Using revert is a big deal in the wiki world, and I think it should be discouraged for anything except outright vandalism. I think these were good faith edits, perhaps not correct or sourced, but given the state of the profile, I don't think revert is called for. Without sources, who knows which one is right? It's just he said, she said.
I think citations like "a Kendall family history by Orion Scott Kendall" should be discouraged. That might as well be "some papers in Aunt Mabel's shoebox." Does this book have a titIe? A publisher? I get nothing on Google. If the book cites sources for all of this, then cite those sources too. If it doesn't have sources, it's hardly useful as a source. I realize that creating a profile takes time, but I think it's better to have no profile than a wrong profile. The biggest problem in modern genealogy is that any error gets almost immediately picked up on and spread around, because people are always looking for new data, and when you accidentally create a "fact," like this marriage date, for example, somebody's going to copy that and put it on geni.com or Ancestry.com. Then somebody on here will cite Ancestry.com as the source, and it turns into this circularly-sourced factoid, and then somebody like me has to have some gigantic fight with people to get them to realize it's a mistake. And if someone actually puts it in print, it practically takes an act of Congress to get people to let go of it.
I think you'll find it's much easier to discourage spurious edits if you have solid sourcing and explanations for what's in the profile too.
