Censorship of dissenting opinions [closed]

Question

Very unfortunate that some folks feel it necessary to censor any opinion that does not agree with the majority: See previous flagged post:

After all the spirited conversations on profiles, formatting, and writing code, I thought it might be helpful to summarize the conversation especially for new members.

IT IS OKAY TO ENTER profiles that are not perfect. But, be aware that if you do not know how to format, use the wikicode to cite and reference sources (including inline sources), and create a fully validated, collated and cohesive narrative,  you will have to deal with a barrage of error suggestions and chastisement from other members of the tree. 

You can read some of the comments below that are copied verbatim from the G2G feed for clarity:

Wiki markup language is similar to html in its use of <tags> and if my ability to use it, regardless of how poor YOU feel it is, offends you, please refrain from denigrating those of us who want to make our profiles readable to genealogists and non-genealogists alike. Go ahead, slap your sources at the bottom of the profile, and watch as others slap more duplicate sources on your profiles because don't think you've got that reference in there. Of course, if your only desire is for your own personal use.... then I suggest you build your own database on your own laptop.

Adding your sources separate from the "fact", no matter how neatly done under the ==Sources == header, means that someone else coming along and adding their "facts" in the middle of what is already there, and their sources at the end of the existing sources (for neatness) means that the "facts" and sources do not align. We aren't supposed to be generating confusion, but clarity

Clarity facilitates validity. I have loads of examples of profiles, some even protected, with primary and secondary sources, where the validity of the profile (i.e. person / connections / family in question) is not clear. And still needs research. Attaching your source to your "fact" (inline) allows for no mis-interpretation.  Joe Blow was born date, place, parents.<ref>source</ref> Named references are essential to collaborative neat validatory collation.

Bad policy, lack of vision (having source-thons where leaders, data doctors and rangers replace actual data with a "source" without even any connection to 'facts' - instead of validation-thons), and it's own succes (the more valid, the more newbies it will attract, and the more de-validating data & text will be dumped) - that is the nemisis of WikiTree.

Now, if you are offended at what I do, using my knowledge of a very basic computer text formatting language, I'm sorry for you. Really isn't that why we're spending all this time on this website? 

If you have an issue with this, report it thru the problem with another member process. It will then be quickly and boldly dealt with. And in the meantime, do not take it personally when someone says you don't know what you are doing and your hard work is not valid because you don't have the coding skills to make it look professional

Comments

Part of the problem is the design of WikiTree.

When you start a profile, and enter the names and dates, you cannot add sources to the specific facts until you write a narrative, and add the sources as part of the narrative whether they are inline sources or a list of sources at the end of the narrative.

A more elegant design would have included a feature to add the sources to the facts, as they are entered. Then when the system generates the rudimentary bio and includes those facts, the sources could go with them as endnotes, and the sources list would be generated at the end of the narrative.

Also, the ability to insert an endnote for additional text would be wonderful (like a Word processor does), with the system automatically renumbering the endnotes, and putting them in the right order.

Now, I am not talking about using html code or Wiki language (if that is even a thing), but the software have the necessary tools/programming (click a button to add a source) built in so the user does not need to know any programming.

---

Hear! Hear!  Star for best reply

---

Lois,

Thank you!

George

Answer 1

Holly, please give it a little time.  I think that when a post is flagged twice, it is automatically hidden until someone from management has a chance to evaluate it.  I don't know why you got one flag, let alone two, but at this point, it's not permanent.

I find it remarkable that you also got a Wonderful WikiTreer today!

Comments

Holly, now I do think you're starting to cross a line (but I'm not going to flag you).  Why would it be a pity post?  Wasn't the WW done before you posted?  

WikiTree has over 600,000 members.  Maybe a few are hypocritical.  Wouldn't that be the case in any large group?  I've "met" a few jerks on WikiTree, but many, many more wonderful people.

Edit:  This post makes less sense now because one preceding it has been hidden.

---

Robin Lee posted a Wonderful Wikitreer question.  Knowing that most people miss the G2G post on such, I posted the {{Wonderful WikiTreer|g2g= to Holly's profile.  What I got in return was a (borderline) nasty email calling me a hypocrite handing out false praise, and telling Holly work like theirs was "crap" (NOT my terminology).

*I* was not the one posting the WW.  Robin Lee was.  I simply thought to alert someone to the thread.

All that said, I am now out of THIS discussion, too.

---

Well, thanks for letting me know it wasn't you. I must have read to notification wrong. Please accept that I am stupid and don't know what I am doing.

At any rate, WW posted after my comments and was therefore deleted. In addition to past comments, many comments in the thread were just as insulting. The best one was the comment that if one wants tree only for their own personal use, then they should make their own database on their home computer.

Since some folks like me can't do the wikitree formatting, coding, etc then our work should not be posted here where it can contaminate the perfect, professional wikitree? For God's sake get over yourselves.

Just because someone can't do it like you do does not mean their contributions are not valuable. I may be stupid but at least I have the good breeding not to put down others for things they cannot control.

---

Holly, I still think you're inordinately mad at a few people and failing to realize that they don't represent all of WikiTree.

Anyone who has worked on WikiTree for more than a day knows it isn't perfect and I've never heard (or read) anyone say it is, but lots of people are trying to make it better.

---

Well, all I can say is you are entitled to your opinion.

I am one person who is speaking up. There are a lot of folks that will QUIETLY leave wikitree as soon as they get hammered because they don't know how to format and code profiles.

This will eventually diminish wikitree until it becomes irrelevant.

---

Julie, I realize it's none of my business to mix in your conversation with Holly here and I am sure it is way out of place for me to think I can impute feelings and motives to her words, plus I am probably the worst person at being able to pick up hints/whatnot from others ... but I'm gonna do it anyhow because there are a few things going on here that I feel very strongly about.

My impression is that Holly is not "inordinately mad" at anyone.  I see her lashing out … and will grant that it may be more intense than some might think is proportionate to the issue … but I see it as an expression of hurt, not anger.  It started with some very nasty in fact, downright degrading - comments about a generic group of members who are not comfortable adding coding to use footnotes for source citations.  She sees herself as a member of this group, whose work - by the way - WikiTree policy is dedicated to supporting, encouraging, and valuing and, instead of just slinking off to lick her wounds and never come back here again, she is admirably coming forward to defend her right to exist here.  I don't know if you're aware that Holly has been a member almost since the start of WikiTree and has done a large body of very highly respected work here.

I fully agree that the situation has gotten way out of hand at this point, though, and I feel so awful that she has been so badly hurt by all this that she is probably so sensitized at this point that she has taken some signs of respect and value (Wonderful WikiTreer post by Robin and Melanie's attempt to call attention to it as a way of showing appreciation for Holly) as the opposite of their intent.

Now, if I can address Holly - you are the antithesis of stupid, as well as of an idiot and all the other bad things that you have "confessed to"!  Please, dear, take more pride in who you are and the credit you deserve for all your very substantial skills that leave me completely in awe.  You can just say a simple "I'm sorry for having misunderstood" to Melanie, instead of claiming to be stupid for having misunderstood at a time when you were extremely upset.  Please, PLEASE, PUH-LEEZ take the time to let it all out so that your pleasure in doing genealogy work, along with the positive feelings of recognition of your valuable contributions here can once again find the space to fill your heart and mind.  It is a reality that there will be some people who are not willing to accept that it's OK for us to all contribute the skills we have in different areas without being forced to learn expertise in all the areas.  It is also a reality that WikiTree isn't perfect and the system doesn't always do what you (or I - this is something that I have recognized for a few years now) think is right.  I think the strength of your reaction may be temporarily blinding you to all the good - the vast majority of members and the wonderful things about how WikiTree works. I hope you can put the good things on the other side of the scale that is tipped over with bad things and that you conclude that there is so much good that it banishes the bad to inconsequential status.

---

Gaile, when I engage in a public conversation on G2G, anyone can join in at any time and I would never say it's none of your business.  And no, I did not know anything about Holly before I read her comments.  I think you have said in more words what I was trying to say:  I hope she will recognize the good in the vast majority of members on WikiTree.

Answer 2

Although I have no understanding of wiki mark up coding and came away from my efforts to understand it as unenlightened as before I attempted to understand it I gather that some ill-conceived efforts were made to "improve" a profile or more than one? and that there might have been a badly managed attempt to Collaborate? and that one or more someones has scrambled the contents of various profiles attempting to do who knows what?

And does anyone at all give thought to what this will cost Holly to "roll back" to what she had in an effort to correct what others have done? I do.

Comments

No. Issue not with work on my profiles. Issue was about folks here on the tree implying that if one does not understand formatting, wikicode, online citations and such that they don't know what they are doing and their hard work is invalid crap.

---

Ah. And I can relate to that "you don't know what you are talking about" and "you don't understand" and other such comments, yes. It's their opinion.  And have we looked at the definition of "opinion"?  I have, and it is a great comfort to me in my doddering old age, filled as it is with ignorance and incapacity.  

 The definitions made, still make, all that unwarranted opinion so much easier to sweep aside. A sense of perspective is perhaps the greatest defense one can have. 

---

Wise advice. But who wants to contribute somewhere that degrades them and their work? That's why I only pop in about twice a year

Answer 3

Why are you attacking people?  Perhaps you are too inexperienced to know that posts are often flagged (1) by accident or (2) by someone thinking they are giving you a thumbs-up.  One of the most important aspects of Wikitree is collaboration--animosity doesn't support that most important goal.  If something upsets you, walk away until you can respond with civility.  It takes courage to be civil online to those with whom you disagree and/or ignore the jerks.

Comments

My point is not to attack. Folks will tell you that it is okay to post imperfect profiles. But the minute you do they will tell you that if you can't format and wikicode according the wikitree standards, then you "Are an amateur who doesn't know what you are doing" and your life's work is "invalid crap"

My point is to get the community and more than one admin to acknowledge the problem. Aside from being morally unacceptable it is also not conducive to wikitree's goals of free genealogy online and one world tree.

After pages and pages in the G2G feed, I can see that this is never going to happen. Everyone has a right to their opinions. I just hate to see a wonderful concept like wikitree fade off into oblivion because so many members think they are better, more professional than everyone else.

---

As I said: Ignore the jerks!  There is no reason to trouble your heart and mind with what would be hurtful statements from others.  If their self-worth comes from denigrating me, let them.  Do what you know to be good and true and loving!

Not everyone is comfortable with coding; others are.  If you make a mistake it is easy enough to correct.  If someone corrects you, don't take it personally; instead, ask how you should have done it and maybe you won't err again.

Recognize that wherever you are, in any community online or offline, there will be jerks and know-it-alls . . . balanced out by loving, supportive people.  It's not what other people do, but how you react to what they do that makes the difference.  You can think, "well, he's having a bad day," or be hurt.  You can only control what you do and how you react.  Please be at peace!

Answer 4

I have been reading through this thread and must say that I'm having a very hard time getting a handle on exactly what the issue is.  The headline says there has been censorship of dissenting opinions, but a lot of the discussion is about wiki coding and source-citing and formatting, which seems like an entirely different matter.  There has been a lot of G2G discussion (and complaining)  about members' preferences for citing sources, and all that has not been censored.  If somebody flagged a post about that subject, it is very likely that it's somebody who doesn't understand the flag, which is another problem.  The use of the flag isn't well explained, at least not where anyone could find it.

Just for my own edification, what exactly are the dissenting opinions being censored?

Comments

Dennis, see THIS to get it all in perspective.  Also, in this instance, the several flags on comments were clearly intentional.  I don't know what's there now, but some came and went, then others appeared … it was a very heated environment.

---

Dennis, the post above is a duplicate of another question that was flagged and hidden a few minutes earlier (the "censorship").

---

FWIW I did at least skim through the whole thread that Gaile linked to.  I didn't see any current flags, and don't know what may have once been there that's no longer there, but I didn't detect any sign of blatant censorship in either of these threads.  I see that the discussion did get personal a few times, and I understand that some might find that offensive.  If that's the motivation for flagging something, it's a little different from censorship (at least in my mind).  I'd be very concerned if we're really seeing censorship of dissenting opinions, because seeing all opinions on a subject is one of the great values of this forum.

---

I was not referring to the thread Gaile linked to.  There was another post that Holly made shortly before this one.  I commented on it, and still have the WikiTree e-mails notifying me that someone has commented on my comments, and the link goes to a page saying the question was flagged and hidden.  

I am neither defending nor criticizing anyone's actions.  Just trying to explain what happened, if not why.  I can't explain why Holly's first post was (and is still) hidden, yet when she pasted the same question in this thread, it was not.

---

Oh, OK, I guess I have missed the boat (again).  Probably won't be the last time!

Answer 5

Holly,

Many profiles I create do not meet the  "superior" expectations of WikiTree.   I too would receive attacks for not writing proper biographies  (actually, often not even writing a biography but providing a plethora of sources....)  I've never felt attacked for my deficiencies, perhaps only because I haven't drawn attention to these less than perfect profiles.  I regret that you have been attacked for imperfect biographies.... to me the first step is to create profiles with valid/sourced facts,  the final step being the perfect biography with in-line sources.  

Some people feel the need to have a perfect product,  others want to create the skeleton on a tree with DEFENDABLE, SOURCED facts....  Perhaps we can find a tolerance for each other's approach.

Those that choose to write the  "perfect" biographies for all their profiles shouldn't assume we don't know HOW,  it's just we're providing a tree skeleton and perhaps our plans are to come back later.

If everyone worked on a profile until it had a perfect biography,   WikiTree profiles would be reduced by about 99%   (just a wild number based on my profiles).....

Hope you hang in there with working on well sourced WikiTree profiles!

Comments

Peggy, I think your 99% estimate is probably pretty close to accurate. And some of those are mine. I do admit to being a bit of a perfectionist, but I have profiles on WikiTree at all stages of completion, but absolutely none are or ever will be complete or "perfect" and I'm okay with that. But I'll keep trying to make them better over time. I love WikiTree because I think it accommodates all folks at all levels of skill. I've learned so much! Many things I couldn't do before I've learned to do because of the great mentorship here. I've been here nearly a year and have experienced very little negativity directed at me or my work. Ironically, the little negativity I did receive was when I participated in trying to improve other people's profiles in some small way and they were quite offended, so that's kind of turned me off from participating the "data doctoring" type work done here. I've collaborated some with others and do enjoy that but mostly I just stay in my lane and quietly do my own thing.

---

Sometimes all we know about an ancestor or relative is names, dates and associated places. All that goes in the data fields. Putting that in again in the narrative is simply redundant.

If you look at any published genealogy, whether it is a book, a journal article, or an online posting. Some have lots of detail, some have the bare minimum.

If there is nothing to add to the names/dates/places, I think the list of sources is sufficient without a narrative.

---

Goodness gracious! If I had to have a complete and perfect profile before moving in to the next, I’d be managing about 50 right, and they still wouldn’t be perfect.

One way I’ll remember to come back to those needing bios is to categorise them under State Needs Biography.