Is it good to put "lipstick on a pig"?

Question

We all know that WikiTree contains an unplesant number of GEDCOM-produced profiles that are full of garbage and weak in facts.  And we all know that something should be done with them.  This is a question about that "something."

In short, is it good to "put lipstick on a pig?"  Delete the computer code garbage that was meaningful only in the original computer.  Add headings and subheadings.  Turn the computer's "notes" into WikiTree's complete sentences.  Put the material that's left in chronological order.  Even source it with "ancestry" or "geni" to show where it came from.

When you've done your cosmetic best, it's still a pig, but now it has lipstick.

My question is, have you done anybody a favor?

I think we all agree these profiles are an embarrassment to WikiTree.  But do we agree on what the embarrassment consists of?  Is the embarrassment primarily about that bad appearance or about the lack of research?

I think you could make the case that a junk profile that has been prettied up is WORSE for WikiTree than one that hasn't, because once it's prettied up, it now gives the appearance of something that should be taken seriously -- when in fact it's not.  

This thought is probably controversial, and I'd be interested in hearing those who think we should, versus should not, pretty up a profile when we don't have the time, inclination, or knowledge to actually research it.

Is it good to put lipstick on a pig?

---

Post-script:  Everyone should be aware that we do have a Help page on GEDCOM-created Biographies which tells us HOW to put lipstick on the pig -- what kinds of garbage to automatically delete, and what kinds of materials that look like garbage need to be reformatted and retained.  

This reminds us that there are indeed profiles generated by GEDCOMS that contain a lot of good material but look absolutely junky.  These are profiles I am not calling "pigs" -- I am thinking of profiles which contain mostly ONLY garbage, and once cleaned up have little substance. 

Comments

In consideration of the abilities and so forth of the approximately 2,500 PM who are actually active at WT currently, and who are stretched to their limits now, your argument "dump the pigs" is valid.

---

Well, I actually wasn't arguing "dump the pigs."  WikiTree policy, which I agree with, is that we don't delete profiles. So I say they need to be researched and edited and left alone until we can actually do it!

---

I think they should be "prettied" up, because we might know what is junk (if I can find the help file on it) and what might have a nugget of real info.

If there is no evidence, it should be tagged as {{Unsourced|add_location}}.

---

They Are Talking About Those Wild Boar Pigs In The Appalachian and Ozark Mountains AGAIN !

Yes I SEE .. Those Razorbacks came from Spanish Genealogy ! ..  Seriously .. Great Conversation Jack Day .. Keen substance..

Tres Bien ..

Answer 1

It's great your brought this up Jack!

I take ownership when these profiles are my direct line ancestors..... while I try not to delete all the garage,  it gets moved into something like  "Acknowledged" .  I add sources and put unsourced information in  "Research Notes"...... I'm willing to take the time to defend this approach on this  "limited" scale of direct line ancestors.   It's certainly more time consuming than just inputting a profile from scratch, with real sources.  But no one has really challenged my edits so far.

What's discouraging,  is people continue to upload unsourced stuff,  then these profiles need to be merged.... it's not just old profiles.   I know WikiTree members keep improving the GEDCOM process,  perhaps this has been solved now.

Answer 2

It was a pleasure to read your question. I think it is a shame not to love and care for each profile.  Often I try to put lipstick on such profiles however I do endeavour to find sources and to write a half decent biography, this is usually when I am doing a data doctors or other comp.

Thankyou for posing the question and I too look forward to read others answers

Answer 3

If I am understanding you correctly, you are asking if we should consolidate and clean up a GEDCOM-Created Biography, even if no research is being done on (or information added to) that profile right now?

From my perspective, Yes.

When members (especially newer members or prospective new members) land on one of these GEDCOM-Created Biographies, I can only imagine that their first thought is. It is probably something like "What the heck is this?" right before they close the profile and move on. If the profile is rid of the GEDCOM garbage, and existing information placed into a logical order, it makes it much easier to read and understand. It also makes it much more likely that someone will stop by the profile, understand what is being presented, and start to work on researching and sourcing that profile.

Comments

Steve, thanks for the link to the Help page, which goes well putting lipstick on the pig to showing how to remove its warts and clip its toenails!  Of course, my point is that without any research, it's still a pig.  I'm thinking primarily of the essentially empty profiles and not of the ones that contain real meat PLUS garbage!

But you raise a key point, which I hope anecdotes will help us answer -- does putting lipstick on the pig make it more or less likely that someone else will actually do the research?  As a research-addict, I'd say that if the answer is yes, then the lipstick is a good thing, and if the answer is no, then the lipstick is a bad thing..

---

Even with research, it can still be a "pig". Wrong sources, conflated information... It is a never-ending cycle. Yes, it may seem like a fruitless effort, but cleaning these up to where they are presentable (whatever form that may be in) is how we start to make progress, draw in new members, attract the bio builders and sourcerers, etc.

The hard truth is that often what we want, and what we actually get, are two very separate things. That is "the nature of the beast" so to speak. I have gone through and cleaned up the GEDCOM junk from profiles, even though I knew I would never personally research that profile. It fell outside my range of expertise (an area and timeframe I am not sufficient at working in) but I hoped that by cleaning the profile up, someone else with that right motivation and experience would stop along and help the profile since I had consolidated the info and put it in a logical format that was easier to read.

So basically we have two options:

1. Clean them up (even have they have little substance) and wait for that right person to find it and help the profile; or
2. Leave it an unintelligible mess, hoping against hope that someone will one day come by and turn that pig into a prince or princess.

#1 doesn't hurt anything, only takes a few minutes, and can only help us in the long run. I wouldn't discourage that.

---

I try to make those pigs as pretty as I can - and have started using Maintenance Categories as much as possible. I agree with other comments that seeing an uncleaned Gedcom (and heaven help if it is a merge of two Gedcom adds) would be enough to make me go somewhere else if I was a new user. But I hope that the fact it is readable and has Categories that give hints as to what is missing, hopefully some one will come along and add to it in the future.

Answer 4

Many WikiTreers are put off when confronted with lots of GEDCOM junk and think: What should I keep? What can I delete? and end up shying away and doing nothing.

At least if the pig has lipstick, they are more likely to think positive thoughts and be attracted to, then interested in adding to the profile.

Comments

Good point, Ros. I am put off by GEDCOM-created profiles in their raw state. I have cleaned some, added sources, and otherwise improved them. It's not easy to go through the entire process and it does take time. Perhaps those who are more adept at "putting lipstick on the pig" are performing a good service, as long as they add the "unsourced" template so others who are more adept at sourcing can them come in to do that step of the process. Then, perhaps, yet another person who is good at writing bios can do that step. Each and all have made valuable contributions.

Answer 5

It is good to put lipstick on the pig, because that helps others to see the info about the profile. BUT, it should not stop there...surely if one can take the time to format for readability they can also find and add some sources and, while there, add or refine dates and locations based on those sources. That would go a long way to eliminating duplicate profiles, finding connections, and improving the health of the tree.

Comments

Once the garbage has been removed, new (RootsSource) research may illuminate the true facts.

---

Or, to put it metaphorically, it helps to wash the mud off a beast so you can tell whether or not it's a pig.

---

@Tom, exactly! One trick I use is to look at FindAGrave to get better date ranges to use in RootsSearch to find records.

---

There's another metaphor that comes to mind:

You should never try to teach a pig to sing - it frustrates you and annoys the pig.

---

Chase, I wish this was an answer, I'd upvote and deject it as best:

"it helps to wash the mud off a beast so you can tell whether or not it's a pig."

Answer 6

I also get a bit overwhelmed by the number of profiles that are unsourced and include only names (no dates or places).  And it is true that they are still being added in spite of efforts to stop it from happening.  

My attitude is that no matter how poor the profile there are no "junk" profiles - just profiles in need of further research and evaluation.  Some may indeed be duplicates or connected incorrectly to relatives, but I wouldn't want to see us just dispose of them because of their current condition.  I am in the process of adding information to my family line that have been here for a long time with little information.  My hope is that over time new members doing the same will flesh out our tree with sourced information in well written biographies.  What we are doing will always be a work in progress.

I will continue to "put lipstick on a pig" as I come across them in my "suggestions" list and try to add a source or two while realizing that much more needs to be done.  The majority of my time is writing sourced bios for family members.  I don't think ancestors need to be historically "notable" to deserve being remembered for their trials, tribulations and contributions to their family line.

Answer 7

To me, it depends. I think there are junk profiles -- where the profile is so messed up and conflicted from multiple errors in copying, accidentally attaching wrong people in wrong places, and even just plain bad assumptions while researching that it is hard to view as representing an actual individual.

If I can find evidence that the person existed at all, I don’t mind adding the lipstick. For instance, if the profile Abigail Jones was clearly created as a mother for John Smith, and that John Smith is documented somewhere, then regardless of whether his mother was an Abigail or a Jones, she existed.  The bio can be sufficiently weakened to say everything lower down on the profile is dubious, at best.

But in the back of my mind, I have been trying to figure out what to do with the following three profiles:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Wallis-661

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Wells-5687

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Welles-94

I guess at least one was supposed to be the father of 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Welles-29

But that profile already has a father, and it’s not Thomas. Is there some other Thomas producing this data?  

My interest was drawn by the wife Abigail Thurber attached to the first profile I linked.  But I don’t know who that Thomas was supposed to be, and I think Abigail is just a non-person.  Not “uncertain existence”, because to me that connotes that there was at least a mythical person in oral history or something but who may have been fabricated into the story.  I think Abigail Thurber was more likely just the result of probably several mistakes as described above. IMO it would be easier just to delete the profile.  I think lipstick in this example would be harmful, for the reason you state.

Answer 8

Writing a nice bio on a profile with no good sources, I can see as putting lipstick on a pig. But getting rid of the random GEDCOM cruft and if needed adding an Unsourced template? That's just washing Wilbur so when Charlotte comes by she'll actually recognize him...okay, maybe I've stretched this pig metaphor too far.

Comments

Actually I love the extended metaphor.  After all, we use metaphors to try to bring some clarity.  So, yes, washing Wilbur the pig so Charlotte will actually recognize him sounds like a very good thing to do.  

(But of course if we put lipstick on him she might mistake him for a sow....)

Answer 9

If I'm going to work on a profile that came from a GEDCOM, then I'm going to source it until it clanks when it walks.

Answer 10

My general non-helpful response is to leave it better than you found it and remember that this is a wiki.  In general, it will get better over time if the profile is of interest to active participants.  

My other non helpful questions are what "should" the profile look like? and what can you do to push it in that direction?

Answer 11

It might be good to have a way of recording the bad information from Ancestry or Family Search or other source. It would keep people from putting it back after it has been fixed. Examples would be this John Smith may be confused with that John Smith. The parents are x and y not a and b. Stating where the errors are, Ancestry....Maybe even a template? Error:parents:Ancestry.

Comments

That is what Research Notes are for.

---

Errors should definitely be tracked, and Research Notes is the place to do it for facts and links.  "The George Smith Family Tree on Ancestry.com [link] shows a birth year of 1833.  This is  not the birth year for Samuel A. Jones, but rather for his son Samuel P. Jones."

I'm not sure a template would be useful, because while there is only one truth, there are an infinite ways to create errors, and it's hard to think of a useful template that could cover them all!

When the existence of the entire person is in question, it should be noted in Research Notes and the template {{Uncertain Existgence}} added.  After discussion on G2G and confirmation that nobody think the person existed, the person can be added to the Disproven Existence Project (of which I'm a Project Coordinator).  I agree totally that errors have to be identified and tracked in order to discourage  them from being re-created.  (I was going to say "prevent", but that's impossible;  "discourage" is probably the best we can do!)

Answer 12

I don't use lipstick myself.    I use a hose to wash the pig down, particularly when he is the subject of multiple uncleaned merges.  Then I find a dress that will fit the pig (ie, unsourced template or adding bio data with sources)

Answer 13

This place is indeed a pig sty with corridors that lead to palaces. With 20 million profiles and 2500 regular contributors that's about 8000 each to care for. We need at least another 2500 regulars to make it just possible to clear the place up. It took 500,000 contributors to find those 2500! It surely follows that there will always be more mess than good order. Just have to accept it. The place will be more welcoming if the place is clean so at least scrub the pig when we find him.