A suggestion to find out what is the highest number of sources in one WikiTree profile

+6 votes
141 views

I would like to suggest maybe a survey or contest even, to find out, as I am very curious, to know how many sources that the most sourced profile has here on WikiTree (i.e. number of souces in most sourced WikiTree profile). Unless you already know that answer, in which case I would really love to know!

asked in WikiTree Tech by Brandy Lasmanis G2G1 (1.6k points)
retagged by Ellen Smith
Great question, Brandy!  I look forward to answers from people who have added lots of sources to profiles.
A simple number of sources is not a good measure. I have seen profiles with numerous sources for the exact same fact. This adds clutter, not value.
Concur with George. Quantity is no assurance of quality.
I ENTIRELY AGREE...Perhaps I should have been more spacific by saying profiles with reference sources that meet the Genealogical Proof Standard established by the Board for Certification of Genealogists. Genealogical Proof Standard, as outlined in "Genealogy Standards" by the Board for Certification of Genealogists, consists of five elements: 1) A reasonably exhaustive search for all pertinent information; 2) A complete and accurate citation to the source of each item used; 3) Analysis of the collected information's quality as evidence; 4) Resolution of any conflicting or contradictory evidence; 5) Arrive at a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.

The terminology used by genealogists is also a little different than what you may have learned in history class. Instead of using the terms primary source and secondary source, genealogists quantify the difference between sources (original or derivative) and the information that is derived from them (primary or secondary). Original vs. Derivative Sources: referring to the provenance of the record, original sources are records that contribute written, oral, or visual information not derived - copied, abstracted, transcribed, or summarized - from another written or oral record. Derivative sources are, by their definition, records which have been derived - copied, abstracted, transcribed, or summarized - from previously existing sources. Original sources usually carry more weight than derivative sources. Primary vs. Secondary Information: referring to the quality of the information contained within a particular record, primary information comes from records created at or near the time of an event with information contributed by a person who had reasonably close knowledge of the event. Secondary information, by contrast, is information found in records created a significant amount of time after an event occurred or contributed by a person who was not present at the event. If the information is secondary, it will have to be further assessed based on who provided that information (if known), whether or not the informant was present at the events in question, and how closely that information correlates with other sources. Primary information usually carries more weight than secondary information. Direct vs. Indirect Evidence: evidence only comes into play when we ask a question and then consider whether the information found in a particular record answers that question. Direct evidence is information that directly answers your question (e.g. When was Danny born?) without a need for other evidence to explain or interpret it. Indirect evidence, on the other hand, is circumstantial information that requires additional evidence or thought to convert it into a reliable conclusion. Direct evidence usually carries more weight than indirect evidence. These classes of sources, information and evidence are rarely as clear-cut as they sound since information found in one particular source can be either primary or secondary. So yes, I am FULLY aware of what kind of quality is neccessary to qualify as a source, however, there are many profile managers who do not realize the importance of proper reference sources. And anyone working on WikiTree should not reject the idea of applying Genealogical Proof Standard to their research, they should embrace it! According to the Board of Certification for Genealogists, use of the Genealogical Proof Standard is required for all articles on topics such as genealogy and family history before they can be published in scholarly or recreational genealogy journals. Even if you do not plan to publish your genealogical history, following that Standard is a good habit to get into, expecially here on WikiTree where it's all about "sourcing your information". I believe WikiTree is too lenient on what they consider qualifies and counts as reference sources, such as how reference sources are entered when someone adds it from an imported GEDs, that is reference sourcing at it's worst! And my recommendation to other profile managers interested in attaining any amount of certain quality to their managed profiles should add Genealogical Proof Standard to their research (to look into it, a good place to start would be at www.bcgcertification.org)

You two aren't the only ones who notice the lack of quality to MANY added person profiles within the WikiTree community, I am very aware of the number of non-credible sources that some use that are "more than non-credible". So, I really did mean to say, " with sources that qualify". My apologies.

3 Answers

+4 votes
 
Best answer
I like the answers! I have been creating my Grandpa's biography Lasmanis-6 he was the State Geologist for Washington from 1982 - 2013. He is retired now, but with such an extensive career there is no shortage of sources for him. So far I have 120 very credible sources linked in his biography, and I have so many more to add when I figure out how I want to encorporate them in. I am pretty proud of the work I have done on it!
answered by Brandy Lasmanis G2G1 (1.6k points)
selected by Brandy Lasmanis
You should be Brandy, GREAT JOB!
+5 votes
My vote for is that Queen Elizabeth II will be the most sourced profile if someone took the time to put all the newspaper articles and other stuff in her profile.
answered by Gurney Thompson G2G6 Mach 3 (36.4k points)
+6 votes

For existing profiles, I nominate:

1 - The profile I did for Richard Waring, which has 92 unique source citations (albeit, fewer sources, since multiple footnotes may refer to different parts of the same source)

2 - The profile I did for Thomas Ashley, which has only 69 unique source citations, but fewer instances of multiple footnotes referring to different parts of the same source

answered by Chase Ashley G2G6 Mach 8 (82.9k points)

Excellent job on those profiles, Chase!  I applaud your work.

Related questions

+36 votes
6 answers
+9 votes
1 answer
63 views asked Oct 12, 2017 in Policy and Style by Kristi Johnson G2G Crew (630 points)
+3 votes
4 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
90 views asked Feb 12 in Policy and Style by Bryan McConnell G2G1 (1.6k points)
+3 votes
2 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...