Acceptable behaviour [closed]

Question

I am not in the Data Doctor program but I was told that it was still acceptable to add an unsourced tag to a profile if it is deemed unsourced. There is a lady who was adding multiple new profiles with just VIC BDM as the source. (After a discussion on one of the Facebook WT groups she started adding a little more info but still refuses to add registration details). At the end of last month I found about 60 more of her profiles not sourced so I added the unsourced tag. She sent me a private message and ordered me not to touch any of "her" or anyone else's profiles and she removed the unsourced tag without adding any further sourcing. I am loathed to report her as she is a prolific but she is just creating more work for those of us who want to help improve profiles.

I guess my question is
Is it acceptable to remove a tag without doing the work?

Advice please

Comments

---

If the referenced profiles have ANY indication where the information was obtained, then by WikiTree's Sources guidelines, it is sourced and the unsourced template should not be used.

Until a proposal to change that guideline is made, discussed, and accepted, she is within WikiTree sourcing guidelines.

That her source citation is insufficiently or vaguely stated is a totally different issue and does not merit adding the unsourced template. Again, until a proposal to change or add higher standards for citing our sources is made, discussed, and accepted, she is within WikiTree guidelines.

I am not aware of any "poorly cited" templates, and I don't believe we should have one since its usage could be viewed as unfriendly and discourteous.

---

These are my interpretations and opinions of our general sourcing/citing guidelines. If any of my fellow WikiTreers knows of any additional general sourcing/citing guidelines that I may have missed, please post the related links.

---

---

The best we can do is to add the best sources we can and give as much detail as possible.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:How_to_Get_Started_with_Genealogy#Source.2C_Source.2C_Source

It's critically important to record where information comes from.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources#Examples

Fundamentally, a good source citation enables others to:

1. judge the accuracy of the information found on the profile, and
2. independently verify the information by finding the source themselves.

Another thing to keep in mind is the totality of the Honor Code.  Honor Code II: We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes.

ac·cu·ra·cy

  (ăk′yər-ə-sē)

n.

1. Conformity to fact.

2. Precision; exactness.

3. The ability of a measurement to match the actual value of the quantity being measured.

If someone is at Family Search and a full citation is provided that includes a URL and instead they just write "Family Search" as their source, is that accurate?

A little work to add some detail now will save others countless hours over the years as they look at the profiles and sources you create.  And you may thank yourself too if you come back and find that your source has all of the detail you need to further expand the biography.

---

One important point that the Honor Code has in spirit without mentioning is THOUGHTFULNESS:

If you're looking at a website, instead of a vague minimal source, take an extra moment to cut and paste the link. This will save more time to those who follow then you spent adding it.

For example:

When creating profiles from Family Search profiles, I will add "Sources Page on Family Search".

---

This seems to be a very common conflict here on WikiTree.  There should be a way to tag a profile for improved sourcing that doesn't create conflict.  

Personally, I feel that if we can be flexible about what sourcing means, we can also be flexible about what the Unsourced tag means as well...but not everyone thinks that way.

However, if you're using the Unsourced Template, and not just the category...the purpose of the box is to warn readers that the information may not be reliable, and is essentially in violation of Wikitree standards/honor code....so on that end, I can see an objection to it being added if one believes it meets at least the minimum standards.

Lindy brought up Maintenance Categories as an option. I don't see one that seems appropriate.  "More Records Needed" I guess is the best, but I would say this is something like "More Sourcing Detail Needed." I'm sure someone could come up with something better.

I'm not crazy about adding more categories, but I think its unrealistic for this conflict to be resolved through better understanding of definitions. If WikiTree is going to accept a fairly low standard for sourcing, there needs to be a way to tag things for improvement.

---

---

I would have highlighted or stressed record, in addition to where, for the first style guideline you referenced, SJ.

And while the second style guideline you reference does state the text you quoted, nowhere does it state that this is a required minimum standard.

The 2 referenced guidelines give us examples and ideals toward which to strive, but don't mandate that we actually strive. That choice is left to each of use.

Just as you have done, I referenced WikiTree guidelines, which, in my opinion, define the minimum level of acceptable behavior for citing our sources. Whether I agree with simply meeting the minimum standard or in striving for ideal citations is, to me, irrelevant to the argument as it is an individual judgment call.

---

As long as my or my fellow WikiTreers' citations meet our minimum guidelines standard, those citations are, by our style guidelines, acceptable, at least until we replace them with different standards. And as those citations are acceptable by our guidelines, so, too, is any related profile sourced, by WikiTree guidelines.

Each of our fellow WikiTreers is free to work to his/her own standards; however, he/she (if an Honor Code signer) is not free to criticize negatively his/her fellow WikiTreers who choose not to work beyond the minimum standards allowable by our guidelines.

---

...as always, some of my opinions and interpretations; feel free to disagree...

---

---

There is always going to be this problem. I think it also depends on what goes in the index.

If the index for a baptism gives a full date and a fullish location (church or village etc with a country as a minimum then a brief 'parish record' in the source is probably enough. What else do you need to write.

But I must admit abbreviated in the source so you have no idea of the location would seem to be damn right parochial and lazy. You might be able to guess if you are of English roots that VIC stands for Victoria. For some unknown reason there seems to be a lot if Victorias around the globe. However if the index gives a clue that it's near the falls in Africa I guess that's enough to find it ;-(

It does seem a little bloody minded to insist on carrying on if it isn't possible to locate the profile but also a little heavy handed to add unsourced if the index provides the information.

---

And while the second style guideline you reference does state the text you quoted, nowhere does it state that this is a required minimum standard.

Agreed Lindy.  And my first argument is rendered moot based on Jamie's post way down at the bottom of this page:

The official standard is <https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources> "A source is the identification of where you obtained information."

And the documentation for the Unsourced template <https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Unsourced> "It should be placed on any profile that has no sources. [...] It should be removed when any sources are added, even if other facts still need citations."

Answer 1

Hi Amanda, great question.

At the top right off your screen you'll see "Help."  If you click on it you'll see "Problems w/Members."  I recommend that you click on that page and follow the instructions.  You will probably see that you may email the other person and let them know about the sourcing requirements.  You may also see that if the other person responds in disagreement that it may be time for a 3rd party to give an opinion and you'll be directed to file a Mentor Intervention Request.

Best thing to do is go to the problems with members page and follow the instructions there.

Comments

I agree that Amanda should follow our Problems with Members procedures regarding the other member's apparent non-collaborative communications, as well as her apparent possessive attitude toward the profiles she manages.

Answer 2

Sadly, Amanda, as I understand it, any source at all satisfies the WikiTree requirement for a source.  There has been ongoing G2G discussion about the subject.  I'll try to find some and post the links.

P.S.  Yes, it is OK to add Unsourced labels to profiles you don't manage.  I do it all the time.

Here is one discussion (very long): https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/947165/agree-that-profiles-sourced-findagrave-links-problematic?show=947546#c947546

Still looking for others...

Now here is the most definitive recent  discussion I know of:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/946368/same-sorry-situation-with-sources?show=946580#c946580

P.S.  Please see my second answer below.

Comments

G2G is a collection of user opinions. The Help pages are more canonical: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources

---

Julie, this may be one of the links you were looking for:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/644109/need-a-definitive-answer-on-what-is-unsourced?show=644557#c644557

Answer 3

What does VIC BDM mean. Never heard of it.

For me a source is a reference to a specific location for the information being used. That is my understanding of a source from when I was in collage and did writing classes about 5 years ago. Anything else is NOT a source.

Comments

quote> What does VIC BDM

My guess is VIC is the abbreviation of a place (maybe Victoria ?).

And BDM is short for birth, death, marriage.

---

I think Victoria, Australia Birth Death Marriage

---

WikiTree has set the bar much lower, Chris; basically at ground level - or even below!

Perhaps that is necessary so we can do One-Size-Fits-All collaboration.

---

Here is the link, so now we can all collaborate on those poorly cited profiles:

https://www.bdm.vic.gov.au/

Well, once we find them, we can help!!

---

Ah, yes, Lindy, this is the 'be everything to everyone' syndrome ... the bar is low, indeed, when this practice prevails

An acceptable source IN MY OPINION would be something like this    

 "United States Census, 1920," database with images, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MCMP-PJS : accessed 5 December 2019), John C Howell in household of John F Howell, Justice Precinct 1, Archer, Texas, United States; citing ED 1, sheet 2B, line 59, family 34, NARA microfilm publication T625 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1992), roll 1773; FHL microfilm 1,821,773.

EDITED ....  BLUSH BLUSH -- ACTUALLY I should not even be in this discussion, I settled "my position" insofar as a "proper source / citation" during one of the previous hoo-hahs about sources and etc 

AS FOR COLLABORATION, which is to involve Communication (an exchange of ideas) some are open to it and some are not open to it..  Same situation as some dogs WILL bite the hand that tries to feed them. 

AND IN any case I gather from the stats roused up by someone else, there's some pretty good odds that those who are shortchanging future readers and researchers on sources will likely be inactive by their year's anniversary ... 

AND then I recall the lament over the volume of orphans and junky gedcom and wonder why any effort is expended on profiles that have a PM (apparently active) when all those orphans and junky gedcoms need sourcing too -- CONFLICT is avoidable by avoiding any profile that has a PM who has been active in the last 18 months 

AND LASTLY this same discussion (basically) keeps popping up -- this is the 3rd? time I think I've seen it since I signed on May 2018 ,,, might be the 4th .... same words thrown out almost .... seems to indicate "everyone" is now entrenched in their respective opinion (position) 

---

And then there is too vague. I ran across a profile last week that had only "Internet" as the source. It has more now.

---

Susan, not all orphans are unsourced, there are many good orphaned profiles that have been created by project members to very high standards and I resent the implication that just because it's orphaned, it must be junk.

---

A good source the reader enough information to also find the source assuming that they have access (paywall, copy of the book/journal, etc.).

---

Well, pt 1, Gillian, I know not all orphans are unsourced. EVERYONE knows that. But, there are orphans which ARE unsourced.  And what is the point of your saying this? Some orphans are sourced, some are not, yes? Yes. 

pt 2. I did NOT say "just because it's orphaned, it must be junk." read it again, Gillian. I said "all those orphans and junky gedcoms need sourcing too" 

PS// And probably I COULD add I resent being misquoted, yes? 

---

(replying to Susan's comment that is immediately below my previous comments for this answer)

In my opinion, "acceptable source" is a judgment call made by each of us. And based on this and other similar discussions on this topic, we seem to expect the other person to change his/her judgment to match our own.

Our WikiTree low-bar definition is meant to remove personal judgment from the equation and simplify the question of sourced or unsourced.

I use FamilySearch.org's convenient copy/paste citations on virtually all the profiles I edit. And my personal judgment is ,"yes, a proper citation is always preferable to a vague reference to one's data source."

(replying to all my fellow WikiTreers and for all posts regarding this topic)

But I allow my fellow WikiTreers to make their own judgment calls for their own work; I will collaborate and communicate when asked, when dealing with an open profile, or when improvement is clearly needed.

However, I try not to judge my fellow WikiTreers or force my views upon them.

I will state my opinions when asked or when I feel I can add to the discussion; and I always try to support my answers and comments with WikiTree style guidelines.

...from the collective body of Lindy's opinions - enjoy!!...

---

Susan, I don't recall quoting, let alone mis-quoting anybody.

implication

/ɪmplɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun: implication; plural noun: implications

1.

the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.

Answer 4

Sometimes people, esp. those new to genealogy, history, research or writing term papers, don't know what a good source citation should look like.  My preference is to add a real source or two to one profile, so the individual knows what is expected.

Comments

Excellent advise - thank you, Kathy. Have done this a few times, while merging profiles - will make a point to do so more often.

---

I have also done this.  Some WikiTreers respond well. Others ignore the suggestions, delete comments, and go on their merry way disregarding all attempts to show  what a citation to a source should look like.

Answer 5

Hi Amanda ... I see nothing wrong with adding {{unsourced}} to these profiles. Yes, there is text in the sources section, but VIC BDM means very little to most people. I suppose technically they are not unsourced, but certainly they're under sourced. Adding the {{unsourced}} tag is the best way to highlight that sources are needed.

Comments

Actually, we have Maintenance Categories to let our fellow WikiTreers know that a sourced profile needs citation and/or other improvements.

Unfortunately, easily finding and/or understanding these available tools so we can efficiently collaborate with our fellow WikiTreers seems to be too difficult a task unless one puts in serious, hardcore effort.

Answer 6

The sticking point is the definition -- I think since it is laissez faire when it comes to citing a source, the plague of poorly presented sources will prevail.  Pick out your own higher standard of citing sources and providing their address (URL) -- and close your eyes to the lowly and lowest standards. Pretend they do not exist.

Comments

Or collaborate and help improve those profiles that don't meet YOUR higher standard (and be prepared to remain calm when hit by the occasional flak).

And help educate those who appear to need help raising their standards (and be prepared to remain calm when hit by the occasional flak).

And if one REALLY wants to improve the situation, one can go "above and beyond" and propose a rule change.

...my opinions, of course...

---

Well, Lindy, collaboration and attempted education is the ANTI-part of that laissez faire we will practice -- are practicing -- of allowing matters to take their own course, without (our) interference ... the odds are pretty good that they will be "drop-outs" anyway becoming inactive in less than a year from signing up ... and we know there are zillions of orphaned profiles that need sourcing along with any number of other remedies applied ... we are better served as a community if more of our efforts are directed at these orphans or that messy leftover gedcom junk field ...

 WT has a laissez faire approach to a number of matters in its effort to be all things to everyone.  WT is expecting 2500 - 3000 or so active members to herd 22,000,000 profiles -- personally I think that is an outstanding Definition of Optimism 

---

Lindy, I have tried that many times and some people refuse to admit that their citation of sources is woefully inadequate.  Usually they are after numbers,  although sometimes they are using WikiTree simply as the repository of their own personal family tree. They do not work with the WikiTree community as a whole. I have given up on them until a higher standard of citation is modelled and expected on WikiTree in Styles and Standards. Now I ignore them and just work with like-minded people.

---

(replying to comments by both Susan and Edie - but for all us WikiTreers, of course)

My point is that we have no right to complain when the work is within WikiTree guidelines.

And if the work isn't within WikiTree guidelines, we can use the Problems with Members procedures to try to bring the work within guideline compliance.

Those who choose a laissez-faire approach shouldn't expect anything to change. Those who choose to act shouldn't expect a successful outcome every time, but each success should be seen as another step forward.

Answer 7

Amanda, I am writing a second answer instead of amending my first because I think that sometimes edited answers do not get noticed.

I have re-thought my original answer.  I still agree that inadequate sources are disappointing, as I said before. As I also said, they are not prohibited by WikiTree policy, and indeed, I may have done something similar myself while adding profiles, even recently (always intending to go back and improve them later).

However, whether or not the very limited source is disappointing, it does seem to me that adding an Unsourced label to 60 profiles a person created is excessive.  Whether or not we are supposed to feel possessive about profiles we create on WikiTree, it is only natural to feel some sense of authorship.  I commend you for asking the question in G2G.  Now I hope you will back off, and I also hope the lady you mention will in time improve her sources.

Since I have become a Ranger, I have seen several people do something similar.  One option is to recommend mentor intervention (as SJ Baty more or less suggested), in which case a WikiTree Mentor will contact the person and encourage her to do better sourcing.

Comments

Stephen, I am a woman and I did not see it that way.  I wonder if these days people look too hard for sexism and see it where it doesn't exist.

I don't get how you can say it's childish for people to flag your comments.  Isn't that what you did to JN?

---

Julie,  I give up.  If you don't see it as discourteous, that's fine.  I, and others, did.  The person who reviewed it agreed.  What else can I say?  Courtesy is the backbone of WikiTree.

---

FYI: I have restored the hidden post that was the source of consternation earlier.

---

I was the second flag because I found the response of JN's to be rude and confrontational, not respectful and courteous. JN can say what he likes,  but like Stephen I felt that it was inappropriate to respond to Melanie"s comment in that way. I didn't think she needed to be accosted by his words. I am also a sourcerer and I found JN's post to be belittling and not worth posting. Melanie, expressed an opinion. It did not need sources. JN's reply was simply an attack.

I think much of this post is caused by JN's HOLLERING and discourteius wording.  It is hard to hear his MESSAGE when he is so confrontational!! I am adding the emphases simply to demonstrate impact on the reader. If he would go back, take out the unnecessary headings and speak with courtesy in his original post, we might be able to have a civil conversation 

---

Edie, I'm surprised you would say that you found JN's post "not worth posting," as if that were a reason to remove someone else's words.  I agree with you basic point about the hollering, etc.  JN has stubbornly insisted that he sees nothing wrong with bold type, and has not budged even though so many of us clearly see it differently.  I think somewhere he mentioned that if he really wanted emphasis, he would use all caps, yet he does have the word "YOU" in caps in his very first sentence, which seems particularly hostile.  But as I've said, I believe in free speech.

If some posts are not worth posting, maybe this one is too.  Maybe the entire thread is.  We are just engaged in one more of the endless debates about quality vs. quantity, which seems to have been decided by management in favor of quantity, and as another current thread illustrates, people are still uploading unsourced gedcoms, and those of us who hope to improve the overall quality of WikiTree profiles can never catch up.

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/952256/unsourced-profile-question

---

If we wanted quantity over quality, we would allow mass imports of databases and gedcoms, instead of requiring each profile to be added one-by-one.

The attitude that everything has to be perfect from the start chases new members away. The whole idea of a wiki is that people add what they can, and each edit improves the data.

If you see a member isn’t sourcing or you think they aren’t following the honor code, instead of contacting them to tell them their contributions aren’t good enough or complaining about it on G2G, go through the Problems with Members process.

---

Julie, I didn't think it was worth posting because of the discourteous, antagonistic, confrontational nature of the reply -- demanding that Melanie add sources with a condescending tone toward "Ms. Paul". The last time I checked, the Honor Code requires us to be courteous. His comment was anything but courteous. If you read my comment below th at you will see that I suggested that it was time to take a break.

---

Actually Jamie, we're told to try to address it with the member as part of the problems with members process.

---

What if I called her "Ms. Paul"?  What if I called him "Mr. Murphy"?  Is that really discourteous?

---

Yes, it was. He added nothing to the conversation. He was being confrontational. I did not think Melanie deserved to be assaulted by his confrontational tone. We can agree to disagree, I guess.

Answer 8

1. WikiTree provides a definition of a source and provides examples.  

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

2. No one owns the profiles on WikiTree.

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

3. WikiTree requires Collaboration. Do try to have a reasonable discussion about the need for accurate sourcing.

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

4. The Unsourced Tag is appropriate for profiles without Sources (see definition of sources).

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Unsourced

5. When in doubt about how to proceed take a moment to review the principles of the Honor Code.

 https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:Honor_Code

6. If discussions are not pleasant and fruitful, follow the problems with Members process.

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

Comments

If you wish to change the rules on WikiTree.  Propose a new rule and gather support from our community.

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

---

We've tried, Stephen, but until WikiTree requires specific citations to actual sources that support facts, not a listing of generic databases or collection websites, this community will be split between those who want good genealogical methods to be used and those who want to create their family trees without having to properly document them. I was impressed and glad to be a part of a genealogical community that required documentation of facts, but I was wrong. WikiTree does not require that. Without proper documentation WikiTree is no better than Ancestry.com.

---

I think the issue is that some people want to post unfinished work, which they might finish later, while other people would like to see only complete profiles posted.

---

The problem I have is with people who view WikiTree as a repository for their own family trees or even their own work without a responsibility to document facts with actual creditable sourcing. I am an attorney and I do write briefs. What WikiTree says is okay as a source would get me laughed out of the legal community. What WikiTree declares is okay as a "source" is not documentation of facts and is laughable in the genealogical community. It prevents WikiTree from being taken seriously as a solid genealogical website.

---

Looks like I need to find a site with fewer lawyers :)

I'm all in favour of evidence-based genealogy.  But that's not the same as an obsession with the trivial technicalities of citations.

If it says "He left a widow called Agnes (Will)", that'll do for me.  It tells me he left a will in which he called his wife Agnes, so I know where that link in the genealogical chain of argument is coming from and how strong it is.  It implies that the will exists in some form (I'll expect it to be a copy, they usually are) and I'll be able to find it easily enough if I really want to see it.

It could be made easier, but now we've crossed the line between what is genealogically necessary and what is merely desirable for extraneous reasons.  A better citation doesn't make the genealogical case stronger.

Answer 9

If the profiles have sufficient information in order that someone else can go to the VIC BMD site and replicate the searches to find the relevant records within the Index then I think it is reasonable to say that they are sourced. 

Comments

There are several large assumptions with this though:

1) Someone has to interpret whatever is listed as a source. In this case VIC BDM. Unfortunately this is a localized term and not recognized everywhere as a common source.

2) Someone has to know how to go to this site. Not everyone will understand how to find the actual website.

3) Someone will have to successfully replicate the search using the correct criteria for the search to obtain the same results.

I'm not saying it's rocket science, but it does rely upon a series of assumptions that not everyone may be capable of doing. Not that we have to go to the nth degree and spell everything out (that would be a whole other end of the spectrum extreme), but we should at least provide enough clues to get them to be able to achieve the same results.

---

Seriously? are there really people who don't know how to do a Google search?  I put VIC BMD into it, got 4 million 400 thousand results, the first page of which was entirely about family history, Victoria Australia, and birth deaths and marriages.

---

Yep, Ros. Some people do not know how to do a Google search. Just sayin'.

---

If a person writes 'vic bdm' then it is only a matter of recording the actual registration number,  Doing this it is easier to find the actual source and from this it is often possible to find other family members, especially for births. Just writing vic bdm does not show that record, therefore it is not sourced.

---

vic bdm + name + date is just as effective as vic bdm + registration number.

Answer 10

So I'll give a shot to the original question. Is it appropriate to add {{Unsourced}} to these profiles? - Yes. I would think so. As I replied just above, my feeling is that if you can take what was provided and reasonably believe that someone can use that to get the same source results, then as much as it pains me, it would be a source.

I would agree that SJ got this right - listing the name of the site where you got your information is not enough. Even linking to the home page of said site is really not reasonable. You should be linking to the profile or even better to the source itself. If you don't provide a link, you should at least state enough information to indicate what it is your are citing. As SJ mentioned, stating "Birth Certificate on FamilySearch" - while I really don't like these (as it's so simple to copy over the pre-made FamilySearch citation), someone should be able to go there, use the information on the profile, enter it into the search record, and then come up with the same results - right? ... well... maybe.

We are making large assumptions that people know where FamilySearch is - how to get there - that they have an account - that they even have a clue how to do a search on the site - that they can replicate the exact search you did - that they'll come up with the same results - AND that they'll see the same information you did. I do get it that it's so much easier to assume that the person who couldn't find the information you easily found is just plain ignorant, but we need to make things accessible to at least most people can follow the instructions to access the information.

Comments

Oh, I would agree that 'it is not enough'.  But it is a source, and therefore the {{Unsourced}} template does not apply.

---

But it is not a citation to a source.

VIC BDM is not documentation of a fact, and as you know as a good genealogist, Ros, useless as support for a fact as used. I would have no idea what it means, so it is meaningless to me and a large part of the WikiTree community and to visitors to the WikiTree website.

So what are WikiTree's goals?

Edited to clarify post.

Answer 11

Sadly no official voice chips in to say, well actually, VIC BDM is adequate, taken together with the rest of the profile.  Or, following a stranger around adding the same implied criticism to dozens of her profiles is not appropriate.

So I think we have to suppose that the way WikiTree has become is the way the management wants it to be.

But you can understand why people might hesitate to recommend the site to their friends.

Comments

I'm not sure I agree on your take of this situation, but I do agree, it would be helpful to have some official clarification of standards.  Ironically, the flexibility which has been adopted to for the sake of collaboration seems to create conflict a lot of the time.

It would probably require a mentor intervention request to get an official answer.

---

The official standard is <https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources> "A source is the identification of where you obtained information."

And the documentation for the Unsourced template <https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Unsourced> "It should be placed on any profile that has no sources. [...] It should be removed when any sources are added, even if other facts still need citations."

Unofficially, I do think "VIC BDM" fits the definition of a source on WikiTree, even though the abbreviation makes it harder to figure out what it is. But it is a specific database (that is the first result when you Google "VIC BDM") and is about as useful as someone using a book as a source but not putting the page number. Would it be better if more information was added? Absolutely! But since the profile has a source, it shouldn't have the unsourced template.

---

If the profile says somebody died in Victoria, Australia, the State death registers is the first place I'm going to look, whether it's listed as a source or not.

If VIC BDM isn't useful, that's because it's the common-sense default, not because it's obscure.

They do give a reference number, but you don't need it.  Personally I tend to enter the least possible, eg just a surname and date range, and see what else comes up.

---

Jamie, it's more of an abbreviation of a title of a book, without the author or any other identifying information. Such as, T.S.  Do I mean T.S. Eliot or Tom Sawyer. Useless to the majority of WikiTree users, I dare say.

Answer 12

I only put "unsourced" on profiles where I am the manager and I don't have credible sources.

But there are many family genealogies that have information that don't have actual links to official documents - things like family bibles, letters from other family members, copies of diplomas, unofficial collections of genealogical forms that lay out a person's family connections. Technically, these can fit into the strict definition of "unsourced" material, but without them, many family trees would be missing important branches. Profiles developed from these sources can link branches of families and sometimes can help find missing family.

I guess you could send a private message and ask about the vague or unclear sources listed, I've done this and had people send me copies of their source material, but some people have very strong feelings about "their" profiles. Michael Stills answer with all the links is probably the safest way to proceed. The key is that you have a credible source and that you can find it outside of the profile.

rsl

Answer 13

Okay, as for me the VIC BMD is unacceptable. What it says to me is "my cousin Vic told me that the information came from the BMD".  Vic could also me short for Vickie, Victory and many other things I am sure.  I have been on WikiTree for quite a while and yes I knew that source had something to do with Australia but I don't normally work on profiles from there, yet, so I would have no idea what they are talking about.  Like Ros, I could google it, but which of the thousands of answers would be the one I was looking for and many people do not even know how to do a Google search.  Visitors to WT need to know where to look, at the least it should be spelled out as "Victoria Birth, Marriage, and Death Record File/Site" or something similar so it could be understood by everyone in order to be considered sourced.  To have that many profiles with just the initials a person would only have had to copy and paste an expanded line in when the profile was created to fix the problem.

Comments

It is advisable to consider the context of the page on which it was written. The pages are all of profiles for which there are events in the state of Victoria, Australia.

Answer 14

I have not read everyone’s responses yet, but I work on Swedish profiles and I have found similar issues as this Australian example:

“Let's look at one of these profiles in detail: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Ternes-134

The source (yes, it's a source) cited is "Victorian BD&M's". We can take a little context from the profile and see that we're talking about Victoria, Australia, not Victoria British Columbia.”

It may be sourced to someone who understands what that means. (I do not know what that source means or how to access that source.)

A “poor” Swedish source example is Ramsberg A1:9b sida 101. It is a source to those who understand Swedish sourcing. However, I feel that sourcing should be for EVERYONE and not just for the profile manager. I feel we need to source so that anyone and everyone can view the source or, at least, understand it. As an example; If I see a Swedish profile with just the above information, I do not mark it {{unsourced}}. Instead, I fill out the source and add a link (I am all about the links). Example of what I consider a complete Swedish source:

Household Records: Ramsberg (T) AI:9b (1772-1776) Image 47 / Page 101 (AID: v52182.b47.s101, NAD: SE/ULA/11259). https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/C0001169_00052

It tells what the source is: “Household Records”

It tells where it can be found: in Ramsberg book A1:9b and the page (sida) 101. It includes a link so it can be viewed (free site). If I do not have a link (yet), then I include RiksArkivet.se (the free site where the source can be seen) or ArkivDigital.se (the paid site):

Household Records:  RiksArkivet.se: Ramsberg (T) AI:9b (1772-1776) Image 47 / Page 101 (AID: v52182.b47.s101, NAD: SE/ULA/11259). 

I feel we need to include as complete sources as possible. Before we add sources to a profile, we need to think if anyone can understand and access that source. Do not assume everyone understands. This IS a worldwide tree and everyone from every country needs to be able to access every source, IMHO.

In reference to adding the {{unsourced}} template to a profile where there is a source we do not find complete, I would not add it unless I am unable to find the source anywhere myself. If I find it, I include the full source. If not, I may have to write the person privately to explain. I just had to add an {{unsourced}} template to a Swedish profile, because all they had as a source was “private family tree.” Thus, I added the {{unsourced}} template. The profile manager may not be happy, but reference to a family tree is not a source. It is where someone got the information, but it is not a valid source.

I am a Sourcerer and a Data Doctor. I have only been working as those since May. I am not extremely experienced with WikiTree rules yet. So these are all just opinions from what I have learned and experienced.

Missy 

Comments

First, being a worldwide tree also means a variety of different users. Profiles can be done in other languages, contrary to what you have implied. And everyone has a different baseline, but if a small amount of searching on Google can turn up the item in question, it clearly is real and capable of being found.

Second, the sources do not need to be comprehensible to anyone; not any or all sources are. Lots of non-genealogy people might not know what any of that means. 

You cite the example:

Household Records: Ramsberg (T) AI:9b (1772-1776) Image 47 / Page 101 (AID: v52182.b47.s101, NAD: SE/ULA/11259). https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/C0001169_00052

It tells what the source is: “Household Records”

But I would tell you that it isn't implicitly clear to me what this record is, nor is it clear what is meant by "Household Records" - are these records of households, or a collection of records from within a household, or a Swedish music label? It's certainly nice to be able to use a direct link, however in the case of BMD records from the State of Victoria, Australia, their database does not provide persistent links. 

Third, these examples are clearly comprehensible by anyone who is not disingenuous and who is working on the profile. 

Fourth, WikiTree does allow for sources which no other person can access. A "Family Bible of Rutherford Paul", for instance, or an "Family Tree by Frank Murphy (Bumbleford County, Virginia), circa 1972" are both potentially valid sources. And even if they were real, you wouldn't be able to access them. 

I would recommend that you read up on the official information in WikiTree's Help pages, such as: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources#Family_bible 

---

I had just finished reading my answer again before seeing your reply and I thought of a few of things I left out!  I agree with your points. I agree that family Bibles are valid sources too. I actually have a 150 yr old family bible in my possession that I have used in my profiles. I included copies (I took with my phone) of each handwritten page on each profile too. I understand that maybe everyone does not have the actual book for them to access, however.

Thank you for the link to the pages. I will read them. I said I was new to this. I consider myself to be in the learning process. I still need to process how someone’s family tree is a valid source. I am glad I do not delete those off of profiles knowing now that they are considered sources on WikiTree. I move them under a “See also,” but only if I have a valid source to add.

---

JN, I would suggest that you use your common sense and think a bit about what the part "arkiv" in the link could mean. If you say it loud, you don't even have to know Swedish to get that it could mean "archive". So this is a link that obviously leads to an archive. Hmmm an archive is possibly a serious repository. Maybe the link even has an English version of the main page of the archive. If you delete everything after the .se, there is a link saying "other languages" - it is an English link, so understandable.... And when you switch there to English, it says: "Search in the National Archives' digital archives, indexes and databases."

So wait... We are in the Swedish National Archives, aren't we? Is that an acceptable repository? Then there are church records. The explanation is unfortunately only in Swedish, but the headers are in English. Church records. Church records are an acceptable source everywhere else.

About your "Forth...:" paragraph: you are always able to contact the profile creator or the source adder and ask him/her for a scan of the source. I could give you a scan of the book page I cited in the profile of my grandaunt. I'm not sure you are able to read or understand it, because it is in Serbian, but it gives a proof that she lived in the town where she and her children were born.

---

Missy, why should you, or anyone, ever delete a source?  If you have a better one, then add it, but don't destroy the trail of how the profile was created.

Jelena, maybe I'm confused but I don't see how you are disagreeing with JN about the validity of sources even when they are incomplete.

---

Julie, I answer directly to his questions he asked considering the Swedish source Missy quoted, and I show him a possibility to get to the source if the only source mentioned is something that is obtained by the profile creator. Those were the things I answered to.

---

Julie, I believe that is exactly what I said:

“I am glad I do not delete those off of profiles knowing now that they are considered sources on WikiTree. I move them under a “See also,” but only if I have a valid source to add.”

---

Missy, you're right, you did say that.  But you did refer to deleting sources, as if maybe you had done it in other circumstances.  I just wanted to emphasize that usually that shouldn't be done.

---

Yes, good point!

---

Julie, see this help page for sources which may be deleted.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:GEDCOM-Created_Biographies#Sections_you_can_delete

---

Thank you.  That is useful.  (I still like to preserve the information about the original import, however--the line that says, for example:  This person was created through the import of 124-DeCoursey.ged on 14 September 2010.)

---

I know it is another source of disagreement, but I consider that an acknowledgement, not a source, and I document it there.

---

Like Edie said, a good parking spot for this is 

== Acknowledgements == 

under the sources.  

Be sure to change "person" to "profile" for the older imports.  I believe more recent imports say "This profile was created through the import..."

Answer 15

There are additional sourcing guidelines for earlier profiles. Here is an extract from the help page for pre-1700 profiles at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Pre-1700_Profiles#Cite_reliable_sources:

"Derivative or second-hand information such as a family tree that was handed down to you or a tree found on another website may be used to create a profile of a modern person (but even with modern family members, it should be a priority to find and cite original sources.) We have a higher standard for deep genealogy. You must never create a pre-1700 profile without citing a reliable source.

"A family tree on Geni, Ancestry, MyHeritage, Family Search, or any other user-generated tree (like WikiTree itself) is not a sufficient source for creating a pre-1700 profile. They may be valuable resources and may help you find original, reliable sources, but they must never be the only source."

Answer 16

Hi Amanda,

I will add my 2 cents in, even though it is not needed. For the purpose of the Sourcing events (such as the Sourcing Sprints), I would NOT consider ‘Vic BDM’ as sourced. In my opinion, this is a repository and not a source, and it does not provide details of a specific record. Just as ‘Ancestry.com’ isn’t a source. The sourcing event instructions say as much, from memory.

Answer 17

In my opinion, Amanda, you were given incorrect advice, which let led to your incorrect action of adding the unsourced template. As per our bare-minimum sourcing standards, her citation of "VIC BDM" or "Victorian BD&M's" are within our WikiTree guidelines that define a sourced profile. Also, as per our template usage standards, the unsourced template should not be used on a sourced profile.

So, though she was correct to remove the template, she was incorrect to display a possessive and non-collaborative attitude toward profiles. My advice is that you report her apparent refusal to collaborate on OUR profiles via the Problems with Members procedures.

...my 2 Bennies...

edit: corrected typo

Answer 18

Thorny question, the response you got isn't falling within the Honour Code, that's for sure.  

If the profiles have a bio entered, you might use {{Citation Needed}} for each item, just to get the point across without putting a big banner across the top.

One problem with these minimal source citations is that someone else may not know what they stand for.  VIC BMD certainly doesn't communicate well, what does VIC stand for?  Could be  a number of places in the world.

I've run into cases where I had created a profile and only entered ''Drouin collection'' as my source.  (Before I got more experienced in WikiTree).  For anyone not familiar with that part of the world, that would not necessarily communicate well.  For those who are familiar, they would know it is a major source for this area.

Comments

Please see:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Citation_Needed

This template can be used in biographies when a fact is stated but no source supports it. However, it should be used sparingly and only by members who are participating in the research on the profile. Do not use this template to instruct others to do research. For more information, see the discussion from April 2019.