I'm so tired of having this conversation over and over and no new rule, suggestion or idea is ever forthcoming. It makes me absolutely crazy! A specific thing may be brought up and hashed out but nothing changes for the betterment of the tree.
First, a few days ago perusing my feed I clicked on a profile in my dad's name and ran into something I haven't actually seen before. Someone had, a few years ago, created a new profile with very little information.There were first and last names, maybe a spouse -maybe not, usually one child with very little information and no place names whatsoever. As bad as that is by itself, the profile was then summarily dropped (and for lack of any empathy on my part for the manager) it was left to rot! I kept clicking and found multiple profiles created by the same person with the same appalling lack of sourcing, information or concern.
Is there nothing to be done about the cavalier way in which new profiles are added to our tree without sufficient information, and then dropped like a lead balloon? Some way to distinguish us from FamilySearch where anyone who knows their grandmother's name can add away with no responsibility for the quality of the work?
Maybe if we added a rule that if you create a new profile, you must comeback to it with sources and a rudimentary biography XXX number of times over XXX number of weeks before being allowed to drop management of it or add anymore new profiles? Honestly, it breaks my heart that there is so little care taken, both for the individual profile but also for our tree.
Secondly (and this one -AD NAUESEUM!) I've gone 11 rounds with someone with a shared surname, (Phelps) who absolutely insists that blahblah'sancestrytree.com is a perfectly acceptable source. Even when I shared the latest Southern Pioneers newsletter describing in great detail the difference between an actual, attributable source and something that may have some useful information, eg. ancestry.com. but could not be considered a source on it's on merit. It got to a point where I posted this to his page when he asked me not to remove any more of his "sources"!
"I removed the Ancestry source because it is NOT a source! A link to an unsourced tree where all of the information has been taken from other trees, does not constitute a source! Please read the correct description of a source here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/934380/november-2019-newsletter-southern-pioneers-project"
Here is the response on my page:
"On sources, WT considers Ancestry etc. to be sources, even if they are not primary sources. Your link is a newsletter and uses definitions used by Genealogy research papers."
[Obviously, it's a newsletter and the definitions are for SOURCES that's the topic of the conversation. Why does the definition become a problem because it's identified with research papers? That just makes it good scholarship!]
"This is a good example why a linked Ancestry source is useful. After [sic] re-inserted it, I went to the link and found that I had either mis-typed [sic] the POD or the Ancestry source owner had changed it. OTherwise, [sic] It would have been harder to track down and I would not have been able to correct it."
I'm at my wits end. I realize I cannot slay all of the dragons by myself, and I'm more than a little bit loopy from post-op narcotics, but please, isn't there something to be done at the programming/coding level that would ameliorate this kind of nonsense? In the last couple of months, I've added {{unsourced}} to more profiles than I can count, and it doesn't make me happy. I hate seeing those banners on my profiles, I can't imagine anyone else especially likes them either. And besides, it certainly doesn't help our tree!
From the "programming" end of things, I would think adding an (*) as a source on profile creation (yes, I've seen this many times), ancestry.com or any other of the limited "supposed" sources I've seen, could add a timed flag that would not allow the PM to create new profiles without doing something on those they're already responsible for.
Could we make it mandatory that a new Wikitreer must demonstrate their knowledge of using RootSearch to go to FamilySearch, find the sources and add them appropriately? I'd never heard of FamilySearch before I started working on Wikitree, and in hindsight, I desperately wish someone had explained its' use to me. At that point, I'd been researching for over 10 years on Ancestry, and had no idea how badly sourced some of my profiles were. Truly, it makes me cringe to think about it, and I'm still "cleaning up" some of the junk I added.
Am I being unreasonable? Beating my chest standing on a soapbox, or any of those other obnoxious things people do when they're frustrated? I really and truly am flummoxed!
This reminds me a little of the Climate Change debate; putting your head in the sand or repeating something that's untrue or proven to be questionable, over and over again, does not change the facts of the science or the actual truth of the matter, even if it's something you don't want to believe in.