When to use the unsourced template?

+12 votes
263 views
So, recently I’ve been knocking through a lot of orphaned profiles. Often, they are from GEDcoms or otherwise are very old or poorly sourced. Some have sources, but they are GEDcom-imported sources that were never cleaned.

However, some have the dreaded “ancestry family trees”, or even a link to a tree that is otherwise defunct or private.

My question is, when do you add an unsourced template? Is it okay to add it to a profile that “has” a source (being a dead link, something closed to the public, something that doesn’t match, “family records”, et cetera)? Should I be bypassing the GEDcom imported Sources if they’re just the string of letters and numbers Ancestry gives? (Someone gave me a good rundown of GEDcom specifically in a weekend chat thread, but I want multiple opinions before I mess with more stuff!)

What do you do here?
in Policy and Style by Liz Marshall G2G6 Pilot (110k points)

5 Answers

+10 votes
I think the official answer is that anything below the <references/> tag counts as a source.  Anything.

But you can make it a non-issue when you're in the profile.  Find a legitimate source and add it.  If so inclined, take the time to clean up the GEDCom gobbledygook and whatever else suits you.
by Living Tardy G2G6 Pilot (762k points)
That’s a little hard when I can’t access the sources from the GEDcom character spam, or if they’re in a country I don’t have access to records-wise :( I don’t want to have to make a separate G2G post asking for help about every single person because that’s just excessive not to mention insane.
+11 votes

My opinions

-a dead link- if there's no other info besides the dead link then yes I would add unsourced, If there's more info on what exactly the dead link when to maybe not.

-something closed to the public - I would not put unsourced on this unless it's something really vague like "family knowledge". If it's "interview with daughter of profile subject" or "Privately held narrative by X person" or even a record that's only available at a certain physical location, those are still legitimate sources

 something that doesn’t match - This would be more case by case

“family records”-I might message the profile manager then, but generally yes 

-internet tree - yes, unless the tree had sources, then I would add at least one of the sources to Wikitree instead.

by Janelle Weir G2G6 Mach 5 (54.1k points)
But what about trees that are closed to the public?

Also keep in mind I’m mostly talking about profiles that are orphaned - no PM. Often they’re from people who’s accounts were closed or deleted or abandoned for some reason.
I mean, sure if it's an online tree that's closed to the public I'd consider that under "internet tree" or "dead link", but the fact that it's closed to the public isn't really the issue. The issue is they are citing an internet tree which isn't really a valid source.
I mostly specify closed to the public because it is far easier to go through the sources on the tree if it is open, and ascertain if we can use it or not. Closed is a lot harder but it is exactly the problem I keep running into.
It is harder, but I think the burden of proof is on the person adding the unsourced template. I would need to be sure that the source is unreliable before calling it unsourced. It would be great if everything was on Familysearch or another free website, but there are lots of places and times where there are no records that could really be called available to the public and we have to use records that are harder to get to and in some cases may only be available to the family.
+12 votes
There was a fairly extensive discussion about this a couple of months ago, so you might like to have a look at the range of opinions expressed in https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/644109/need-a-definitive-answer-on-what-is-unsourced?
by Paul Masini G2G6 Pilot (382k points)
Paul, this is exactly what I was looking for (on top of more specialized advice for my questions). Thank you!
+7 votes

I asked the same question about Wikipedia and got a mixed response. If the only source is Wikipedia, should the Profile be Unsourced Maybe we need another category [Needs Primary Sources] or [Needs additional Sources] or inline [{Source for this information is needed}]

by Richard Devlin G2G6 Pilot (503k points)
+8 votes
Can't see the harm in adding "unsourced". PM might do something about it or someone else. Otherwise it is unlikely that anyone will do anything. Wikipedia alone is a better source than a Gedcom since it usually tells us to treat the profile as a notable.  Harsh to tell anyone who finds these profiles that it is their job to add sources. Very often they're from unfamiliar territory.
by C. Mackinnon G2G6 Pilot (332k points)

Related questions

+15 votes
8 answers
+13 votes
3 answers
+10 votes
4 answers
+8 votes
1 answer

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...