What is the policy on adding unrelated links to comment boxes of shared ancestors?

Question

I know that the following question will be very much one of 'beauty lies in the eye of the beholder', but I have to ask it anyway. I removed this link https://docplayer.net/34045399-Beste-familielid-en-of-vriend.html
from this profile Courteniers-1 (my 8th great grandmother).

While I too many times add a link to sources or other sites on common ancestor profiles, I find it unseemly that someone (a datadoctor at that) should just post links in a spamming fashion whithout any commentary to explain the context. I understand that this new era of internet has boundless and endless possibilities of connecting content with links, but where and how do we draw the line?

Comments

I also added this comment on his homepage (in case he removes it): "Hi […], I removed your link on the profile of my 8th great grandmother [[Courteniers-1]]. While it is totally in order to add sources and links (within the bounds of our protocol), it seems a bit like spam to just add links in comment boxes that lead to personal websites, even if the documents are free. I asked this question in the G2G about it: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/772264/policy-adding-unrelated-links-comment-boxes-shared-ancestors"

Answer 1

I followed your link. For me this would be a form of SPAM.It has nothing to do with genealogy or  even best friends. It's an advertisement for something that has nothing to do with your 8 times ggrandmother.

I never have thought about it before but  the person who added this to the profile  should get a warning not to do it again. I think there is an official way in wikitree to report this to the right person so that would be my action.

Comments

My guess would be the Problems with Members process, if Phillip wants to pursue it.

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

However, I don't see where this person has posted this on any other profiles, so I don't know why this one. 

---

Indeed Nan, just this one without any explanation at all. He does have roots in this project and whenever he asks to be added to the trusted list of profiles I do try and organise that for him. But he did not (as far as I know) asked to be added here, and the surname mentioned in the link is as much connected as most of the other profiles in this project due to the nature of it being a colony and being a tight gene pool. Yet an explanation would have been polite.

---

The title is in Afrikaans and means "Dear family member and / or friend".

---

I know thanks Aaron. I speak Afrikaans. It was my mother language. That is not the point.

Answer 2

I think you may be overreacting. This wasn't an edit to a profile.

People are allowed to leave comments on any profile and no one should be deleting those comments unless there is a very good reason. There is no commercial aspect to the website. It is just a form to gather information about a particular group of connected families in South Africa. You know, sort of like a one name study on WikiTree. There isn't even any advertising on the page. Once you scroll past the form there are listings of individuals/families in the study. People often leave links to other sites dealing with an individual or family at another site.

I'm not sure why you point out the member's association with the data doctors project in this context as it has nothing to do with this member leaving a comment on a profile page. A message/comment on a profile page is not an alteration of the profile.

Comments

I'm not so sure Deb. I wanted an answer on protocol. If a data doctor does that, I have to be sure what the protocol is.

---

Why is being a data doctor important to whether the comment with the link was appropriate? It’s no more important than if the member was a sourcerer or an arborist or any other project or just a member with no current project associations. The profile wasn’t edited. The issue is simple. Was the comment with the link in some way against WikiTree policy and/or the Code of Honor? It was simply a link to a site related to the family of the individual. It wasn’t advertising. I just don’t see a problem with it but perhaps I’m misunderstanding.

---

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Swart-1901

I rest my case.

Answer 3

The url is a link to a PDF in Afrikaans, titled "Die du Vinage, Duvenage, Duvenhage, du Venage Famile in Sud-Afrika 1765 - 2003 [The du Vinage, Duvenage, Duvenhage, du Venage Family in South Africa 1765 - 2003]"

The relevant text is on page 18

Johann Hasse het 1751 as soldaat in diens van die Oos-Indiese Kompanjie met die skip "Spaanderswout" ind ie Kaap aangekom en in 1753 burger geword. Op 26-11-1752 is hy getroud met Anna Dorothea van den Berg, dogter van Jacobus van der Berg en Jacomina Courteniers.(Volgens die Trouboek 1713 tot 1756 in die Kaapse argief)Op 1-7-1753 is hul dogter, Elsabe Magdalena Hasse, gedoop. Sy is dus indie Kaap gebore en nie in Duitsland soos De Villiers en Colenbrander in "De Afkomst der Boeren" dit aangee nie.

This translates to 

Johann Hasse arrived in 1751 as a soldier in the service of the East India Company with the ship "Chipswood" in the Cape and became a citizen in 1753. On 26-11-1752 he married Anna Dorothea van den Berg, daughter of Jacobus van der Berg and Jacomina Courteniers (according to the Trouboek 1713 to 1756 in the Cape Archives) At 1-7-1753 their daughter, Elsabe Magdalena Hasse, [was] baptized. She was therefore born in the Cape and not in Germany such as De Villiers and Colenbrander [say] in "De Afkomst der Boeren".

Comments

So the name is mentioned in this source, as it is mentioned in dozens of sources. This source would be more appropriate as a link to the profile of Johann Hasse (which was probably the reason it was posted to his mother in law's profile as his own profile still has to be created). I would have posted it exactly as you have now, but then on the profile (in a comment) of the daughter in question: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Van_den_Berg-456 … this immediately creates context.

---

Okay. In your question you stated that the link was unrelated. I was answering that the link is related.

---

Now that the context is clear, the link becomes related.