comment by Derrick needs to be an answer so it can be voted up....

I much prefer the idea of "Consistent with" rather than "Confirmed by" as a tag that actually means what it says.

commented 1 day ago by Derrick Watson

Answer 7

I think one of the main questions here is regarding adding living cousins to the WikiTree.  

If you have the paper trail and can add the profiles of living cousins to WikiTree, should you do it?  

I have done this in a few cases and I will set the privacy to Private with Public Family Tree.  

I understand people have privacy concerns, but really if we can find the information in family search and in the online white pages then is Wiki Tree really bursting any privacy bubbles?

Lots of ins and outs obviously.

Comments

In many cases though I don't know the information for the living descendants.  For example I might be able to see a FamilyTreeDNA tree that only shows whether they're male or female for the living generations.  One could also often deduce the surname, but I kinda doubt WikiTree would want lots of people creating Unknown [Surname] profiles.

I'd be fine with adding profiles for someone else's line's dead relatives, but I'd prefer to just cite the DNA as something like "autosomal triangulation with granddaughter of [Surname-##]..." and simply trust that anyone uploading a tree to a DNA testing site is able to accurately give the living generations.

---

Adam, for your own records, you should at least probably know the name of the person you match with, and not only their name, but also the proper paper trail to your common ancestor. How else can you confirm you are matching with the ancestor you think you are?

---

If the family tree of the tester yields information something like:

[private male]

son of [private female]

daughter of Jane Doe 1890-1960

daughter of John Doe 1863-1900

son of Tom Doe 1842-1888 and Sarah Smith 1845-1905 (MRCA couple)

Then what do I gain by knowing the names of the living people unless I distrust that the person can identify their grandmother correctly? If I can form a triangulation on some chromosome segment between this descendant and several other people who descend from Tom Doe and Sarah Smith via other children then it seems sufficient to show that my paper trail back to a child of Tom and Sarah has been ‘confirmed with DNA’ (I do agree with others who have said it would probably be more accurate to say ‘is consistent with DNA evidence’)

---

I generally create profiles for the people that have taken the DNA test, but of course they're not Public. In my DNA Confirmation, I identify that person in relation to me. For example, "Paternal relationship is confirmed by a Family Finder test match between Eric Hoffman and his third cousin." Since I am a current member, if you want to know who that is, I can either reach out to the living relative for permission to give out contact info, or give you the details down to their closest public profile (for example, "that's one of Sutliff-370's children").

Answer 8

I disagree with Kay Wilson's answer... (edit: singled out, because at one time, hers was selected as "best answer", which can be a moving target)

It's not necessary for others to be able to readily view the profiles of living cousins or their specific DNA test details in order to have a valid source citation.

Its totally possible to have a valid source citation that anyone can independently verify without having all the specific details posted publicly on the internet. They may have to write a few emails, or make some phone calls, or even drive to another town. All source citations do not have to be available for immediate internet viewing.

I agree with Erik, we should not have to be "forced" to add our living cousins profile to WikiTree. They may not want to be made public (though if they are DNA testing, that doesn't make a lot of sense for them either). Yet the DNA confirmation can still be valid. I am in contact with my own living cousins and can confirm our DNA matches -- based on information we've each shared through a valid/trusted 3rd party testing company.

Comments

Dennis says> They may not want to be made public (though if they are DNA testing, that doesn't make a lot of sense for them either)

I disagree with the logic of your hypothesis.

Someone who DNA tests with company XYZ and shares their pedigree with a match to confirm with that match that they are related is releasing information that they have done a DNA test only to the person they have matched with.  They have not released that information to the general public.

A similar scenario.  I get a silent phone number so that it won't be publicly listed and then I post my phone number on my facebook and make the security setting for the phone number to "friends only".  I would not be happy if one of my friends then posted to my facebook page a public post that said... "I tried ringing you tonight on phone number 555-3452-1233 and you didn't answer"

I would NOT be happy.

 

 

 

---

Taking a DNA test is a way to meet up with relatives - not a choice to make it publicly known I have done a DNA test

---

If you don't make it public how will your relatives find you?

---

We you take a DNA test it is only you and your DNA match (therefore your relative whatever the distance) are the only ones that can see that you have taken a DNA test.  That's not public - that is a mutual match revealed only to two people or to others who also mutually match.

The exception is Gedmatch where any member of Gedmatch can view any DNA kit - but event that doesn't make it public that Joe Blogs has taken a DNA test because you won't get a result if you google this:-

site:gedmatch.com "Joe Blogs"

but you will get a result if you google:-

Site:wikitree.com "Joe Blogs"

If Joe Blogs appears on Wikitree with a gedmatch number then anyone can see via a search engine that Joe Blogs has a DNA test and in turn go directly to Joe Blogs entire match list at gedmatch.   That is wikitree advertising an access route to his DNA matches in a general public way.

Answer 9

In response to this discussion I have replaced "confirmed with DNA" to "Confident". I am not going to worry about confirmed comments that I can't seem to get right. For those closer than 4th cousins I could mark these with confirmed  with DNA but for now I am not going to. It would be nice to have something like the little check mark but a least it shows up when finding relationships.

Answer 10

OMG I just spent a the better part of an hour weighing in on  a conversation that's almost two years old.  No wonder I was so knowledgeable! LOL   Maybe I'll still get some points.

Comments

I'll give you a vote just for being funny.