Do you manage profiles of children under 13 that are not your children?

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

As announced here last week we are making some fairly significant changes to protect the privacy of living non-members.

I mentioned before that:

1. Profiles of living non-members will become Unlisted, and
2. DNA tests for living non-members will be deleted.

We have determined that we need to go a step further with profiles of living children under 13. Unlisted is not enough for them. Profiles of young children will need to be deleted unless the profile manager is one of their parents.

Many of us manage profiles for nieces, nephews, grandchildren, young cousins, etc. I am sorry that we cannot continue to manage them as we have.

Fortunately, most of these profiles have very little content. Our Privacy Policy and guidelines have always indicated that they should be placeholders only, and that's what most of them are.

Still, there are profiles in my own family that I don't want to disappear. In some cases I have been able to set one of their parents as the profile manager. In others I may be able to invite the parent to join WikiTree. Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that they have to be Wiki Genealogists. They just need to accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. See the GDPR FAQ for more on this.

To review which profiles in your family might be affected, see Jamie's app for finding living people in your Watchlist.

Chris

Comments

If this is an official announcement, Chris, could you please add the appropriate tag(s)? The privacy tag may be useful, too.

Just want to make sure all my fellow Wikitreers see this post!

---

Whoa, time-out.  The way I read this is that my mother-in-law, 88, no email address and no phone, but still living will be deleted - is this correct? If so then this is a very big issue with your edict as many members simply have elderly parents that do not wish to be bothered.

---

This is only talking about children under the age of 13.  Your mother's profile will be Unlisted but not deleted.

---

@Eowyn:

I have a related issue. I manage a profile of someone who is not my child, but related to me, who died young (living only a day). The profile is marked as private. I just tried to edit the profile, by adding another source. It would not let me edit the profile because of the new rule, saying that they were under 13 years old. But this person is deceased. How do the new rules cover this? Should they cover this?

---

If some people will be unlisted and they are the only source to their ancestors or to their decendants, will others that are associated with the unlisted also become unlisted?

---

Chris, I don't have living children on Hilse-40, but ALL of my living adult relatives are non-members, and they do not care to join any genealogy group. I don't want my tree to become confused or me either by my trying to be a grownup and deal with it. Your directions times, say, ten people will take a long time and really this seems a  very non-essential bad adventure to me.

Are you telling us that we must do something such as you have done or find that they've been disappeared from our trees? My living adult non-members do have children, but I have not put them in my tree.

If this must be done, how long do we have beofre you disappear them??

---

I strongly disapprove, my family has encouraged these records are saved tho they don't want to currently be members they write me with corrections or additions. I don't want them removed from my tree. If they're just hidden from everyone but me how can my family notify me of corrections or changes? Must they all become members for me to keep an accurate account of my living family?

---

@Eric.

Deceased children under the age of 13 may be able to stay.  We're going to review the list of them - there aren't that many.  Hopefully, we'll have a solid answer on that before too long.

@Roberta:

The deletion of the children under the age of 13 will be done automatically, it's not something that you'll have to do on your own.  The same goes for the changing of privacy for non-member living profiles to Unlisted.  You can make those changes now yourself if you want for the profiles you manage, but it will be done automatically as well.  To clarify again, Unlisted does not mean deleted.  Unlisted profiles won't disappear from the site. If you are the profile manager or on the Trusted List you'll still be able to see and work on them.

---

@Roberta:

"We have determined that we need to go a step further with profiles of living children under 13 ... profiles of young children will need to be deleted unless the profile manager is one of their parents."

Only profiles of living people under 13 are affected by this announcement. If you don't have any such persons in your tree, you don't have to do anything.

---

This and the plan to make profiles of living non-members unlisted sound like excellent ideas.

Anyone who has paid any attention at all to the apparently endless stream of data thefts from organizations with a lot more resources than the WikiTree project has must surely understand that there are legitimate grounds for the WikiTree team to be concerned about the risk that WikiTree data could be stolen by someone with evil intent.

Thanks to the WikiTree team for being on top of this.

---

Thanks to all above. I'll try to keep my hat on and mouth closed now.

---

I manage hundreds of profiles in my tree.  Is there a search query I can use to find out which child profiles will be affected?  I want to proactively handle these profiles so as not to lose data through unintentional neglect.

---

I've read all the comments below, trying to find an answer to my question..maybe I missed it.   I understand about the children under 13 being deleted, and I'm ok with that,  I don't think I have added any that young anyway..

I understand the DNA links from living persons, whose profiles that I manage will be deleted.   It really doesn't make sense to me, I have permission to use it, the other 3 people whose DNA I manage, did the test because I requested it and knew that I would be using it. They have no interest in genealogy or Wikitree (as hard as that is to believe, that there are actually people out there that could care less about our obsession) .The info is out there on all the DNA sites anyway.

And now, finally to my actual question.   Unlisted versus private,  Unlisted...No public information. Name won't appear in search results or directories  

And Private..Strictly limited public information. Only the Trusted List can view or edit the full profile.

Does that mean that the only one who can see my husband's name..ever...is me?  

How do we "connect" with cousins or other people researching the family if they can't even see the names?     It's confusing to me.   I thought that was what the privacy settings were for..

---

Thank you, Cindy.

---

The marvels of technology. We spent 50 years developing computers and software so we can keep our records electronically, and now to protect privacy and make sure some company doesn't delete our information due to a new policy, we have to keep paper records. This new policy will significantly reduce my activity here and redirect my efforts back to my personal computer.

---

And the things that they are trying to keep private are all public records. Most of the living people that I have added are found in census records.  I don't usually add people that can be found in any online obituary.  And the living people that are in my immediate family had their profile set to private or private with public tree, which shows no details anyway.

---

I appreciate the comments and discussion. (That's why I like WikitreeO)

But my question still has not been answered.

---

Sorry, yes, I did. In fact, my own first grand child was born just last March and I was thrilled to enter his name and look at my new descendant's chart. I also used to keep up with the births of my many cousins, all of whom we get along well. Sometimes cousins drift away and the next thing you know, their kids are driving to college. It was good to have their names, birthdates, and birth locations already on hand. Occasionally I will send letters to family members I haven't heard from for twenty years to get updates and see how they are doing. This year I have been actively taking over a family genealogy site and have plans for starting several more. For the rest of the year I will put my genealogy efforts on the back burner to see how all these changes settle out. I hate wasting my time trying to keep up with constant software changes and policy changes, especially changes of this magnitude.

---

I have just tried to merge say 2 children of the same family and I am unable to do it as I am not their parent

so if these are going to deleted as I have a few of them how can this be done or will it be automatically done as there is no delete for such profiles

---

@Stephanie

Please see Eowyn's answer to Roberta above.  It will all be done automatically.

---

Thank you Ros as going through them now and adding them to the parents and my daughter signed up to save her son relief so she is now manager for herself and her son as well as myself and my youngest is saved as well thankfully even though he is adopted

---

I do not have any children under the age of 13 on my tree that are alive. I do not even put living adults on my tree that are living unless they specifically tell me that they want it there,. One good reason would be to do some research on their family not only the Dolman family

---

Please, revert this.

---

Agree, I think something is missed here. As also a Grandfather of a Beautiful Granddaughter, I maintain the family tree in my family. My daughter and Son-in-Law have no time or desire to put forth an effort to fool with this. I am a proud parent of the mother of my grandchild, why can't I add her to the database when her and all living profiles are hidden anyway, unless there is a flaw in the software that makes it easily hackable. I am a grandfather and I have the right to maintain my family database. I follow the rules, but this one is ridiculous!!

---

You are not the parent of the granddaughter.  You are the parent of the parent.

---

He did not say he was the parent of the granddaughter. Dave's argument is still valid. If all the living profiles that are not managed by the owners of those profiles are hidden, what is the point of not allowing people to enter living people of any age? Does it make any difference when you can't tell the age, name, or any other detail of the person? Why is it okay to enter the name of a 20 year old, but not a two day old? Neither one gives their consent and neither one is visible to the rest of the world.

---

Concur, I cannot view your living relatives unless you list me a trusted agent for your tree of any of your living relatives. My daughter restricts me on Facebook of what I can post of my granddaughter but supports my Geneology efforts. Therefore it is clear to me they fear hacking which makes everyone at risk or they say we are trusted but not really. I am currently updating my software based Geneology program that I control on my computer. I was very excited about this effort until now.

---

Dave, I am the proud grandmother to three beautiful grandchildren.  Two of them are on Wikitree (hidden away), but my granddaughter is not.  I have parental permission to add her, but Wikitree's rules say I must wait until she is 13 unless a parent adds her; but neither my son nor his wife have shown any interest in joining Wikitree.  So she gets a mention on her father's profile unto she turns 13.  It saddens me to see her NOT there with her father, mother and brother, but rules is rules .. so I wait until April next year.

---

And, can't speak to your situation, but my daughter and Son-in-law as many adults their age has no time to fool with becoming a member, so then, permission cannot happen. I thought we as supposed trusted Genealogist that had one goal, that was to document historical facts of our relatives.

---

Melanie - "but rules is rules .." That is what this discussion is about. The rule is irrational because the purpose of the rule is redundant. Young children already have their privacy protected by virtue of being alive. All living people have their privacy protected by default. How does this new rule concerning young children add to their protection? It doesn't add anything to the protection of young children, but it does create dissatisfaction for genealogists. As Dave Sickmeier says, our purpose as genealogists is to record historical facts about our relatives. 

One major negative consequence of this "under 13 rule" is that many young people will not be added to their family records by elderly people who happen to be genealogists and alive, today. A few generations may go by before another genealogist in the family appears. With the new privacy rules in government, many public records that used to be available are no longer being made available. There will be a huge disconnect between future generations and this "golden era" of data we presently have available. 

Already, I am looking at records I made of newborn children, which I entered thirty years ago. If I didn't have the birth dates and birth places that were given to me then, I would not be able to find that information, today. I know, I have been looking. Data availability is disappearing rapidly, and it is only going to get worse.

---

Nice points David, let me add a few points/ Why choose 13 years pf age when children are not adults until 18 or 21 depending on state laws? What about those Grandparents who have legal custodial rights by the courts due to the parents being dead or having lost rights due to legal matters which more truth today than one may think? AND then we go down the what if road. The bottom line, either this site supports Genealogists in the pursuit of fact and history. Allowing Genealogist the ability to only share such information to other trusted family members and has the necessary supporting the safeguards in place to protect all all living people, or not.

---

Those are state laws.  How about federal laws?

Facebook and other online social media sites and email services are prohibited by federal law from allowing children under 13 create accounts without the consent of their parents or legal guardians.

---

If I should die before April 2020, my granddaughter will not be "lost" to Wikitree, because she is mentioned in her father's biography.  It makes no difference to any other genealogist on WT if any of my grandkids are added or not.  They are living people and are, therefore, NOT VISIBLE to anyone except me.  The same would be true of any living person, child under or over 13 or not.

I don't believe WT's under 13 rule is arbitrary.  As Ros says .. laws exist to protect those under 13 from making accounts on most places (unless they lie .. and they DO do that) without parental consent.

I don't understand the angst over this.  The rule is there and it follows a standard set elsewhere.

IF the grandparent has legal custodial rights over a grandchild, then they stand in loco parentis and should be able to contact WT at info @ wikitree dot com and explain that they DO have parental rights and wish to add such a profile.  BUT, they should be prepared to furnish proof of such a claim..

---

Ros - We are not discussing children under 13 making their own Wikitree account. We are discussing adult genealogists making profiles for children under 13. These are not accounts until the owner of the profile adds a password and agrees to the terms of usage. Until the profile is made into an account, it is just a table in a database.

By your reasoning, no doctor's office, grade school, clinic, Girl Scout, Cub Scout, or any other organization would be allowed by law to enter a child's name into a database.

---

Chris and Eowyn, and all:   I've read through most of the messages to ALL of us and it took quite some time.

In the first few of the shown and already made entries, my name has been used, "crediting" me with the basis of having made/originated this problem that is now "ours." I MUST clarify:

I had nothing NOTHING to do with bringing these replies and cornices to the form of the notes on and in this queue.  So What MUST I DO to relieve this UNWANTED BURDEN of being the person who initiated this problem in our midst??.

---

Before I get started . . . I am not involved in even the tiniest way in managing or operating or administering the WikiTree site. I'm just a member with no special rights, privileges, knowledge or whatever related to the WikiTree site.

While I spent my career primarily in other aspects of computing (I am now retired), I have done some work in computer security and I have generally tried to pay attention to what happens in that aspect of computing.

The sad truth is that "bad guys" do break into websites and steal data. This happens far more often than you or others on this comment thread might think. When a break in of the sort that I am talking about happens, the usual rules that the website tries to enforce on who can access what basically go out the window and the "bad guys" have access to pretty much everything in the database.

Another sad truth is that a genealogy database has a lot of juicy information that "bad guys" could find very useful in trying to pretend to be someone in order to steal from or otherwise harm that someone.

The good news is that there is an easy way to ensure that a "bad guy" cannot steal particular information from a website. What is required is that the website not store or retain said "particular information". This works for the obvious reason that if it isn't there then it cannot be stolen from wherever "there" is. My guess is that this is one of the reasons why the folks running the WikiTree site are actively deleting certain categories of data.

My guess is also that there is another reason why the WikiTree folks are creating new rules and deleting certain categories of data which is that by creating appropriate rules and by deleting certain categories of data, they limit their legal liability should a "bad guy" ever successfully steal data from the WikiTree database.

This is a complex issue with all sorts of aspects and nuance to it. Personally, I am 100% supportive of everything that the folks running the WikiTree site are doing to enhance the security of the site and the privacy of the data that the site contains.

---

I strongly disagree with this. If entries for young children are unlisted and added by us for personal reasons, how is it going to become public? Pointless waste of time making me wait as I might end up forgetting some family members (I live in a large family so its a lot easier for me to add events as I hear about them instead of having to remember someone turning 13).

---

Thomas, you may strongly disagree, but we must follow the law. See: GDPR FAQ for the full subject.

---

Also, unlisted profiles can become accessible to nefarious parties because an (unintentional) security flaw or even a weak password in the WikiTree site allows an attacker to break into the site and download said unlisted profiles.

Note that I am not saying that there currently is such a flaw. The problem is that it is essentially impossible to say with certainty that there is no such flaw.

---

Agreed, Daniel. We have no way of knowing what information a determined hacker might be after. So I personally think that any child's information must be kept offline to protect them.

---

"We have no way of knowing what information a determined hacker might be after." A determined hacker will have one of the "spy on living people accounts" where you can pay a fee to get anybody's court records, birth records, and every other publicly available record. Determined hackers can't hack a 12 year old's account, because 12 year olds don't have accounts. The term, "determined hacker" with regard to genealogy is just a boogeyman, they don't exist because they have no purpose. What can someone do with the information of a child's name and birth date even if they got it? This whole issue is bogus.

Wikitree is a genealogy website that records families (even if profiles remain private). However, these rules about not entering children under 13 are weakening the purpose and mission of Wikitree, and for no real cause.

---

The safety and security of children, yours or otherwise, is the issue. What could be done with that information? I don't know, I don't have a devious enough mind to determine that. But Wikitree is following the law.

The GDPR law specifically states:

Conditions applicable to child's consent in relation to information society services

1.   Where point (a) of Article 6(1) applies, in relation to the offer of information society services directly to a child, the processing of the personal data of a child shall be lawful where the child is at least 16 years old. Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child.

Member States may provide by law for a lower age for those purposes provided that such lower age is not below 13 years.

---

Wikitree is a genealogy website that records families (even if profiles remain private). However, these rules about not entering children under 13 are weakening the purpose and mission of Wikitree, and for no real cause.

commented by David Thomson

.

.

This is so not the case.    If the child is deceased, they can be entered.  If the child is still living, their parent/s can create a profile for them.  If you are NOT their parent, or related to them, you have no business creating a profile for a living child to whom you are not related.

The purpose and mission of Wikitree remain, even without currently living children being added.  We here now are but one generation of genealogists working on Wikitree.  It is for those who come after us to add in the ones we do (or can) not.  I have living cousins.  I will not create profiles for any of those who have not given me permission.  (I have done for cousins who have given me said permission .. and who have contributed information for themselves AND our shared family.)

I have three living grandchildren (as stated higher in this thread), two of them have profiles on Wikitree because I have parental permission.  The third does not, even though I DO have parental permission, because she is not yet 13 years of age and her parents have no interest in joining just to create a profile for her (all of which I said months ago .. nothing has changed).

NOTHING is lost to Wikitree, the mission, or the purpose, nor is it weakened, because I cannot create a profile for a living grandchild.  If I don't get to create a profile for her (which only I could see anyway), someone else, somewhen in the future, will.  Nothing is lost for the mission or purpose because a waiting time is required.  It may be delayed, but it is not lost.

(Now I'm triply repeating myself, so I'm-a stop this post here.)

---

I don't want to hear any more about GDPR law. I do not live in GDPR territory. If the Wikitree programmers need to filter what data is shown in GDPR countries, they can easily do that by reading the country tag of the browser accessing Wikitree and block any relevant information.

However, I do respect majority rule. If the majority, and not an elite minority, of Wikitree users want to suppress the addition of children, then let them. In the meantime, I have stopped adding any more data of any kind to Wikitree (except direct requests), and have been adding my new data only to my ancestry account and a web site I personally manage. It is not only because of the restrictions of adding children, but also the elitist attitude of those who have gained control over the platform, that I no longer believe the Wikitree project is the best venue for genealogical record keeping.

---

Agree with David Thompson, I have went back to using my Geneology Program residing under my control on my computer. Sad as Wiki Tree has many quality Genealogist with the same goal.

---

I agree with David Thompson and anonymous. I used to run my tree on Ancestry and WikiTree concurrently. I like both for different reasons - however, with Ancestry I am able to add children under the age of 13. Like I said, I have a large family, most of which (at best) have mild interest in family history. None of them would be willing to sign up just to add their child to my tree (or at least that I'm aware).

Now, on Ancestry, I can record them asap so I don't find myself forgetting to add them in 13 years time. Ancestry works the same as Wikitree - deceased family members are visible to public, living is private to me and people I share it with. It's literally not a problem at all, Wikitree is making a huge fuss over nothing and damaging accuracy by making it more likely to have people not exist in their tree. I'll continue not to add children under 13 but will always use Ancestry now for personal reference and for other family members as I know it'll be more reliable.

---

I believe that I have a unique perspective on this issue because I myself am still legally a minor (and I will be until July next year). Previously, I had added the profiles of cousins of mine below the age of 13, but even prior to this change in WikiTree's privacy I had still kept them unlisted in order to protect their privacy.

The fact of the matter is that, whether you wish to believe it or not, online stalkers and other brands of creeps are just as likely to use genealogical websites to seek their prey. It's the smart thing to do—all genealogy websites which allow for living people to be seen include birth estimates, and it doesn't take much to search for that kind of information online. Even digitalised newspapers still have 'Family Notices'.

The difference between Ancestry and WikiTree is that, unlike Ancestry, WikiTree only has a single global family tree with the goal of communication and collaboration. Ancestry, on the other hand, is predominantly made of trees personal to the individual and thus the large majority of Ancestry trees (perhaps even all) are private viewing only, which is essentially the same procedure as WikiTree's privacy levels; only automatic.

Another thing I think is being misconstrued is that if a child is deceased and below the age of 13, or even of an unknown living status but was born far enough ago, this doesn't affect those profiles. It only affects the profiles of living people who are currently under the age of 13 given their date of birth.

If I'm perfectly honest, I dislike the idea of having that kind of information available for anyone to see on any genealogical website. I joined WikiTree about a month after I myself turned 13—and I would have been horrified if I had discovered that a relative of mine (even my parents, if I'm honest) had posted my personal information online for any creep with a keyboard to access.

---

Congratulations on your upcoming birthday, Amy. From the clarity of your writing and excellent grammar, it looks like you will be off to a good start.

However, be careful out there. Although Wikitree has guaranteed your birth date is safe from the prying public, other sites are not as generous. Anybody can find out your birth date, mailing address, telephone numbers, previous addresses, your relationships, your court records, and more by paying a token fee to any of a number of online data processors. You see, the real reason public information is not free to the average person is because there are rich people who want to get richer by legally selling your personal information.

When I was 17, anybody could go to the local town clerk's office and pay $5 for a certified copy of my birth certificate, and they did not have to show ID or a reason for obtaining it. You might think I'm lucky to be alive, but this was true for everybody. Thank goodness you don't have to deal with this kind of trauma.

Unfortunately, if you want a job, you will still have to fill out a job application which will include your name, place of birth, birth date, current and previous addresses, education history, close relatives, your Social Security number, and your race and gender. In today's savvy world of intelligent crooks, you can bet that if a stalker was good at what he or she does, they will get a job as a Personnel Manager at some large company, and then sell your information to someone else even more devious.

At least they won't be able to confirm your birth date on Wikitree. Wikitree will be safe, and genealogists will just have to wait until their relatives die before learning about them; assuming of course, that they outlive their relatives. Right now, anyway, you should be in a good place to outlive your older distant cousins who likely have interesting family stories, and learn their names after they are dead. Too bad you won't be able to hear the stories, though. And when cousins are born younger than you, you can pretty much forget about ever knowing them and passing on your knowledge, personally. However, we have to be safe; no benefit is worth a potential criminal learning your name and birth date on an open source genealogy web site.

Answer 1

Thanks, Chris, for the heads up. I only had one and he is now co-managed by his mother.

Comments

I only had one and she's queued for deletion now.

---

I only have about a hundred queued for deletion now.  Is there a way to download a Gedcom or something for these specific profiles before they're deleted?  Many of these hundred, I'm close enough to remember all the relevant details, but plenty of the rest are family that I just don't see often enough.  Those cousins might find it annoying that I'm re-asking all these details after they've already told me before, but they wouldn't want to join Wikitree themselves either.

I stopped using other family tree programs after I started using Wikitree.

---

Matt, I find it easier to download the entire GEDCOM, but you can specify who you want to download.  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:DownloadGedcom

---

Me too Isabelle, my granddaughter is the only one I have, and she has been unlisted always. I've never felt I have the right to create profiles for any other person that young anyway - from my perspective that's crossing boundaries. I'm sure my daughter would happily become a family member of wikitree so as my granddaughter's profile could remain but regardless I've decided to leave it in the deletion queue instead. If when she grows up she becomes interested genealogy these changes are not going to be any hinderance at all to her joining up herself, finding my profile, and connecting herself in to the tree.

---

This is a probably rare comment: I have no siblings, and my two sons avoided having children. (One of them is gay and the other didn't marry.)   

I don't say this to them, and they don't connect on Wikitree, so they won't see this comment, this queue's subject is out of my realm as a topic I can't engage in. 

I also say, "Alas!" but much more quietly. I always wanted to be a Grandma.

Answer 2

Chris,

 How will this be accomplished? Do we add a delete category or will editbot do this?

Comments

I'm not Chris but possibly this could be done through Special:Delete 

Note Option 1 This is generally only appropriate if highly sensitive information is being revealed, e.g. if it's a profile of a young child. Otherwise anonymization is better for privacy. However, if someone demands that their profile be deleted you need to respect their wishes. If it's about something other than privacy see the Deletion FAQ. Duplicates should be merged not deleted. 

 

---

Hi Paula and Steve. We can do this automatically, on the back-end using a tool like Special:Delete. You won't need to do anything.

---

Thanks so much!

---

Thanks for the feedback

Answer 3

There are probably a few current EuroAristo profiles for children under 13, that are either managed by the project/s or individuals related to the project.

Speaking solely personally, not on behalf of the project, I'm happy to see them deleted.  Even though they have Wikipedia pages, I always felt slightly uncomfortable about having profiles for children who in no way gave their permission to having such a profile.  Just because they are in the media spotlight doesn't mean we can't give them some privacy, at least on WikiTree

Comments

I had a lot to say in response, and I very briefly posted it, but there comes a point when further engagement is futile. I'd rather spend the time contributing to our global tree.

We both care about WikiTree and genealogy and doing the right thing. The fact that we disagree on some of the details is unfortunate, but as neither of us in charge of WikiTree's policies, we really don't need to work it out. I love the community at WikiTree, and I don't want to contribute to any sense of alienation between us or between one of us and others who read our posts.

Have a great day, and good luck in all your genealogical endeavors!

---

a person's birth date, birth place, and parents are all public information, along with their dates of marriage and divorce . . .

commented 2 hours ago by David Thomson

.

But how accessible is that information if you cannot do BDM searches within x years (births 100 years, marriages, 80 years, deaths 50 years), at least in most places.  When I went in person to the Registrar General's office, I had to prove my relationship to get a death certificate for my Grandfather before they would issue it, because the privacy laws prevent (or did) such issuance unless directly related.  "Family history" or "family research" only applies within the parameters of those privacy restrictions.   If those restrictions aren't in place in most areas, there is something wrong with the system.

---

Hi Melanie - You can find out anything you want here in the United States by going to spokeo dot com. Just go to the site, enter your name, email address or telephone number, and they will provide a detailed report on your life for a fee.

As for Thomas, there is nothing to worry about regarding a data breach with minors on Wikitree. No genealogist puts up social security numbers or other such information for living people that could be used for identity theft. Birth dates, place of birth, and who your parents are cannot be stolen because they are already public information. My arguments are all sound. There is absolutely no benefit to denying people the opportunity to record children's birth dates, and places of birth on Wikitree. It will not harm them later in life just because someone knows who they are, and when and where they were born. And as I just shared with Melanie, Wikitree is not the go-to place for getting information about living people. Anybody who is willing to pay for the information can get it from one of many personal data providers.

---

Hi David,  you're welcome to propose a change to the rule. We have a process for that: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Developing_New_Rules.  There are also other sites that don't have the same rules we do if you feel WikiTree doesn't meet your genealogical needs.  Thanks!

---

@ David .. there's a saying that's been around for a while: "just because you CAN, does not mean you SHOULD".

Different countries have different laws about these things and my understanding is that Wikitree tends to go on the conservative side when following those laws because of the diversity of users; and because of who is likely to pay the costs of a law suit should something happen that can be attributed to breach of those laws. (It won't be me or you.)

I'm NOT an American, so I guess I have a much different concept and acceptance of what privacy is and should be than most Americans seem to have.  If *I* didn't put it out there, YOU (generic, not specific to David)don't have a right to publish it.

---

Hi Melanie, I used to subscribe to the total privacy view when I was younger (of course it wouldn't have been when I was older), but over time I have come to realize that as a society, a certain degree of openness is required to keep the system healthy and fair. None of us are truly ever cut off from everybody else. We are all connected, and as we see on Wikitree, many of us are also related.

I became interested in genealogy when I saw my name in someone else's genealogy report. I thought to myself, how cool is that? I have a family, and it is huge. My information was already out there and someone did something with that information that made me feel good about myself. That is why I am a genealogist, today; to bring continuity to the genealogy effort that made me feel good, and so that others can enjoy it.

I would be offended if someone was posting my social security number and other financial-related information, but all they were sharing in my genealogy report was my birth date and birth place. By virtue of being alive in a society, this basic information about me is essential to the whole. Everybody needs to know where I fit in, and I need to know where I fit in with the rest of society. That is what makes genealogy what it is.

The bottom line, to me, is that there is no way anybody can use a child's birth date and birth place as a way to harm them. And if they could, there are numerous ways to get that information, as it is already public. And even if someone could use a birth date and birth place to harm someone, they won't get it from Wikitree no matter how old the person is, because that information is hidden unless the person opens an account on their profile, and specifically shares that information.

Are hospitals subject to the same GDPR rules as Wikitree? Every time I go to the doctor or pharmacist I have to state my birth date out loud where everybody can hear it. It just doesn't make any sense to block genealogists from recording birth dates on Wikitree while the rest of the world has access to this information.

---

Eowyn, "There are also other sites that don't have the same rules we do if you feel WikiTree doesn't meet your genealogical needs. " Would you care to name them for me? I will certainly want to make sure I am putting my efforts in the right place.

---

Sure, Ancestry.com, Geni.com and FamilySearch all let you add any living individuals you'd like to.  They don't have the collaborative community that we have but if your biggest desire is adding children under 13 then they'd work better for you.

---

@ David .. my date of birth and place of birth are my business, not yours unless I choose to share them with you, which I do not .. and your knowledge of them does not, in any way, help "keep the system healthy and fair".  Nor does your knowing the birth date and place of birth of my grandchildren.

I'm guessing you're in America, because I never once had to state my birth date to the doctor's receptionist when I was in Australia (which may have changed, given how hellbent we are in becoming mini-USA) .. and it is another aspect of American "society" I abhor (as well as being a violation of my right to privacy under hipaa), so I have it written down so I don't have to speak it aloud.  Besides, given I speak Australian, America has me born on a different day and a different month.

Either way .. I 100% support Wikitree not allowing profiles for those under 13 years old unless a parent creates the profile.  So before this turns into something I don't wish to be part of, I'm out of this discussion.

---

Melanie, thank you for providing me the last word in this discussion. You have caused me to have an epiphany. The more privacy people have in a society, the more closed that society becomes, and the more closed a society becomes, the less effective freedom people have. That could explain a lot as to why people are so drawn to the United States. We are a more open society (and yes, everybody must reveal their birth date when receiving medical care and subscriptions), which means people can feel more comfortable with their freedom and liberty.

BTW, I popped your name into the Spokeo engine before I shared the link, and I knew you were Australian. I just didn't want to freak you out. I didn't pay for the report, but it proved to me once again that there is no privacy in this world, and neither do we really want there to be as far as information goes.

Answer 4

Hi Chris & Team

I understand the policy change but just to play Devils Advocate around these changes

What has the GDPR got to do with those that do not live or are ever likely to live within the EU? be they 99yrs old or under 13

Is it because it is too hard to define who is and who is not in the EU (profile wise) so Wikitree is being changed to be one size/shape fits all to cover this?

Or is it expected of Wikitree through the GDPR that it is a one size/shape for all no mater where they are because some of the profiles are from the EU?

Comments

See "Why does it affect non-Europeans?" for the official answer.

---

Also, most developed countries outside the EU have rules similar to GDPR - the US is very much in a small and dwindling minority - and at least some of them seek to apply them extra-territorially to foreign organisations dealing with their residents. As I have said elsewhere, this is not just the nasty EU.

This is not a criticism of the US. It is just a statement of fact.

Answer 5

I am very pleased to see this change. Irrespective of GDPR, it must be the right and ethical policy. I am in the UK where the approach on privacy for children may long have been a bit tighter than in the USA. But there are clear guidelines of the US National Genealogical Society. The relevant extract is a commitment to

“inform people who provide information about their families how it may be used, observing any conditions they impose and respecting any reservations they may express regarding the use of particular items;
 require evidence of consent before assuming that living people are agreeable to further sharing or publication of information about themselves;
 convey personal identifying information about living people—such as age, home address, genetic information, occupation, or activities—only in ways that those concerned have expressly agreed to;
 recognize that legal rights of privacy may limit the extent to which information from publicly available sources may be further used, disseminated, or published”

Under the NGS guidelines, children should give consent for information about them to go on Wikitree. There must be a question over whether children under 13 can be regarded as able to give informed consent even if they are told that a relative intends to put some information about them on Wikitree. For me this is a question of ethics.

Comments

Indeed, one could even question whether teenaged children can be regarded as able to give informed consent in these matters. Consider the large number of teenagers who reveal far too much information about themselves online, including inappropriate photographs.

Answer 6

I'm curious. Are we talking about actual tests - which Wikitree does not deal with directly - or are we talking about the Kit numbers and ID numbers that are used to identify DNA tests and GEDmatch.

IF DNA kit and ID numbers take 24 hours to propagate through the system when they are added,  is there now some new software to prevent them from being added to living non members when future members add their test details?

Or will some editbot have to follow along after they have been added, in order to remove these kit numbers and ID numbers, from the living members?  Will we have to do that?

And what if we DO HAVE permission from some non-members? How will that work?

Just asking some quetions that you may or may not have thought of...

Comments

OK I just read the FAQ that was linked to above.

I have no problems with the DNA details being removed - but the profile will still stay, right? The profile for anyone over the age of 13 is NOT being deleted? Although it probably will become unlisted.

And how will consent be added to the profiles if we do have permission?

I would also like to have something clarified.

The following statement says this - If you have attached DNA test information to one of your living relatives, the test information will be deleted unless they have joined WikiTree and thereby agreed to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. 

Since the DNA propagation throughout the global tree is done automatically, the statement implies that we personally ourselves attached the DNA details to our living relatives. We did not. The servers or bots did that automatically.

Perhaps that line could be amended to read as follows - If DNA test information has been attached to one of your living relatives, the test information will be deleted unless they have joined WikiTree and thereby agreed to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

---

I'm pretty sure it means if you have attached details of a test THEY have taken.  Not one you have taken that matches them.

 

And I think this answer would be better in its own thread, rather than attached to the one about children under 13.

---

I am hoping that DNA results from my living cousins will not be visible to me.

---

Thank you Ros.

Answer 7

Just a thought....

If some profiles are going to be deleted, will we get notification that this has been done, or will we have to search through and try and work out what has gone?

(I don't have any children under 13 on my list, but I thought this may affect other managers)

Answer 8

Noted. I have 3,043 living people on Jamie's list, many of whom (and dead people too) were added a long time ago by a member who never sought my permission.

Answer 9

So does this mean we'll be able to restore them once they turn 13 or will they be locked out forever? Is this a cap?

Answer 10

I suppose we could delete them. I have two profiles of people under 13. Those would be my nephews. I do have a question. What will happen to the numbering? Say they are "Ferraiolo-9" and "Ferraiolo-10" and you make an adult Ferraiolo-8 and Ferraiolo-11. Will the gap show or will they all be renumbered? I'm thinking the gap will be there because there's no Ferraiolo-3 because I needed to merge it with myself because of a mistake I made so it goes Ferraiolo-2 and then 4.

Thanks for the head's up.

Comments

I don't think it's going to matter much, especially when you get to Ferraiolo-451 and Ferraiolo-124749.  Are you going to notice? LOL

---

LOL yea. True. I still manage like 99% of all Ferraiolo profiles on this website, though. =) Random early morning musings.

Answer 11

I am not to bothered about some of them but I would like to keep my grandson so messaged his mother

I have explained everything to her and she will have a look later to sign up and sign the volunteer thing she wont have to do anything else yet as far as I understand it

It is annoying but have a feeling that it will reduce my watchlist also at the moment the padlock is automatically on private with public bio can that not be changed where it automatically goes to unlisted

Answer 12

This is driving me nuts, to be honest.

I think it's okay and actually good to unlist living family members. But delete DNA ID's from non-member accounts? That would make things so much harder. My 2nd cousin once removed explicitly gave me (written!) permission to manage his DNA results because he doesn't want to join wikitree himself. Will there be any other solution so that we can still confirm DNA connections?

Answer 13

With the new changes, if someone joins wikitree and a unlisted profile already exists for them held by someone else, will wikitree now create a duplicate for them?

Answer 14

I understand the reason for the changes. I don’t like them, in part because I feel the nation, and it is a nation, of Europe is dictating to an American organization. My question is, what happens to the WT ID’s of all the children under 13 who get deleted? I know mergers eliminate ID’s, but those get directed to the lower number. WT is going to have some real blanks in the ID system.

Answer 15

I have about 50 such profiles ... children of nieces/nephews and the like.  I did add my daughter as manager for my grand-daughter but that's it ... my blood pressure has gone up twenty points!

So, my plan for the remaining kids that I manage is to save their profiles on my local computer.  I think my only choice here is as an 'html' file ... that's better than nothing ... someday I may re-enter those profiles when the kid comes of age, but maybe not ... Just Wikitree's loss ...I'll have to display my saved html files and re-type in the info ... at least I'll have the information.

Further, I won't or can't enter profiles for family new-borns ... guess we can refer to those kids as the lost generations ...

I need a blood pressure pill ...

Comments

I agree with Bob 100%, the only difference is I have already started putting all of my workon to a Legacy 9 program that resides on my computer at home. That was before GDPR. I now believe that that choice is and was the best one because my work will remain available to those who matter to me.

---

They will not become "the lost generation". When they are old enough to make the choice for themselves whether or not they wish to be here (as should have always been their choice only anyway) it's not going to be hard for them at all to find the profiles of their older deceased family members and hook in to the tree.

Answer 16

If I understand this, if a wife puts her living husband in with his DNA (actually they had me do it) The husband doesn't use a computer, he barely uses a cell phone, doesn't have a email.  And the wife is nearly computer illiterate. So the husband is going to made unlisted?

Answer 17

"Profiles of young children will need to be deleted unless the profile manager is one of their parents."

OK, but I have a number of Unlisted young people with no dates. One is in fact only ten years old.

I just now tried to enter a birth year of 2010, to schedule it for definition deletion, but the system will not let me save the change.

"Error: Invalid data. The following must be corrected:

1. You cannot create a profile for a child under 13 unless you are their parent."

So, it seems I will be stuck with such a profile, even if I would like to let the system remove it.

Comments

Hi Steven, can't you just queue it for deletion? this should work, if the profile is for a private/living person.

---

I don't know of any way to do that.

But it is ok. I had just set the birth year guess to 2005 last year, to resolve it. So now in 2019, I am adjusting them up to birth in 2006.

So they can just remain skeleton profiles, until they reach a more valid age, based on their parents' age.

---

You just need to go to this link and follow the instructions.

---

Ah, thanks for that link.

In my case, none of the child profiles were created after 2012. So even if they were newborn babies back then, they would be at least 7 years old by now.

And in only six years, they will all become legal profiles at age 13. For the couple dozen that I have, I just changed the birth date to "after 2006."

I think deletion is more destructive than helpful, so I think the skeleton profiles are fine as I have set them now. After this rule came into effect, the entire living family groups are now completely Unlisted privacy anyway, so I don't see that it poses any problems anymore.

The only issue I will have to grapple with in the future is to find any relatives to take on Trusted List duty before I pass on from this world, if ever. My rule of thumb now is to never create any profile younger than me. Better to let the youngsters figure out those generations instead.

---

Well, since the rules say no profiles for children under 13 unless you are their parent, I would strongly advise you to have any profiles of children you know to be under 13 deleted. It sure is inconvenient, but I trust it would be for the best.

I did create a few living profiles since that change went live and that was only when the profiles were absolutely necessary for connections. Almost all of them (and all of those younger than me) would meet criteria for the Notables project, so it won't be necessary to delete them after I go.

---

Well, I do NOT know that they are under 13. It is merely a presumption, maybe for a few of them, maybe not, merely based on a series of date guesses over several generations.

So I think deleting them would just be overkill, and in some cases, would be wrong.

Besides, WikiTree still has a major flaw in this rule. As I browse the tree, I can reason that the vast majority of children under 13 who were entered over the past decade still exist in WikiTree, because they had been entered with NO dates. So the system rule ignores them entirely.

Answer 18

What happens to information and photos from living children under the of 13 in the Biography section? What is allowed and what may not be mentioned? I assume that not allowed information can not removed with a Bot.

Answer 19

No - that is against the rules.

Answer 20

Please, revert this.

Comments

This was discussed ad nauseam back in May when the new rules went into effect. They were not done arbitrarily, they were done to comply with EU rules on privacy and to avoid WikiTree having to deal with potential law suits and the expense in defending against it. The rule won't change until we see how the EU rules play out in practice. WT is an international effort so such rules do affect us.