Announcing Changes and Clarifications for the Magna Carta Project

+24 votes

Discussion took place within the Magna Carta Google Group last month about the Magna Carta project's policies and procedures. We expect the changes to improve how the project handles major changes (i.e., relationship changes) to project profiles and trails.

In a nutshell, we are retaining the project's policy of using Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry and Royal Ancestry as our foundational references; we're in the process of retiring the Questionable Gateway Ancestor subproject; and we've established, changed, or clarified details and procedures for relationship issues, to include the guidance that we do not initially select "Confident" for a relationship status unless the profile cites a primary or original source supporting that relationship.

See [Magna Carta Project Policy and Procedures] for more information.

in Policy and Style by Liz Shifflett G2G6 Pilot (527k points)
Liz you are one super woman in all that you do here on wikitree and showing up in your travels on many profiles helping out when you can and have time to.  Enjoy your sabbatical in August we all will surely miss your helping energy and special love you have for all of us, I enjoy the Magna Carta Project.

Cheers, Andrea

Liz (and other Magna Carta folks),

While I understand the need for the project to focus on Richardson (the PGM has a similar focus on Anderson), and to no longer be responsible for "questionable gateway ancestors" that are not covered by Richardson, why delete the "questionable gateway ancestors" category? It's on over 100 profiles. People-- outside of the MC project-- could still work on them. The MC project could simply add a caveat that the "questionable gateway ancestors" category is no longer a sub project of the MC project, and leave it at that-- i.e., leave it to individuals to work on their own questionable gateway folks. (Your linked page gives great advice-- and warnings-- about  how to do that.)

4 Answers

+13 votes
Thank you, Liz, and all of the Magna Carta Group for all of your hard work. Much appreciated!
by Pip Sheppard G2G Astronaut (2.4m points)
+12 votes
Thank you, Liz.
by Bob Keniston G2G6 Pilot (225k points)
+5 votes
I was a founding co-leader of the Magna Carta Project.  I am very disappointed to see the intended removal of the "Questionable Gateway Ancestors" sub-project, on which I was active, and which was dedicated to improving the accuracy of WikiTree.  This decision was made without my participation.
by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Mach 9 (95.6k points)
+4 votes
I am new to the Magna Carta group and far from being a expert in the field, but I can understand the reason for keeping and the reason for eliminating the "questionable Gateway Ancestors" sub-project. There could be argument made on both sides. Securing a documented trail is a task in itself, when the research and Sources are listed in primary and secondary sources like in Richardson's MCA and RA, but the time and effort to track down trails for some that are questionable is so much more of a undertaking and I am not saying it isn't a important one. Heck according to relationship finder, I am related to all the Surety Barons, but not one of my ancestors fall in line with the listed Gateway Ancestors. They would all be questionable and probably most disproven. The project does have a lot on their plate and they require us to actually participate in the project to remain badged, which I think is very smart. I have learned more as a part of this group than I have in any other that I am a part of here on wikitree and elsewhere. Just because the sub project gets deleted does not mean we as individuals can't apply Magna Carta Rules to try and confirm a questionable Gateway, right? We just would have to do it on our own accord, instead of as a sub-project. If we can find proof then we can bring it to the attention of the project to be included on a approved trail, right?

On keeping it, it does make it easier to have all questionable people in one place. Is it possible to keep the sub project going if the people who want to keep it, volunteers to manage it and lay out rules for it just like we do for the main project? Anyway, that is just some thoughts from a MC newbie.

Liz and the rest of the group, thank you for all the help, guidance and advice, through my first trail. It wasn't easy. Heck my first pick turned out to be questionable. Lol. Second one was certainly a learning experience and probably the reason some of the changes came into question with how we handle children that are uncertain, but we got through it. I have certainly learned a few things. Even though I have been doing genealogy for 20 plus years, you still are never done with learning something new. Especially in genealogy.
by Misty Musco G2G6 Mach 2 (26.4k points)
edited by Misty Musco
We could Keep the questionable gateway category without having to keep The subproject. We have many many categories that aren't part of a project.

Related questions

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright