why not a source level category

Question

The question of Unsourced FAQ got me thinking about creating a Source Level Category. Level 0 would be unsourced: literally no sources or vague references to Ancestry, family research, FAG for burial unknown or no link. Level 1 would be linked sources where the links actually work to Ancestry, FAG, personal websites. Level 2 would be FAQ with links to graves with photos of stone with name and dates, Websites for surnames or particular ancestors, family references or regional references. Level 3 would be websites or references with sources or sources obtainable by asking. Level 4 would be well-known and researched society references such as DAR, Mayflower, Puritan Great Migration. Level 5 would be vital statistics.

Comments

Sue, I was thinking something similar to your thoughts. I've already posted an answer to the feed.

Now having read through the thread I have reached the conclusion that there is a big disparity on WikiTree. Those seeking relatives so they can be "Notable", "Mayflower", "DAR", etc. versus the larger number of people who are less interested in finding they are related to nobility but just want to know where they came from and find other family members.

A large amount of my husbands and my family are just good ole Pennsylvania Dutch farmers. They are to me as important as any king or queen. People who's homes have been ravaged by war always make me wonder how many unknown people we will never know about.

I also realize in these feeds another problem is that so many are thinking about their special projects and so with so many things going on it's always going to be difficult to come up with a one thing that's suits all.

Answer 1

I ain't got time for that!! lol.

Now really, I am only imagining the categories mess this could be. We already have errors because folks make typos in place names, so if you add a number to that, it's going to complicate things.

Comments

And then somebody else will come along and say "it's not an Unsourced Level 1 - it's an Unsourced Level 5!", change it, and the opinion wars begin... LOL

But, good thinking, though - keep it up! 

---

Oh yes, definitely DO keep thinking! Good point, Ros!

---

Excellent insight, Ros, to Human kind's ability to balk in the face of a fact -- might even start a few 1000 food fights to implement this improvement and it would BE an improvement

Answer 2

The idea sounds wonderful, but I can see these difficulties:

(a) Many people think the lower number is better, i.e. that's a first class source versus a third class source.  Result -- high likelihood of error.

(b) Coming to agreement on the value of a source will often be difficult.  Society memberships now often reflect a higher standard of research than those achieved -- and published -- a hundred years ago.  So everything has to be viewed with caution.

(c) We are encouraged to constantly improve profiles.  So yesterday's class 3 profile may be today's class 4 profile.  As a result, every time you enhance a profile you'd have to re-review it's sourcing category.  Though we already do this when we remove the "unsourced" category.

(d) As others have indicated, it's a lot more work,

(e) and many of us wouldn't trust the category anyway.  As somewhat an expert in Maryland, when I look at a Maryland profile I know the quality of sources that are used.  How many people know that while Fielder M. M. Beall work of a century ago quotes a lot of sources, which can be valuable, he also makes a huge number of errors?

Answer 3

Ok, then you create a "source category" 1 with working links to trees. They work when you create the profile. But at any time the website where the tree is stored decides to change the URL for the tree and the link goes dead. So now your profile has a "source category 0" and you don't even know that! Only by accident you realize: "Hey the source I have for my profile doesn't work anymore...."

Btw, what is the FAQ you refer to in your "Level 2"? I suspect this is a typo, but this is the best proof for Natalie's statement earlier where she said she's got the most work with typos in categories.

In general I sense a bit too much for my taste a tendency to narrow the sources that are "acceptable" on Wikitree. I am totally against that. I already said that several times and will say it as often as I am challenged to do so: The big strength of Wikitree is that it allows every kind of source that says what is stated on the profile. Yes you should evaluate if my source is reliable enough to believe what it says. But hey, only because a source is not authorized of a genealogical society it doesn't have to be unreliable. The team really has to take care to leave the sources approach as open as it is.

Answer 4

Hi, Sue --

I love that you're in problem-solving mode. 

This is not quite the same scenario that you're describing where you're essentially "grading" sources, but our Maintenance Categories do allow profiles to be flagged for more work when bits of information are given but aren't sourced, or when bits of information are completely missing.

I think if more people were to use these categories, it would make it easier to find profiles that need more help.

Comments

The grade is rough, and would take discussion, but it would change as the sources improve or degrade. Imagine a challenge where we get the number of points according to grade. If I add a level 1 source I get 1 point, if I add a level 3 source I get 3 points. If we saw the number of sources at each level it would help us look at the profiles that needed to most work. It might encourage us to grade up. Instead of showing us only unsourced, it could show us each of the grades.  O.K. if we start with only 3 grades and got a provisional agreement we could start looking at our profiles as unsourced, some sources, pretty good sources. We could probably agree on this level of grading. Could we list all the sources we thought were the best level? It would be like calling a profile genelogically defined to say, hey my sources are pretty good!

---

If you simply added one new category: "Pretty Good Sources", you could have "Unsourced", unmarked-no category, and "category: pretty good sources", if it had some of the top level sources. It is a place to start. If we marked our profiles it would give us a sense of achievement if we start finding pretty good sources. You could even give a count so you can keep improving and finding more sources, 3 Pretty good sources.,

Answer 5

I have been thinking of something similar recently but I don't think categories are the right way to achieve it. The current maintenance categories do not work because there are many thousands (probably millions) of profiles that should be in a maintenance category but aren't.

It would be much better if there was a data field on every profile which scores the profile quality and could be displayed as a star rating (as you see on review sites) although a different visual representation would probably be less contentious.

The rating should not be under the control of the profile manager. Instead project teams would follow an objective set of review guidelines to rate profiles.

I would have ratings as follows:

Rating 0 would be for profiles that are unrated or have no sources that meet the criteria.

Ratings 1-3 would range from some credible sources for some of the facts stated in the profile (basically the criteria we would use today to remove the unsourced template) to every vital data field, every relationship to parents, spouses and children, and every fact stated in the biography is supported by credible evidence and the profile has a well written biography that complies with the style guide.

Ratings 4 and 5 would be used in rare cases for the most important profiles (based on popularity and notability) and could only be granted after a robust expert review process.
Examples could be profiles which need extensive narrative not just about sourcing the stated facts but rebuffing contentious and discredited information that might be found in previously published genealogies and online family trees.

Events like source-a-thons and project maintenance activities could then focus on reviewing and improving profiles with rating 0 and rating 1.

Comments

I'd be surprised if project teams have time for that.

Answer 6

That sounds complicated and more work with little likelihood of fixing anything. But kudos for trying to come up with a fix.

Answer 7

Excuse me, but I can't see how a category might be assigned to a source. A "source" in WikiTree is basically a string of text which ideally should point readers to an identifiable piece of evidence somewhere.

The quality of a "source" in WikiTree should be self-evident by how well it's able to convey the information contained in the material to which it's pointing. A short explanation of why the literal text may be at odds with evidence collected from other sources will also frequently be needed in a citation. It's one of the basic facts of genealogy that you'll often encounter conflicting evidence. A grouping of sources in several different "levels" may initially sound helpful, but is hardly conductive to the research process.

Personally, I'm mostly referencing scanned images of original protocols residing on the Norwegian National Archives' own Web site. I don't see how that class of references fits in your scheme.

Answer 8

Interesting idea.  I have a problem with ranking DAR, Mayflower, etc., sources so high for applications that have been submitted by others (especially older applications).  I will provide two examples, below.

I have found in registering ancestors with one society that the older registrations can contain errors that can go undiscovered for years until another descendant comes along to attach their tree to the ancestor.  This has happened to me - I have ended up having to correct a registered ancestor's sources to be able to link and attach to my own personal line.

Secondly, DAR in the past accepted my ancestor, Thomas Jessup (DAR ancestor number: A062580) as taking care of of wounded along with his third wife (Ann Matthews Floyd Jessup) as a qualifier to join the DAR. Fast forward now - Ann is still recognized by the DAR but Thomas Jessup is suspended unless actual proof exists that he rendered aid to Americans and not British. While the vital records of Thomas, his wives and children would be considered safe records (Quaker records), but the old DAR application and admittance sources would now not be considered invalid sources until additional substantive proof can be found. Ranking this DAR source for Thomas Jessup high would be (until substantive proof is found) a huge mistake at  this time.

Sources are only as good as the researcher, if you attach bad information just to get information - its just like putting garbage data in -  you will get garbage data out. It is an interesting concept to 'rank' sources, but I would be concerned that inexperienced researchers will look at the source ranking as factual without confirming the source is correct and factual before adding this information to their own research.  Errors can and have been perpetuated because of this and continue to be perpetuated to this day.

Comments

OK, What are the good sources. If you want people to use the best what are they? I would assume vital records for birth, marriage death are as good as it gets. PGM sources are the current best aren't they? What else would be considered?

---

I'm saying to proceed with caution.  Sources that can be corroborated from multiple sources.  I.E...  example would be a Quaker meeting record that can be confirmed in multiple meetings records.  Consistent consecutive census records could be corroberated .  This is just two of many examples.

Ancestry and Familysearch has many fine examples scanned original records.  Quaker records, Slovak church record book records, census records, marriage registrations, death certificates, immigration records.  Although these have been scanned and are available online.  Original records should deserve a higher 'rating' even though they were made available by Ancestry and FamilySearch online repositories.

Answer 9

I often wish that == Biography == and == Sources == <references /> would be fixed so they could not be removed. Sue, I had similar thoughts to yours about categories for sources. Then the more I thought about it why not set up fixed in the sources a death, birth, marriage certificate and census records. Don't want to set up to many but that would only create 4 additional fixed categories in a profile. If they are not there then the profile will be left in the unsourced research box until complete.

And yes I already hear that for some people you will not be able to find all of those records. That would need for those categories to have something to enter in place of the birth, death, marriage and census record.

Perhaps it could also be only on profiles created for people born after 1899.

Again my 2 cents worth...

Comments

You know what?  I absolutely LOATHE those birth and census headings.  And I'll bet I'm not the only one.  Besides which, once you write a narrative, you don't need them any more, so why fix them there?

---

I edited my comment to change where they were placed from the biography section to sources. I agree with you and I really hate the ones with a template and 90% is blank.

Answer 10

That would entail a whole lot of work and time that can be better used in actually improving the profile you are looking at.  Plus, if you are not familiar with the source cited, you may be mis-grading it.  

For example, one author in my part of the world has a number of limited edition books on his research, and he is very good about citing his sources.  But, since they are limited editions, they are not found everywhere.  Actually came across one item where another researcher had surmized that the book in question was actually another book.  She simply hadn't found it, I found it by checking the main library catalog here.

I would have personally gone with the use of {{Citation Needed}} tag for items in the bio that needed better citations, but was told that this tag is only to be used by people who will continue to work on the profile.

Answer 11

Actually, Paul Gierszewski has included sourcing levels on his Wikitree_Statistics page for some time. I have adopted his system for use on the One Name Studies that I manage. So for his "Unsourced" or "Poorly Sourced" levels, I apply the {{Unsourced|[Placename]}} template to the profile. For 1 or 2 good sources, I apply the {{[Placename], Needs More Records}} template.

Comments

This is moving toward what I was thinking.

---

There is some more discussion of measuring sourcing levels on the WikiTree dashboard thread.