Is this the real weakness of Wikitree?

+28 votes
1.1k views
Was doing some work of the Montagu family. Anne Montagu married Dudley North. Dudley North had the category euroaristo that need work. Made a stab at writing his biography. Ten children are claimed by ODNB to have reached adulthood all named. Added profiles for all the ones we did not have, they're not all fully sourced yet but the 17th C is difficult. None of those offspring was Jane who is said to have died in Virginia. Could not find the names of any of the four children said to have died young. When I looked at Jane I found her marked as a questionable gateway ancestor and someone was asking for a list of her siblings two years ago. Sent a message saying I'd added the siblings. Today I have a request to provide the sources that say that Jane was not a daughter of Dudley North! Jane's profile is completely unsourced. It is suspicious since it says she was married in Lancaster. Surely this is the wrong way round. Leaving unsourced children attached to their parents removes the incentive to find out who they actually were or even to provide sources. Shouldn't have to discuss this on the parents profiles. Would it not be better to remove Jane from her given parents and provide the argument, if there is any, in her biography with links that would make it easy to reconnect if any evidence is found? We can never prove that Dudley and Anne North did not have a daughter, Jane, who died in Virginia. (Also found a duplicate Dudley added last year!)
WikiTree profile: Jane Moss
in Policy and Style by C. Mackinnon G2G6 Pilot (335k points)
There should be a very low hurdle for the removal of completely unsourced profiles.

I agree that the onus should be to prove a link, not  to disprove which is often impossible ( I managed to do that recently by showing that the supposed emigrant had died as a child ... the emigrant is now linked to a nephew. (Still no evidence, no evidence that the purported father had any children )

 .Have you seen this https://www.ancestry.co.uk/boards/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=3211&p=surnames.moss

I think the software could be improved if there was specific sourcing for marriage data, and parentage links.
Wonderful answer..Tanya
I know when I have added a family member that it requires at least one source before continuing. I've adopted a number of ancestor profiles that were unsourced and assumed the procedure was different years ago but have done my best to source them and continue upkeep on a cyclical basis.

  I guess my point or question is how are newer members uploading GEDcom profiles (often duplicates at that) have no sources at all? Many simply say "ancestry tree" or "_family history" and no bio or notes are provided either. I accept and appreciate a learning curve as none of us can know everything when beginning this experience...but maybe if there is a way to stop the circumnavigation of having to provide at least one source this would help??

   Just a thought (a long one)-

    Cheers!

       Becky Elizabeth (Simmons-11603)

5 Answers

+25 votes
 
Best answer
On a collaborative site, the bar is always higher to make a change which differs from an opinion already expressed, compared to adding something that nobody else has yet weighed in on.  So if the relationship link is already there, you know that there is some level of disagreement already, however small.

The first step I take in a situation like this is to create a section of the biography called ===Children=== in which I list the known children of the family with source, i.e. will, etc.  Any children currently linked but not documented, I put in a separate section called "other" or something like that.  That at least tells the user of the profile which children are real and which are not.

The second step is to actually de-link them.  It's important to let people know that the de-linking has taken place and why, so I'll create a sentence like, "The following profiles were formerly linked as children on the profile of xxx, however, no evidence could be found of their relationship.  If evidence is found of their relationship, they can easily be re-linked," and then list the children below, with their WikiTree numberf."  I then copy the sentence to each of the affected profiles, and de link them.  That gives the message that you're not opposed to the relationship, you just don't have any evidence for it, and the solution to the issue is not to argue with you, but to find the evidence!

The third step, unfortunately, I am finding I need to take more often -- I run into people who don't read the biographies, but just re-link the family members based on their own unsourced genealogies.  So the third step is to work with the project most closely involved with the profile and have the profile project protected, to protect the profile from added family linkages being made.
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (461k points)
selected by Brian Parton
+27 votes
I would say that asking for evidence of a lack of evidence is not a problem specific to Wikitree, but one of the oldest debating tricks in the book :)

If it happens a lot maybe we can make a page about it, that editors can cite whenever such arguments are used.

(People who are desperate not to get in sourcing competition often find themselves making this argument without realizing how crazy it is. That is how the human mind works. That is why teaching people debating tricks is the best way to avoid them being used.)
by Andrew Lancaster G2G6 Pilot (141k points)
+8 votes
Hi! I just dug up this old thread after I found a source relating to Jane North. Although rather obscure, I think it could be worth checking out!

This has Jane North's parents listed as Roger North and Jane Leak. The birth and death dates are off, which leads me to believe this could be some other Jane North, however, the locations do match.

https://www.smokykin.com/tng/getperson.php?personID=I39482&tree=smokykin

Thanks for revisiting this old post!

Adrien
by Adrien Hart G2G6 Mach 1 (10.5k points)
I offer another potential solution: I am thought to be an MTDNA descendant of Jane North's daughter that's listed on that source (Frances Moss) Moss-638, hypothetically, if there was an MTDNA descendant of Jane North's supposed mother, grandmother, ggrandmother, etc. we might be able to triangulate the DNA and compare markers.

I don't know a whole lot about DNA testing, but I do know that YDNA and MTDNA tests usually go back quite a bit.

Thanks for listening to my absurd idea!

Adrien
+7 votes
Transparency is the best policy. State what the problems are and note the possible causes and solutions. I think one good possible suggestion is: "Would it not be better to remove Jane from her given parents and provide the argument, if there is any, in her biography with links that would make it easy to reconnect if any evidence is found?"

Leaving a research trail saves duplication of effort and also provides a comparison of alternatives. Thank you for bringing up debating tricks, I could find it useful to learn more about them.
by Steve Lake G2G6 Mach 2 (25.4k points)
+4 votes
Several profiles I have entered come from family bible(s). Most I have also found records to support, but a few I've not. A family bible is a 'source' but cannot really be linked here, and even if it were (somehow), would it even be considered a good 'source'. I don't know - but I believe the entries in the family bible(s), most of which have led to discoveries of other -well sourced- persons.

I think that if a profile is referenced to something then it should, prima facae, be left up. Until properly contested. If it has no reference of any kind, then it could be relegated to a 'possible', somehow ?
by Richard Rabbett G2G1 (1.1k points)
A family Bible is a source and can be a very good one if what you have is a record made at the time of the events recorded in it.  You need to first see when the Bible was published to know if that was before the events happened.  Then you need to look at the entries to see if they were entered over time - different scripts, different inks - or all at once, suggesting they were copied from something else.  

This is how Elizabeth Shown Mills suggests the citation:  

"Jacob Sanders Glen Edwards, Family Bible Records, 1848-1908, The Holy Bible (Philadelphia: William W. Harding, 1867), "Marriages, Births and Deaths", Privately held by Marian Edwards Pierre-Louis, [Address for private use,] Massachusetts, 2011. [Bible was a gift of a gentleman from Long Island who held it his possession for the previous 30 years.  Originally a gift to J.S.G. Edwards from his mother in 1868. Entries with the exception of two fall after the publication date and seem to be individually written as they happened.]"

If what you have is a copy of a page or pages, then you can cite as something like "Copy of pages from family Bible of James Edwards, original in possession of (whoever has it)" and then whatever else you know about the entries.  It's also helpful to add a photo image of the page(s).

Related questions

+10 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
2 answers
64 views asked Jun 12, 2021 in Genealogy Help by anonymous G2G Crew (310 points)
+3 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
0 answers
74 views asked Apr 6 in Genealogy Help by Nikki Davis G2G6 Mach 1 (15.1k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...