Overzealous Arborists

Question

Hi, just a quick complaint - since the new policy of mergers being opened for any Honour Coded WikiTree genealogists (which I applaud - saves the tedious proces of having to disown / orphan profiles), I find that (especially American) arborists are like clockwork to merge when the person having suggested the merge should have first choice. Not wanting to be unthankful (on the contrary) I would like these overzealous arborists, well meaning as they may be, to realise that there is a certain context to specifically merging South African LN'sAB. Some conventions that only South African genealogists will understand such as that 'van de Caep' is the old Dutch version of 'van die Kaap' and generally implies that the person in question was a slave or was born in bondage. Many slaves had more than one partner and husbands. Many slaves who represent different persons have similar LNAB such as 'van Bengal' (from Bengal). As they were generally also used as concubines and traded as goods, it is important to keep the context in mind (see: http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/ ) Also the conventions regarding the prefixes - upper case or lower case - can be tricky - often I have to merge into a bigger number just to get the spelling of the LNAB right. Lately I find that every morning I expect to find mergers awaiting action by me already having been 'done' by someone completely unrelated to the South African context. Please give us first choice; they are our (the South Africans') ancestors after all. Thanks for all your attention and energy though; it is also appreciated.

Answer 1

I understand Philip. Duplicates are one of the biggest problems on WIkiTree. Arborist are tasked to knock those out. There really is no rule on who can merge the profile after it's approved. Unfortunately, people watch the approval list waiting for merges to pop up and then merge. WE have discussed allowing members to merge their own profiles if possible in the arborist group.

Part of the issue here is non arborists take on merging these approved merges without doing any checking. I wish  these 30 day default approvals were only allowed to be completed  by Arborists or the actual profile manager. Just because there is a 30 day default approval doesn't mean any of the profile managers looked at the profile to check for duplication.

Time and time again I see some new members or ones with no experience at all with  go on mergeing frenzy and will merge 20 profiles in 15 minutes. WHich tells me there was no real comparison done.

Until there are changes in merging policies I don't see your issue having any resoluion. There was a discussion before. Obviously, things are still this way.

I don't think people understand just how time consuming it is to go back and figure out what the correct info is after an incorrect merge. I spend more time figuring out how to correct than I do merging.

In my opinion I think there needs to be a little more control over merges. The manager should have the opportunity especially when they proposed it and the other manager just ignored it.

Not sure how we can stop anyone from doing these merges without some changes.

Maybe an email to the manager about upcoming default approval a few days before?

Comments

The system as it is now is working much better (quicker) than it was before. I would'nt want only the managers to eventually decide to or execute the merge; the person proposing the merge might have more insight as well (one might say at times a helicopter view) and could be a valuable asset as regards to the merging. I also find that many managers of profiles of duplicates simply do not care, in which case they are not really relevant as managers (30 days!). When I have the upportunity to merge a foreign profile (such as a Canadian or American one) and I see the person that has proposed the merge is the same one as one of the managers, I simply leave it. It is merely polite and being considerate (I would anyway be hesitant in working on foreign profiles as I know how contexts can differ). When I suggest mergers of profiles of which I am not a manager (mostly South African - a context that I understand; as well as some in the NNS-project that I am still part of), I understand my responsibility (Honour Code) in that I have to work from my innate (sic!?!) sense of temporary and collaborative proprietorship in a general context of fairness and respect.

Answer 2

Sorry Phillip,

 

I completed that merge and I apologize if there was a problem. As you know, when the names are different, the merge is proposed so that the correct LNAB is merged into. I recognized you as extremely reliable regarding last names and merged as proposed. If it did not turn out as you proposed, I have no idea what happened.  I do regret the inconvenience. 

 

Paula

Comments

Just so you know, I was working the backlog - not new merge approvals, in case it is relevant.

---

Thanks Paula, I appreciate your message and your good work and send you a personal WikiTree mail which I unfortunately could not copy / paste into this feed. Philip

---

I agree with everything you said, Phillip. I think the key here is allowing others to complete their own merges.  I think as we get to the end of the backlog, it is becoming a crucial point. We have been talking about this in the Arborist group, now we are closer to the end of that monumental backlog.

But for this situation, I failed to ofer to remedy the problem which I am happy to do. Thank you for your kind email.

Paula

---

I would also suggest dropping a note to the PM who prosposed the merge, letting them know that the merge can now be completed.  Just leaving it alone will often end with an overzealous NON-Arborist doing the merge.  This "anyone can merge after 30 days" thing is definitely a double-edged sword.

---

I examined it carefully. There was no actual problem with the merge - name was correct and everything was in the bio. I pasted both pre-merge bios on the buletin board and then after looking at the one of the upset person, I rewrote the bio (from leaving it as close as possible but clean - thinking they would want control) so that it looked more like his before the merge.  Of course I sent messages etc.

As I said, this merge was in the backlog and I did send out many emails yesterday to PM's that I knew would have completed their merges if they knew about them so it seems to me that we are near the end of the massive backlog clean up.  Has anyone checked?  It looks like it might be time for a new plan.

No one gets an email saying your profile is ready to merge.  We ask people to check the merges waiting on me but they get emails for everything else.  I think 80% of these problems would be solved if PMs knew when their merges were ready.

---

Thanks for your thoughtful concern Paula, no harm done in this case - (I'm also replying in answer to your personal mail to me).

@ Remus - The system works for me as it is now; as a WikiTree genealogist I also do some un-official arborist 'nudging' but I only concern myself with the actual merge proposals of those mergers of profiles of LN'sAB that I know (as a South African born and bred in SA for 22 years and living abroad for near another 30 years now) and think to know the context of. We all make mistakes; that is not the issue. The gest of my complaint was to ask for mindfulness as regards to merge proposals by arborists when proposing mergers of perhaps not so familiar foreign profiles and LN'sAB.

---

What you're doing is great.  My concern is with people jumping in to complete ANY auto-approved merge, without paying much attention to the profiles being merged, and leaving the aftermath for someone else to worry about, then moving on to the next merge... and the next, and the next, and...

This is why I say it's a double-edged sword.  I certainly wouldn't want to restrict what you're doing, but what about those who simply merge anything that can be merged?  I'm sure all those people are well-intentioned, but they don't realize how often they're just creating more problems.

 

---

Paula: I just checked on the backlog. The numbers are really quite amazing! We've accomplished so much in the last few months.

There are currently 6644 pending merges. (By the way, this is down almost 300 from just 3 days ago!)

Of those, I think the oldest 1448 involve at least one private profile, meaning they are not auto-approved, and have to be completed by me or another sysop, unless the PMs return to complete them, which is unlikely at this point.

There are 303 auto-approved pending merges that can be completed (or removed, rejected, etc., as needed) by anyone.

The remaining 4893 pending merges are a combination of merges proposed in the last month (so not yet auto-approved) and a few private ones from before that. Nearly all of them are from within the last month. Wow! Nearly 5000 merges proposed in a month! That's awesome.

---

That is great!! I suspected as much. Thanks for checking!!

---

Remus, i absolutely agree. B t w - how do you get your text that lovely blue colour?

---

It's on the menu of the box that pops up when you reply.  Lots of options there.  I like using a bit bigger font - old eyes, that or I need to get stronger reading glasses again.  While I'm increasing the font size, I throw in my favorite font and change the color.

---

Fred be careful with bigger fonts!

 

---

Fred is right. It is a double edged sword.  

Some just decide they want to start merging and haven't even glanced at  the merging help page or  merging video. People don't realize the destructive nature of incorrect merges.

Answer 3

If it doesn't tax the system too much, how about a five-day window where either one of the profile managers or the person who proposed the merge can unilaterally complete the merge, and THEN open it up to everybody?

Comments

I think this is a great idea!  The other addition that I think would help alleviate problems is sending email to those who proposed the merges (PMs or otherwise) saying the merge has been auto-approved and will be opened to all in five days if not completed.

---

If someone will write this out somewhere like under merges /help index, Mentors can leave a link and a message for new members.  Integrators can ask questions to bring it to everyone's attention. Once we as Arborists all agree it will he easy for us because we are used to agreeing and switching strategies according to need but we will have to educate non-arborist.

---

Good idea John. Having to send more messages to members is just one more step in the process that can be avoided by the 5 day window.

---

To alleviate us having to send more e-mails shouldn't the solution be a technical change if possible?

 Unfortunately I don't think most people will send a message about the auto approval and the five day window. Do we really want to add another step to merging by having to send an e-mail? How do we know if or when an e-mail was sent to the member? At least with a technical change the system could automatically generate the e-mail when the 30 day window arrives.

I really really think this needs to be a technical change

---

I agree, and that's almost exactly what I intended to say.

My thought, and John's as I understand it, is give the PM or other individual who proposed/approved the merge a chance to complete it first - then open it to everyone.

You can get an email telling you the auto-approval has gone through, go look at it at your first opportunity, and find it already merged by someone with no connection to the profiles that they've merged.

---

I really like the discussion I am seeing here.  The idea that those fantastic Tech Folks could set up something so that after an auto approval:

1) A PM  of the profiles (if one responded) has 7-10 days to complete the merge.

2) Next if not completed, an Arborist would have 7-10 days to work it.

3) Then any Wiki Genealogist would have access to ensure the merge is completed.

I think this would assist the spirit of everyone checking pending merges!  Should someone tag this discussion to "Wiki Tech" for feedback?

---

As a user of font options, even I have to say, "All bold is too much."  :-)

---

David,

I'd suggest a new thread tagged WikiTech with a title that indicates what is being proposed.

---

LOL,,   I didn't need my glasses to write it...   Just funning!

---

Eowyn,

Done! 

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/80492/feedback-please-on-auto-merge-authorization-proposal

---

Maybe all bold is too much but it sure sticks out from the tiny black font doesn't it? I used to use the samefont as you and someone told me to stop yelling at them. Lol!!!

It's a double edged too! Too small some can't read it and too big and people think you are yelling at them.

---

I know.  I do have a tough time with tiny fonts.  My once 20/20 vision is now... not so much.  I once was on a board discussing the finer points of English grammar, and had a poster go ballistic on me for using a different font, even though there, like here, it was provided as an option.

---

Michelle,

All CAPS are yelling aren't they?    Once I had a professor that demanded all submittals be Arial 14pt.  I guess that was due to software he scanned into for a plagurism check,  

---

Yes all Caps is yelling but I don't think I was talking about all caps. I was talking about a bigger font. Lol!

Some people get all uptight if you use a bigger font. I use bigger fonts when building websites as they look more pleasing to the eye and are easier for the general public to read.

---

All this is sounding rather like a "Tree House" discussion.  :-)