Why don't people communicate? [closed]

Question

I turned on my computer this morning to find that another member had made changes to 20 of my profiles in a short period of time.   I did panic, thinking that I would have a mess to clean up.   Then I realized that they had just added a "book source" to each of the profiles.

Does everyone understand that a simple statement like adding source in the explain your changes field helps others understand what you are doing?   Or in this case, a simple private message to me would have been wonderful to let me know that they had found a source for a number of my profiles and would be adding it.

I understand that the person did not harm and honestly did a nice thing, but....communication is important on Wikitree, or do I just need another cup of coffee this morning?

Comments

I wonder if it would not be expedient to require the reason before filing the change.  It is easy to cut and paste quickly something like "added a book source".  I agree, no none wants to have to explain the changes for mispellings, but the more people join WikiTree and get involved, the greater the need for good communication.

---

Do we really have to be responsible for someone's "state of dread"? It's a wiki, people make changes.

---

For goodness sake, Ben. Literally. Yes. We're a community. It costs nothing to be considerate of others.

Jennifer, after you've entered an explanation once, it will auto-complete when you start to use it again.

---

OK, great - I'm just going to stop editing since I don't want to cause anyone's sense of dread.

---

Ben, please don't stop editing. I believe this post is for problem editors not someone who is actually improving a profile. Keep up the good work.

---

It's not about problem editors - it's about someone who literally did nothing other than add a source to a lot of profiles at the same time. If I see someone doing that, I click Thank You.

---

You're right, Ben, it is about that, and kudos to you for how you'd have handled it. But as a leader, the point of her story was to encourage explanations of changes as part of collaborating.

---

I completely agree Ben.  If the person was adding valid sources, it is pretty self-evident what they were doing, and it is their prerogative to explain the change or not.  It is not defined as “rude” or “not polite” to not explain the changes in that instance.  If they were adding other types of content, sure, explain the change.  That said, I don’t think we should be demanding they do that - that borders on being a control freak. Although one may think that explaining every change is polite, while another might think it is unnecessary for small changes - one thing is for sure, attempting to force people to meet someone else’s own definition of polite isn’t really polite either.  Trying to force people to do things your specific way, in my opinion, is rude.  Trying to cyber-shame people is also not exactly polite either.  Remember everyone has their own workflow, communications skills, and preferences, which might not be the exact same as your’s, and yes, that is ok.

---

A. Nagel, you haven't had multiple profiles vandalized have you... :)

---

I'll admit that I'm guilty of not leaving a comment when I make a change, especially if I'm the PM or on the trusted list.  But as I think about it, its just good manners, like leaving a note on the table for the family in the morning if you're going to be away.  I'm going to do my best to always add a comment when I make changes.

Answer 1

HI Robin,

Possibly you do need another cup of coffee but not for side affects just for something to drink However, I do understand the irritation. And been guilty of doing the same thing under honest endeavor. But I do agree that communication before editing is important However I try not to be picky when they just adding an extra source. But if they changing dates/names and mass editing of the biography than there reason for concern especially for an active profile manager.

Comments

Honestly a quick comment in the explain you changes field would do the trick...

Answer 2

I'm on the other side. The idea of having to private message some one every time I add a few sources to their profiles turns me off ever wanting to edit profiles that I don't manage. I get that there are changes that need to be discussed, any kind of family connection changes, major bio changes, date changes, ect, but I would rather people feel free to fix a typo or add a source without having to email the profile manager about everything. I do think it's good to use the change explaination field, and I'm trying to remember to use it everytime.

Comments

Dear Janelle and all,

   I think the "explain change" field is very important.  Whenever I am doing "Sourcerer" work, I try to put something in that field, if only to say I found something that might or might NOT be for the profile.

    A number of members follow certain surnames, and I think it helps when the explanation of change comes across the watched profile news.

    We are SO fancy!  -NGP

---

I'm with Janelle on this one. I do agree that there should be consultation before changing dates, relationships, or whatever, because I have had people confuse people in my watchlist with other people who happened to have the same name, but had different parents, spouses, children, birthdates, birthplaces, and so on. But if I'm adding (or completing) a source for a fact which is already listed on that profile, I really don't see the point in asking permission first.

(Okay, yes, granted, it would be more collaborative to discuss things first, but I've had so many times when I've tried to contact a profile manager and never heard back because that profile manager hasn't been on WikiTree for years that now, I just make the fix and move on.)

---

To be clear, the idea of a quick note was not to ask permission...it was to let me know that 30 of my profiles would be edited because of a source found, not asking for permission, just wanting the communication.

---

I'm also on the side of not pm-ing the manager. To always ask for permission before you can edit a profile is imo against the heart of WikiTree, which is for me the collaboration. Someone asks for help (especially when it's in a language people don't know), someone finds something, a third person digs and finds a source for something that wasn't sourced etc.

Especially when I do sourcing I link the sources and that's it, and when I occasionally get a mail: "You changed the profile I managed, are we related?" then I lead them to the changes-tab, where everybody can see the last changes.

---

There is a line on WikiTree that is very difficult to follow and someone came along and started changing date, adding children, adding relationships, and my most favorite of all, when someones removes a detailed cited source and replaces it with "Ancestry Trees" nothing more just those two words. This someone claims to be a DataDoctor, Sourcerer and Connector. Thank you but no thank you, WikiTree does not need this type of help. Some people out there do not communicate even when they a caught red-handed (I won't say intentionally vandalizing but) really messing up several profiles. When asked to cite their sources, one get an ambiguous message that sources have been cited... Really "Ancestry Trees" is a citation. While communication and collaboration is great, it needs to be friendly! And for goodness sake don't destroy 3 generations in 24 hours!

---

I'm with Janelle.

No, I don't add a comment on every single change I do, even to others profiles. Why? Because most of what I do is self-evident. All it takes is looking at the Change Log and it's simple to understand. By the same token, I also expect that of others. I can figure what is happening by looking at the Change Log. It's not that hard to use, and every regular on here should know how to use it.

And Yes, I understand that every situation is different. For simple changes that are easy to understand, it's not a problem. For huge changes, where it looks like vandalism, or severe ignorance, then yes, it's incredibly frustrating. But in those situations, telling people to put in a comment about their change is not going to be useful; I just highly doubt those kind of people will actually do it.

Does it feel good to vent? Sure. Will it change anything. Doubtful.

In the end, looking at the Change Log, and not being afraid to Revert to a previous change is the best medicine. Take a look at your feed for any changes on your profiles, and just go take care of it. Talk to the person afterwards, and follow procedure then.

It's a WIKI. It's supposed to be editable. We have the tools to fix anything if there's a problem.

---

The point is to use the "Explain Your Changes" box just above Save Changes. My reading of what Robin said is IN SOME CASES you should PM the PM. Like when you have a big change. Or when you're going to edit 20 of their profiles.

---

I can't believe all the discussion of such a minor suggestion to communicate. Why be concerned about private message rather than using the explain your changes box? Better to commit the crime of unnecessary communication than upsetting someone who has an interest in the profile.

---

The Help pages explain what kinds of changes need additional explanation. It doesn't matter whether it's 20 profiles or 1 profile that changed.

I can't believe that there was even an post here over a minor edit. Look at the ChangeLog. "Oh, they added a source. Cool" should have been the only reaction.

Yes, I understand being upset if they were major changes, or vandalism. That's the time to panic. But don't panic over changes to 20 profiles, without reviewing what those changes actually were.

There is no need to demand an extra comment just because they were changes to 20 profiles, when the changes were self-evident, and ended up being helpful anyway.

Answer 3

I am guilty, also. So thanks for the reminder to explain any changes I make on profiles others manage.

I do make changes when a book source is listed and not linked to a free space page for a family genealogy. I paste in the link to the free space page because having that allows others working on the same surname to find connections.

Answer 4

Not sure about others, but I found a great wiki mentor. I tend to send all my questions to him.

Answer 5

I have had to deal with vandalism and it can takes weeks to correct. Yes, I agree that it is important to communicate. I am guilty of not alway doing it and I appreciate the reminder! It never hurts to be polite. Regardless of how we feel about it, the person whose profiles we are working on may feel differently and it’s a good precaution! It takes even more time to resolve disagreements that communication could prevent! All around, it takes little time and is worth the effort!

Answer 6

Communication is very important and that little "Explain your changes" Box is a great communication device.  I am always amazed at how many WikiTreers don't use the "explain your changes" box.  I know one doesn't have to -- but really -- how will you know what you've changed and done, if you don't use it?  I use that box constantly because I am editing profiles that frequently have managers (active and very inactive).  This week alone I've been working through gender suggestions.  They actually take quite a bit of time because most profiles with gender suggestions don't have any sources.  Without the note explaining what I did on the contribution list, I would be lost.  The contributions would all say I'd changed the biography.  That is not helpful to anyone.

Comments

Simple: Go click on the link to go see the specific change in the Biography. It takes you to the Change Log (or Changes tab on a profile). You can see line by line what changed. Most changes are self-evident. It's not that hard to figure it out.

---

Thanks Eric.  I use the change log also, but having what I did in my contributions list is invaluable for giving me at a glance everything that was done to many profiles.

Answer 7

I totally agree Robin. I've had some of my profiles totally changed and when I asked for a source for the changes, they don't respond. I don't tend to send a PM to all the Managers of profiles I work on because there is a limit of how many emails you can send. Some days I'm on a role and do one profile and find sources for the whole family so I try to get them all changed but I always try to put my explanation  in that field. If I've found major problems with the profile like there is no evidence that those are the parents or children, etc then I will PM. Because I have to wait until I get a response, I don't normally get back to that profile again because I'm off on another limb.

Answer 8

I have noticed that communication is WikiTree's greatest strength AND the most common FAILURE.

Even when making tiny changes like spelling errors I always use that "explain your changes" field unless I am the sole PM and I am doing multiple steps. I still try to finish with a comment so people know the reason for the last edit when they look.

I've had a few instances where I have untangled a convoluted knot of profiles that were a snarled mess, provided complete details of who was being merged and why, only to have someone at the end decide to go their own way and mess up the whole thing. Thus I stopped working on those.

But if nothing else, leaving some kind of record on what you did is a courtesy. I would say "common courtesy" except it is sadly no longer common. This isn't just referencing WikiTree but the populous in general.

Comments

There IS a record of the changes even if you don't explain your changes. You can go on the Changes Tab and see there what was done. And that tab doesn't only record the last change, you can also see earlier changes. What is the Changes Tab for if not for being a logbook of the changes?

---

Exactly, Jelena. It's a Change Log. Everyone on here should know how to use it. As I keep saying: most changes are self-evident and require little to no extra explanation. An explanation should only be needed for a series of complex changes, or if it's truly not easy to see why.

---

As I stated, courtesy is no longer common. Sad really.

---

I'm of a similar WikiTree generation to Robin, before there were some restrictions on who could edit some profiles and other measures were introduced to protect WikiTree.

Consequently, like Robin, my instinctive reaction to someone making changes to 20 of the profiles I or the Euroaristo project manages, is to panic. To believe that those changes weren't going to be good changes and at worst might be deliberate damage.

As Steven writes, some common courtesy, a few words in the explain your changes field, would mean that I don't have to check every Change Log, to see exactly what changes have been made.

Answer 9

For what it's worth, this whole topic was generating a great deal of stomach acid among members a few years back, and a general guideline was developed at that time:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Communication_Before_Editing

There is admittedly some room for interpretation within the guideline, but at this point nobody should be developing a "roll your own" policy about when to communicate.

Comments

Exactly. 

Paragraph 2:

"Changing what someone else has written often doesn't feel right. But it's what a wiki is all about. People are informed about changes through activity feeds and they can always change things back to the way they were if a mistake is made. These technological features of a wiki mean that changes don't need to be discussed in advance. The pace of collaboration can be faster than that. This is why, just like at Wikipedia, WikiTree encourages members to be bold."

---

Note that the paragraph quoted is not the whole guideline, and there is a big "however, comma" following it.  I do think that members need to read the whole thing and evaluate it in their context, not just look at a portion that reinforces what they want to hear.

---

I still think that the whole page reinforces the same view. All of Section 2. And all of Section 3.

The point is that not everything requires making a comment. Sure there are some kinds of changes that would be better served with a comment. Section 3, provides those guidelines with examples.

Section 3.1 clearly shows the kinds of changes that don't really need a comment. One of those is:

"Addition of a new source citation that supports existing factual data."

Robin's original post says that the person added a new book source, without making a comment. The WikiTree Help says that's fine.

---

Not so fine when someone comes along and adds children, changes source citations, and add Fairytale relationships without Citing their Sources! I would prefer those people go somewhere else to play! They do not need to be on WikiTree.

---

@Loretta: That's a completely different scenario, and not the one that was described in the original post. The WikiTree Help covers that as well.

---

Thanks for posting/reposting this. Obviously, this matter comes up now and again, and since it was dealt with so thoroughly the last time, this is a great guide to have repeated!

Answer 10

The ones I find myself changing most often without pre-informing the PM are those where the profile shows no biography or a biography with the gedcom noticed embedded and sources of <ref>Memory of XXX</ref>.

I use the provided data to write a minimum bio, move the gedcom notice to an == Acknowledgements == section, get rid of the And sources such as "* Add sources here". And usually declare it {{Unsourced}}. I then declared all I've done in the changed box.  I hesitate about telling the each PM about this because we are warned we can only send ten messages a day. How can I limit myself if I'm in challenge. Instead I use the messages to address the PM with problems for them to fix and, sometimes, why. I Never change any data.

What bothers me most is that someone thinks their memory should cover as a source for someone before 1850. I don't think many of us were around then.

Judy

Comments

It was never framed as "pre-informing". It is about making the note of what you changed so they can easily tell without having to go through the changelog. It is that one little section before you save your edits that says "explain your changes". That actually shows on the profile when it lists last change.

---

That is pretty much how I do - it is different if it is an active person managing, then I leave a comment or private message them first - and I almost always leave the change  notice thing unless it is just a typo that needs fixed

Answer 11

The key here is:

"Does everyone understand that a simple statement like adding source in the explain your changes field helps others understand what you are doing"

It's pretty easy to just fill in the box with "spelling correction," "birth source added," "category added," etc. I check the changes made to profiles I manage on a daily basis, and get into a bit of a panic, like Robin, if I see a large number of changes by one member with no explanation. It's just common courtesy.

Answer 12

The quick way to see what change has been made to a profile is to check the changes tab and view the specific "before and after" information.

As a "data doctor" I work on many simple corrections, such as missing or wrong {{ before a template, or a space at the beginning of a line of a heading. I leave a short comment in the "explain changes" field.

I would hope that when others are making changes, they would also leave a short explanation such as "source added" or "typo corrected."

Answer 13

Using "explain your changes" field could possibly save more time for PMs if changes aren't to data or relationships. These changes are often made without enough source information for PM to verify and can take hours to check. In my opinion communication should be first as comment on profile.

Answer 14

Not every WikiTreer feels the need to use his/her volunteer time to explain minor edits to OUR profiles, even those managed by fellow WikiTreers. And, as per our Communication guidelines, such courtesy comments aren't required.

Such changes can be viewed by simply checking the individual changes that were made or by viewing the profiles involved. Those steps would probably be done anyway if one were concerned about vandalism, as well as to verify the validity of the changes that were made. These steps are part of our duties as profile managers, are they not?

If we want to require comments for minor edits, then we need to discuss revising the current guidelines.