How can I watch/track profiles I edit?

+10 votes
402 views
I've been editing several profiles that were created in 2016 with no sources, locations and sometimes years only.  I've removed the 'unsourced' category icon, added specific dates. text, sources and most of the time locations.  I would expect this would enable those folks to be on my watch list just because of my edits.  But I don't think that is the policy.  Policy is I have to ask that 2016 contributor to be on the Trusted List.  But not allowing a current editor (me) to have the profiles I edit on my watch list, enables the manager to remove or change info without me ever knowing about it.   Seems to me that my current activity should enable me to watch these pages without having to prod a manager who may or may not be even currently active on the site.  I'm working on folks in my Jackson line so I'd appreciate being able to watch those I work on.  What say you?
WikiTree profile: Chalon Jackson
in Policy and Style by Janie Kimble G2G6 Mach 2 (27.6k points)
edited by Janie Kimble
(I recommend you edit your question title to something like: "How can I watch/track profiles I edit?"  in order to attract the attention of others who care about this issue like you do.)
The more I think on this, the more I FAIL TO SEE THE LOGIC of it.  So I can go to a profile that someone else 'manages'; I can add all kinds of info and sources OR I could even mess it up badly; do all of that without being on the Trusted List.  But I can't have the profile on my watch list without the managers permission.  Seems like something's wrong with that!!

Am I missing something here?
You're not alone in your thinking, Janie.

4 Answers

+5 votes
 
Best answer
Personally I have no desire to have the profiles I work on tracked in my activity feed.  I do my best when editing, if someone changes it, they are doing their best (one hopes).  I don't want the extra work of tracking.

However, if it is a single family that interests you, you could age a tag for that family.
by Kathy Rabenstein G2G6 Pilot (315k points)
selected by Judy Weggelaar
+17 votes
You can ask to be added to the TL. The PM was active last in Sep 2018, so still seems to be active. Just let the person know why you're interested.

If you like, you can create a Personal Category and add profiles you might like to check up on from time to time, or  you could create a space page with links to the profiles and check up on them from time to time.
by Natalie Trott G2G Astronaut (1.3m points)
+15 votes
Unfortunately, editing a WikiTree profile doesn't add that profile to our watchlists. As Natalie has already said, in order to be added to a Trusted List you need to send a polite request to the profile manager(s) of the profile(s) you are interested in. Look in the first bullet under "Collaboration" in the second column of the profile for hyperlinked text that says "request to join the trusted list." That will open a form that sends a message to the profile manager(s) of the profile you request access to. To help you remember which profiles you have requested, there's a list under the "My WikiTree" tab -- look for the item called "Requests." Be aware that  the system doesn't keep a copy of the messages you sent, so it's a good idea to keep a copy of the text you use so you can paste it into other requests you make.
by Ellen Smith G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
To follow up on what Ellen wrote, if, as a habit, you check your "Requests" list weekly, you can automate this process:

* For all of the trusted list requests you sent a week ago, check them to see if they have been granted or not.  If so, great.  If not, go to the profile and post a message to the PM and also put a comment on their profile that you've requested access to said profile and include a link and a smiley :-) and a "thanks!"

* For all trusted list requests you sent two weeks ago, assuming you emailed the PM last week, check to see if you've been added.  If you have, great, if not, maybe it is time to file an unresponsive PM request.  Sometimes PMs miss your request, your post, and your comment.  But, when they get an official notice from Wikitree, they usually act and you get added.

It is a bit of work at first, but if you start doing it as a regular weekly chore, you'll get faster at it and I find that it doesn't take but 5 or 10 minutes each week.  And then, over time, you'll be on 100% of the trusted lists you requested - usually by being added, or occasionally by adopting the newly orphaned profile if the PM has gone missing.
Oh, so much to learn!!  I've never even looked at that 'request' list, let alone made it a habit!  Thank you for the suggestion.
When I first read your response I have to admit that I was taken aback because it felt as if the PM would be forced to add someone to their trusted list....whether they wanted to or not. Getting a note from WikiTree after not responding to a request seems a little like bullying. I honestly mean that with all due respect. It's just how it reads. I understand, & for the most part agree, with how WikiTree doesn't consider the profile as "owned" by a single pm however, when people sign up they don't know that. It was over a year before I knew & honestly, had I not randomly come across a G2 post I still wouldn't know. I ran into a man on Ancestry that left because of it & was angry because he felt he "had done all this work under false pretenses." I love WikiTree & the belief that we are all connected. I want more people to join & for all of us to be one big, intermingled family. That said, lack of control over profiles should be decided on & made perfectly clear when people sign up. That way they can decide whether they agree & still want to participate. Also, had my family known other people were going to be allowed to write, or add info about them I don't believe they would have allowed me to add them. It's tricky.

Hi Lucy, I appreciate your comments but I'm surprised to read that you didn't know about collaboration when you signed up.  The main premise of WikiTree is shared profiles.  When you sign up you agree to comply with the Honor Code.  

The first line of the Honor Code page reads:

WikiTree is free, but it's not a free-for-all. Our community is collaborating to create something special: an accurate single family tree that's free and open to the world. This grand project requires mutual trust and a common understanding of how the community works.

The first point of nine in the Honor Code reads:

  1. We collaborate. When we share ancestors we work together on the same ancestor profiles.

You wrote:

When I first read your response I have to admit that I was taken aback because it felt as if the PM would be forced to add someone to their trusted list....whether they wanted to or not. [emphasis added]

But its not "their" trusted list, its our trusted list.  It is the trusted list of any descendant or relative.  The only bully I see is the person who refused to add others to the trusted list - this is no different than one kid taking a toy and refusing to let any other kids play with it.  When the other kids complained, the teacher made the kid share.  The teacher making the kid share doesn't make the other children bullies, it makes the original bully share the toy.  Very basic but it is the same at WikiTree.  

"...lack of control over profiles should be decided on & made perfectly clear when people sign up."

Its not a secret that open profiles can be edited by anyone and that many, many relatives can and will collaborate and work together on the information in that profile - you have to agree to this principle when you sign up and it is clearly spelled out when you join.  I am sorry to hear that some people didn't read the enrollment information and that they agreed to be bound by an honor code that they didn't read.  But to say that shared profiles isn't "perfectly clear" at the time of sign up just isn't accurate.

When another member asks to be on the Trusted List of a profile we manage, the standard message we get ("If you do not know and trust [Person] simply ignore this request or e-mail [Person] at email link to ask who they are and why they want access.") is one that's appropriate for a private profile for a person who is probably a close family member, but that doesn't make a lot of sense when the profile is the Open profile of a person who died very long ago. Unfortunately, a number of members interpret that message to mean that they should reject any and all Trusted List requests unless they know the requester well enough to trust them with the keys to their house...

Hi SJ,

My answer won't copy & paste so I'll type it out tomorrow. It's too much for a phone. I have my grandson so I'm not sure what time.
Hi SJ,

Sorry it took so long to get back with you. Life gets in the way sometimes. I'm so glad you wrote back and even more that you weren't upset. I've always admitted that typing isn't my best form of communication. I'm much better in person because it's hard to see my waving arms and hear my voice pitch over a screen.

I learned the hard way, at a much younger age, what can happen when you sign something without reading it first. I made sure I read the Honor Code, and in fact asked questions before I signed it.

Before I made a comment on your post I had read every single comment about the original post. In my opinion the original post had nothing to do with the basic tenant of the Honor Code concerning:

"We collaborate. When we share ancestors we work together on the same ancestor profiles."

The lady in the original post is a lot like me. It appears that she too likes to work on unsourced profiles that aren't being followed by their PM's. These aren't shared ancestors but rather strangers. I've felt like her. You work hard on a profile that barely has a birthday and you'd like to keep track of them to see if all your hard work gets deleted by an angry PM, who for the most part probably abandoned them when they realized it was just easier to let Ancestry.com hand them a bunch of hints, real or not. You ask the PM to be put on the Trust List only to be ignored. I get it!

So all that said my post was never talking about collaboration, open profiles or family sharing. It was about profile ownership. According to the Honor Code since they aren't related the PM didn't have to put the woman on the trusted list. Why give her a Trusted List then tell her how to use it or worse, that she can't?

Do I agree with this? Not necessarily. I think the woman who added the sources and worked on the profile should have access no matter what the PM, who didn't follow the source rule and hasn't touched the profile in 3 years, says.

It's not the shared profiles that I found unclear at signup but as I said, how I've read in G2 that WikiTree doesn't consider the profile as "owned" by a single pm.

If they truly believe this then they need to make it crystal clear. If WikiTree wants a true open tree where everyone can collaborate then they need to do away with the Trusted List and so many Privacy Controls.

I wanted my profile to be completely open but since I'm alive I'm not allowed. (How ironic. Alive with no choice.) If I can't set myself as 100% open then why even give me the option? I added some of my living family and set them at the least restrictive: private with public bio and tree. They came behind me and made their profile so private that I'm not sure why I created them to begin with. I haven't added any others because they'll do the same. Since I know their life story I don't need to see them, but if others can't see them then my time is better spent on the dead. I believe there should be two options. Open for the dead and least restrictive private for the living. Why have so many privacy controls on a site that wants everyone to be able to collaborate? Do we really need another secretive tree like Ancestry etal.?

Had I not read the rules I would have compared the 'single family tree, free and open to the world' with FamilySearch and moved on. It was the rules that kept me here.

Lastly I'd like to make sure you know that I didn't call anyone a bully. I said "getting a note from WikiTree after not responding to a request seems a little like bullying."

Please let me expand on this. I live in SC where the girl died because other children were kicking her after a week of bullying her. All of the schoolkids received a week of anti-bullying lessons which I made sure and talked to my grandkids about. The bottom line of one lesson was how getting someone else in trouble when they didn't do something you wanted was considered bullying. When I read the post, the way it "read" sounded similar to this lesson. Think about it lol. WikiTree admin is our collective principal.

I'm very glad you responded to my comment. I know this is long but I truly wanted you to understand where I was coming from. If I'm wrong in any way please, seriously, I want to know. You might get another long response but again....you can't see me.

All my best.
+8 votes
Thanks to Natalie and Ellen as I'll try both good ideas: using the Personal Tag and requesting to be on the TL.
by Janie Kimble G2G6 Mach 2 (27.6k points)

Related questions

+16 votes
10 answers
+6 votes
7 answers
406 views asked Jan 27, 2019 in WikiTree Help by Susan Smith G2G6 Pilot (650k points)
+9 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
2 answers
99 views asked Mar 8, 2019 in WikiTree Help by Susan Smith G2G6 Pilot (650k points)
+4 votes
0 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...