Input on plan for welcoming more genealogists and highlighting genealogical interests? [closed]

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Back in November we talked here about making WikiTree more welcoming to all genealogists, even those who don't yet plan to help grow our tree. I believe we have something to offer all genealogists, and all genealogists have something to offer us. We want everyone to be able to comment on profiles, participate on G2G, and record their DNA tests. And maybe someday they'll sign the Honor Code and do more.

Currently, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to have an account. We intentionally try to scare off genealogists who aren't sure they want to do collaborative genealogy. At one point in our history we went so far as to require that new members be invited by current members. We pulled back from that, but never completely reversed the attitude.

So, we are planning to make a variety of pages more friendly and welcoming for new visitors. We're also planning these functional changes:

1. We'd create a new set of genealogist questions.
2. Your answers would be displayed at the top of your profile, along with tags and surname activity to highlight who you are as a genealogist.
3. Guests who answer the genealogist questions would get Family Member accounts without having to volunteer and be confirmed by a Greeter.

We would not be creating a new member type, as envisioned before. The Family Member account type and its permissions would not change, and no other rules of participation would change.

To summarize the permissions for Family Members: They can edit a post-1700 profile if they have created it or are added to the Trusted List. They can upload GEDCOMs for searching but not for adding or editing profiles. They cannot edit Category or Project pages. They can do almost anything else, but after 100 contributions the invitations to sign the Honor Code become more persistent and after 300 contributions they lose the ability to create new profiles and edit relationships until they sign. All this would remain as it is.

Here's a draft of a new page to describe the member levels: Help:Membership. This would replace Help:Member_Types and Help:Community_Membership.

Here's what we have in mind for the genealogist questions. This would replace the form that currently invites Guests to volunteer and follow tags.

---

Use this space to tell your cousins and other genealogists about yourself.

1.)
o I am a professional genealogist.
o I am an amateur genealogist.
o I am new to genealogy.
o I am interested in family history.

2.)
o My most up-to-date family tree is on (select all that apply):
[ ] Ancestry
[ ] MyHeritage
[ ] Findmypast
[ ] FamilySearch
[ ] WikiTree
o I maintain my tree elsewhere (optional: you can use the space below to explain where).

3.)
o I have taken a DNA test (select all that apply; more details can be added later):
[ ] Family Tree DNA Family Finder
[ ] Family Tree DNA Y-Chromosome
[ ] Family Tree DNA Mitochondrial
[ ] Ancestry DNA
[ ] MyHeritage DNA
[ ] 23andMe
[ ] another autosomal test
o I have not taken a DNA test or prefer privacy.

4.) I am most interested in these surnames, locations or topics: (For example, van_dam, england, mayflower. You will get updates about these but can turn them off. You can add more or edit them later.)
[tag 1]
[tag 2]
[tag 3]

5.) What else would you like to tell your genealogist cousins? If you are not active on WikiTree you could use this space to explain if your ancestry here has mistakes or missing information.
[text box]

---

A Guest who answered the first four questions would have their account confirmed automatically. Allowing Family Member accounts without a human being confirming the new member would be a significant change, but I don't think the risks are too great. Greeters, we hope, will still want to welcome new members, and Rangers will still be watching for spam and vandalism.

We're envisioning including members' answers in a new section at the top of profiles, perhaps something like this:

This would replace the Followed Tags section that we currently have on profiles, and as you can see, the badges are moved up as well. The idea is that everything that sets members' profiles apart from other profiles on our tree would be on top -- front and center to highlight who we are as genealogists.

You might be wondering about the "Most active in January 2020" section. This is something we've been working on for a little while. We will soon start listing the top contributors to each surname each month, and highlighting the top surnames to which each member contributed in previous months. This will be a more sophisticated way to acknowledge top contributors than our current Club 1,000 and Club 100 badges. We'll still be doing those badges as we do them now, based on the raw total number of contributions. For surname contributions we'll count the number of different profiles with a given surname to which we've contributed.

Do you have any thoughts on the above? Please answer here. Thanks!

Onward and upward,

Chris

Comments

If their answers will be displayed at the top of their profile, will they be able to edit them later? Especially #1 & #2--as their experience in genealogy changes, their answer to #1 could change. And I wouldn't know the answer to #2 right now, for myself. Can you add "I don't know" for that one?

---

I agree with Emily -- anything that is posted on the top of a member's profile needs to be editable, to keep it up to date.

The inability to update content is already an issue with the badges that we give to project members. I believe the comments on these badges are intended to help people find other project members with similar interests. However, a person who expressed an interest in Virginia when they received a United States badge in 2018 may now be avidly researching Kentucky or California, but we have no way of updating the badge annotations describing their interests. It would be nice to avoid that problem with this proposed feature.

---

There is an Edit at the end of the 'paragraph' that was the answers to the questions, so it should be editable.

---

So Family Membership would be encouraged as a waystation, a kind of trial period? A person could add profiles (likely, but not necessarily, their own relatively close family). They could edit profiles if they are on a Trusted List (again likely, but not necessarily, their own relatively close family). So, for up to 300 contributions, Wikitree could be used like other personal online family tree platforms. They would not necessarily be introduced to the collaborative, one-tree-one-profile genealogy that distinguishes Wikitree. They could NOT edit open profiles. If they inadvertently created a duplicate or needed to connect to an existing profile, a "Wiki Genealogist" (e.g., someone who signed the Honor Code) would have to fix it?  I don't know that this will be perceived as a change in mood or attitude, although personally the Honor Code never seemed that hard or off putting to me. These seem like tweaks, but if those who have thought longer and harder about it see it as a change for the better, I don't see any harm.

---

Could you add a 5) location The area's we have the most knowledge about. i.e. Canada, New Brunswick, York County. 

---

I'm a little confused....typical, I know.....where exactly in your example does the current top-line data; Born...., Son of....., Brother of...etc....go?   Below the badges? or in between the "I am an amateur..." and the confirmed date?

---

"For surname contributions we'll count the number of different profiles with a given surname to which we've contributed.?

It would be nice to know the total number of profiles I have created. I have "orphaned" lots besides the number on my Watchlist. I know others have asked about this also.

---

I have serious doubts about not greeting and then allowing them (new genealogists) to edit pre-1700 ...

a) when they are on the trusted list and 

b) when they have created pre-1700 profiles.

Until now even greeting them extensively, having them self-certificate pre-1700 and having them sign the honour code, have not had the desired effect of keeping WikiTree clear of duplicates. 

I'm afraid that now the there will be even more devalidating of WikiTree on the internet. And we were just getting to a more valid exposure.

Last of all - the questions you propose to ask above Chris do not interest me and some are kind of not-relevant (such as where do I get my info/tree from - Heritage or FamilySearch), and as you propose them to be shown - not clear as tags. Put differently - I follow tags and I answer questions. 2 different issues.

I'm very sceptical about this. Please don't jeopardize what WikiTree has accomplished up to now. 

---

Hi Philip

As I read it, they won’t be allowed to create or edit Pre-1700 profiles.  

I don’t think Chris is saying they won’t be greeted, just that they won’t need to be confirmed.

Wendy

---

He clearly gives answer "To summarize" ... And as I have also stated many times before ... the demarcation line should be earlier ... pre-1750 or even pre-1800.

---

He refers to post-1700 in his summary, not pre-1700.

---

Post-1700 = pre-1800 ... slight mistake but still the same issue. Loads of duplicates created in the 18th century because of variations in the spelling of names.

---

The DNA answers seem needlessly restrictive. For instance, someone who had whole genome sequencing (WGS) might like to indicate that. Others might have had Y- or mtDNA tests elsewhere, say at Y-SEQ. I'd think a little foresight now might prevent having to reword this pretty soon.

---

o My most up-to-date family tree is on (select all that apply):
[ ] Ancestry
[ ] MyHeritage
[ ] Findmypast
[ ] FamilySearch
[ ] WikiTree
o I maintain my tree elsewhere (optional: you can use the space below to explain where).

I notice the above are all US based,  I would omit such a list, since sites like Geneanet or MesAïeux, just to name 2, are also quite popular.  Just have a line that goes ''I maintain my tree in ___''
 

---

Just a tiny privacy issue... not sure I would have enjoyed the answers to my entry questions published on my profile.

---

Having a streamlined process for people who JUST want to register their DNA tests and/or look but not touch, could be good. Maybe in a way, WikiTree already has that? not sure it included DNA-tested registration though. One alternative perspective is maybe greeters can be too quick to push a new sign-up to a membership status whereby they also have full access. Along the lines of things-that-come-too-easily often are not much appreciated. Just a thought.

---

With the way DNA works on WikiTree, there is little point recording your DNA tests unless you have ancestor profiles to associate them with.  

As a Greeter, I can assure you there is no pushing.  New members are welcomed and then we wait for them to do something. If they volunteer, we assess their tags, comments, biography, etc to make sure they are here for genealogical purposes before confirming those who are. If they contact us about wanting to add their ancestors to the tree, we give them advice on how to volunteer.

Wendy

---

Thank you Chris. I support  the concept of making joining WikiTree Inuitive.

-Gilly

---

I am 57 and have not taken a DNA test as I have instead at-DNA tested both my parents (FTDNA 1st then Ancestry) and Y-DNA tested my father.  So I would like the boxes to somehow be able to encompass that situation.  I have confirmed that they are my biological parents as I tested my daughter (wanted to look at my in-law branches).

---

I agree with limited involvement until Wikitree is sure they are serious, but also concerned about being accurate.  

I would like to throw out an idea that I don't believe has been suggested.  I think it would be a wonderful idea for Wikitree to make up some YouTube videos on the process of creating profiles, making changes etc.  The videos could be done in stages to prevent overwhelming them.  

I remember when I was new to Wikitree it was very confusing on how to do different tasks. I had a great mentor, but they weren't always available.  The videos would allow them to watch a video if they forgot how to do something.

Just a thought...

Taylor

---

Are you aware of the videos currently in the Wikitree collection on YouTube, Taylor?

---

My gosh! This is a lot of reading.

Chris, I'm going to be upfront and honest... and selfish.  I'm here to do genealogy.  I want to help when I can, and I like Wikitree enough to promote it among family members when I can.  Some have come and explored.  None have joined.  Why?  Unlike me, they have lives to live!  It has nothing to do with the process.

What I want from Wikitree is more emphasis on quality work.  This push for quantity might be nice in the short run, but, in my opinion, will make for some teeth-gnashing down the road.  I don't care if you welcome the whole wide world, just don't let them trash the place.  Every bar needs a bouncer.

---

My sentiment as well Gregory. Thanks! (Love this: "Every bar needs a bouncer").

---

Yes please, don't compromise quality for quantity.

---

Yes! What Gregory said! "What I want from Wikitree is more emphasis on quality work." Which seems to have been declining. If that's not being addressed effectively, there are probably already too many people inputting that aren't up to it, need help and mentoring, and it's no time to be trying every which way to make it all so easy to join. It's already friendly and welcoming thanks to the wonderful greeters, that is not an issue IMHO.

---

Now here's a wild idea... more of a what if you look at it from the opposite way, kind of concept. What if it was made HARDER to gain entre? Say, before a person gets the golden ticket (membership), they have to clean up 5 profiles of their gedcom cr*p and add, say, one or more "real" sources. To either those 5, if there aren't any real sources among the mess of citations to ancestry.com or familysearch.org, etc. user submitted trees, or to 5 other unsourced profiles. Or the ones whose source is like, personal memory of [profile creator]...of a person from a century or two before the submitter was even born. As a overgeneralization, people don't appreciate, respect, or take seriously what comes too easy anyway. Might need more greeter-mentors for such a concept. Or maybe not, seems like ideally this is part of what greeters are doing...or at least could be doing. Yes, this is just a wild thought, a pipe dream, that submitters actually show they have or be willing to gain some skills to actually be members. THIS is one of the big things that distinguishes WikiTree from all the other places--the ideal that there be real documentation and not just someone copying from other genealogies that have been previously copied (and often not well) a bazillion times already, from who knows where or what was the original. Like, the thought being, capitalize and strengthen on what distinguishes WikiTree from other places, don't become like everywhere else. :-)

---

Barbara, just curious, is there something specific you can point to that makes you think quality is declining?

---

It's a brilliant idea to make joining User Friendly. At present it confuses Newbies who find Tags a Mission. Yes we pride ourselves on reliable Sources . It would be better to concentrate on dedicated help with Sources rather than exclude those who are on a learning curve.

---

Allowing profiles from 1800s and earlier to be created with no sourcing, other than 'unsourced family tree', ancestry.com, Personal knowledge, etc should not be allowed.  That is what causes the quality to be declining.  Gedcom loads have been improved requiring compares to be done, per G2G discussions, but we still see plenty of duplicates being created because people are probably just ignoring the comparisons being shown, as they do when a profile is created manually.

---

Good question, Eowyn, it was totally just a feeling, lacking any sort of analysis. I take that back! Giving it more thought, maybe it really is more a feeling that came from profiles of the deep dark past and that I'm just seeing more and more of them... profile bios that are unreadable e.g. overwhelmed by gedcom junk from as much as 6+ years ago; unsearchable or not well-searchable (no dates or even estimates, no place either...one or the other at least...a mish-mash anything-went input formats in the vital stats area that may not work when you add place info to a search), green or other color closed where the subject is long dead (even if technically they could be x color per policies, usually people are really good about opening, often was just some vestige from the past), etc. I KNOW there is TONS of effort that so many people put in...data doctoring...and yet, everywhere I go there is so MUCH of the above (it seems, sigh). And that's before even the issue of documenting and providing sources info. Excellent point, though, I wasn't properly correlating my feelings or reactions with when the profiles originated or were significantly edited. Crazy profiles from, say 2012 - 2014, maybe somewhat later, was that a period of time before the greeters got to be as fabulous as they have since become?  Maybe...if they as a group (the greeters) feel they can effectively handle whatever the influx is being contemplated to target, bring 'em on!?

---

There is some data to support an increase in quality. It's rough data, and its quality is unclear. But Paul Gierszewski was tracking some stats until last November:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Wikitree_Statistics

If you scroll down to Wikitree Profile Accuracy and Wikitree Profile Sourcing, you'll see that judging from the number of consistency errors identified by suggestions reports has been dropping. Profile sourcing based on number of sources (quality not judged) in a random sample of profiles shows a clear drop in unsourced profiles and a clear increase in the number of profiles with a small number of sources, with the percentage of poorly sourced and heavily source profiles remaining essentially flat.

---

Barry, thanks for that.  I can tell that Barbara Bartlett Huff and I are kindred spirits when it comes to the cluster that is sometimes Wikitree in terms of a rush to quantity over quality, but neither of us is sure if it's improving or not because we can't see the big picture.  

If I may offer one example of the fine line between the two.  Awhile back I joined in a sourcing challenge.  It didn't take long to see that while the production of some folks was sky high very early, others of us (including myself) were struggling.  After the first 8 hours I realized why:  the super achievers were going to the first Family Search (or other) census doc they could find, adding a "source" and moving on.  That kind of sourcing is puts a hole in my heart, and I bet folks like Barbara kind of feel the same way.  I just couldn't bring myself to source this way.  One census year was not enough, and in most cases neither were two or three.  Along the way I would get caught up in a family's tragic story, discovered by checking census data, then FAG, then obits...!  My god, what stories there are to tell.  And so I felt ethically obliged to ADD family members, do their profiles and tell their stories.  For Zero points.  Crap.  Oh well, it's my fault for caring.  

And that's all we're trying to say.  Make sure new genealogists CARE.  If I were king of the Wikitree forest, I might meet and greet new members with smiles and hugs, and have others join in, but begin by allowing them only 7 profiles.  Not a drop more.  And then mentoring them through the process until each one of those seven was as well done as possible and beautiful to behold. THEN turn them loose.  I think something like that would show how caring WT really is.

---

Well said, Gregory. What you describe in your final paragraph is similar to the England Project's Orphan Trail, which everyone joining the project must complete. Doing that WikiTree-wide would require a huge volunteer force of mentors but would result in a great improvement in quality.

---

It seems to me that the fear is that making Wikitree user friendly will result in an increase of unsourced Profiles. Yes, it certainly would be good to embrace the method Chris has put forward and at the same time resolve the issue of inadequate Sourcing. That way we would have the best of all worlds.

---

Chris, how about an extra button to click "I need help finding Sources''

---

Susan I did not mean intuitive when creating profiles. I was referring to making it easy to see what to do to become a Member of Wikitree. I consider the list of options to click created by Chris to be intuitive. Many websites choose an intuitive method of joining.

---

"Intuitive" (as in 'interface' and 'instructions') should not be confused with "easier" and "more" (as in 'joining' and 'members').

---

Although I do get that "user friendliness" is a concept that pertains to more aspects of online genealogy than one.

---

Susan I am so sorry I may have offended you. I agree that the definition of the word "intuitive" is quite different from my usage. I meant "user friendly".

---

Thank you Philip - yes I used the word intuitive whereas "user friendly" would have been more approrpiate. My bad!

---

Yes I have utilized the videos for the suggestion list.  I must admit I am not current on the other videos available.  Perhaps we already have the videos for a new person to learn how to do all things involved with creating a profile etc.

Taylor

---

Greeters Project questions in new answer

---

"I need help finding sources." is a good idea.

---

What's the status of this, please, Chris, given all the responses? Thanks.

---

This discussion has now moved here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1000360/what-do-you-think-of-these-new-member-questions

Answer 1

If you are going to be moving the 'tags' to the middle of the profile, people are going to need a lot of scrolling to find the biographies for some people that have lots of tags and / or badges.

Comments

A tags section could be collapsible, i.e. made so it only shows the first 4, then there's a little "[+]" or "[see more]" button to click on to expand the full list.  

---

Linda and JN, I was thinking could have a [hide] link for the entire section. It would be just one click to collapse the genealogist section so it looks like a regular person profile.

---

oops Chris, what's this?  Collapse de genealogist section so it looks like a regular person profile?!?!?!   Eeeeeek!  Please, I know there are all sorts of jokes on the internet about genealogists, but that doesn't make us into something other than a ''regular person''.

Answer 2

I think the idea of having a small summary such as this at the top of a profile would be brilliant, and a great way to engage genealogists, but I'm not sure whether I like having the tags in between said summary and the badges. It could absolutely just be my OCD, but I think that the tags fit far nicer on the side of the page that they are already, because otherwise it would feel cluttering when many active genealogists also tend to have a biography on their profile as well.

Perhaps this space (the Followed Tags space) could be split into tags that someone follows for G2G and surnames that they follow? I personally don't usually follow project tags if they're countries (Ireland, France, etc) because it means that I receive feed information for anyone with those surnames as well. By splitting these up, and having a section for "Followed Surnames" (which could follow both G2G and the activity feed) as well as a "Followed Tags" just for G2G (in order to show active participation in project matters, as well as ease-of-access) could solve this problem, and work to show genealogists checking someone's profile both what surnames someone is interested in, and what G2G tags/projects someone is interested in.

Comments

That's a brilliant suggestion for the tags Amy!

---

This is a great suggestion.  I like it because it gets to some muddiness inherent in how WikiTree deploys the "tag" function.  "Display Tags" and "Followed Tags" would add complexity, but also would lay the groundwork for thinking about tagging with clarity.  

As a tumblr user, I have experienced how useful tagging can be for a general category of functions we can call "findability".  Tagging essentially takes what a human finds compelling or timely about content and renders it machine-readable and therefore searchable.  This is very powerful, and WikiTree should keep investing in tagging as a findability function for "Followed Tags".  And to that end, give us the ability to follow more than 20 tags!!

However, another general category of functions that WikiTree is deploying tagging to do here is "branding".  I.e., by prominently displaying a user's followed tags, a browsing user hopefully can see at a glance what that user is "about" and whether it would be fruitful to collaborate with them.  I.e., "Display Tags".

The problem is that how I would "brand" myself on WikiTree is quite different from what I search for on WikiTree.  For example, my mother's maiden name is "Davis".  For branding purposes, any browsing genealogist would consider that maiden name to be key to my identity as an amateur family historian.  For findability purposes, however, "Davis" is a useless tag for me to follow or search because it is so common.  So Davis will never appear on my profile as a "Followed Tag" to browsing users trying to figure out what I'm about here.  And I'm concerned that by using tags as a core "branding" function, we will drift further away from any possible progress on increasing tagging as a "findability function" because profiles centrally displaying 20+ followed tags would look terrible for "branding" purposes.

In general, WikiTree leadership appears to regularly invest in deploying tags to substitute for functions a modern social research platform needs.  We don't need private messaging or groups, because G2G questions can have "tags" to attract the attention of users who may be interested (this doesn't work).  We don't need to be able to opt-in to profile activity feeds because activity appears in the surname tag feed (this doesn't work).  We don't need robust location searching on profiles because a G2G question can be posted and tagged (this doesn't work).  Prominently displaying our followed tags on our profiles seems like yet another case of site leadership thinking that the power of tagging as a findability tool can be turned into collaboration if we all really try hard enough to use it the way they want us to.  

Amy, I support your proposal and this certainly isn't a "rant" directed at you. I would just really like to see the site leadership communicate with us about tagging with some clarity.

---

I agree with Amy on the possibility of splitting up the Tags issue, into followed family names and members activity. Lately, I have removed my England tag, as an example, which kept filling up my daily activity feed with members working on their England family members. I was in a bit of a quandary as to how to remedy the situation as half of my ancestry is English.

---

I don't think the project leaders follow the project tag.  They follow the google group (ie the watchlist feed, not the taglist feed).

There must be somebody out there who says, I don't want anything in my feed about Scotland or Wales, I just want England, right?!  Got that?!  Just England, not Britain or UK or British Isles, because I really don't want all that Celtic junk!

But Hiram Budweiser England b Springfield Ohio 1874, yeah, he's fine, I'm interested in people like that.

Don't know who though.

---

I'm a project leader and I follow project tags on g2g.

---

I follow the project tag.

---

guilty. I personally follow project_leaders but not the projects tag (and I didn't even know about the project [singular] tag until just now). Thanks for raising awareness RJ. I need to shuffle my tags again.

Cheers, Liz

---

Actually I was talking about the england tag.

---

Too many projects, too little tag space! I wish we had the ability to follow far more even if they don't show on our profile.

---

What value would following the "project" tag have? I've rarely seen it used. I didn't even know about project_leaders.  We do have a google group for that. Not sure I've ever seen that tag used in g2g either.

I have used the "England" tag successfully to get the attention of the England project so at least someone over there is watching.

---

Jillaine, as one of the England Project members I assure you that many of our members and Leaders follow the England and regularly keep an eye on G2G :-)

---

Some people follow the england tag, but ignore the "Genealogy" feed.

---

RJ, if there is a specific case where you feel a project did not act on something that needs their attention, I suggest you bring it to their attention through alternative means.  We're all volunteers here and sometimes things slip through the cracks.

Answer 3

Will we still be allowed 20 tags? Where does all this show up on our profile in relation to our name, birthdate, and family members? Because I don't see how 20 tags is going to fit comfortably up there. I don't want to have fewer tags since I'm one of those who would actually like more.

But on the whole I like this system. As a Greeter, I would hope we could still welcome all new guests so they know a real person is here to answer questions. I have several people a week who message me with specific questions.

Comments

Absolutely, Emma, we definitely want Greeters to still be greeting. They are our friendly front line!  And one of the best parts of the WikiTree experience.

---

I fully agree, 20 tags minimum.

Answer 4

One of the most frequent reasons I visit WikiTreers' profiles is to see who their ancestors are.  So I like things the way they are--data and ancestors buttons at the top, and tags on the side.  Because tags are at the top of the right-hand side, they are already prominent, and if the brief introductory comments are just above them, they will be easily noticeable when a profile is visited.

Comments

I agree that one reason I go to a profile is to understand where/if a person fits on a branch and what their activity is, but I see myself still clicking those tabs (family tree and contributions).

---

One of the most frequent reasons I visit WikiTreers' profiles is to see who their ancestors are.

Along that line, an immediate "are we related" button would be fun. Usually I'm browsing to a user's tree to check if he or she is a cousin using the Relationship Finder.

---

Yes, it looks like there could be room for it right under the Ancestors button.

---

There's "Relationship to me" on the profile menu.  I think JN wants it next to every poster's name on here, so you don't have to click through to the poster's profile.

---

Oh.  That didn't even occur to me, because it's not one of the things I often wonder about as I encounter other G2G users.

---

Yes, RJ, having it easily accessible would be nice. In WikiTree's earlier days (around the time of the Global Family Reunion stuff) that seemed to be the main draw: showing people how they're connected and what common ancestors they share. I still find it fascinating and one of the most compelling features of WT.

---

Maybe that's one difference between 2014 and late 2018, when I joined.  It's a bigger tree now, and I would imagine has a membership with much more diverse interests.

---

“Top at the right hand side” doesn’t work for me because I usually use WT with an oldish small phone. Lots of scrolling! The new ‘jump’ buttons are great, and ‘more/less’ or ‘hide/show’ options essential.

Is it too much to ask for logged-in users to have a personal ‘configuration style’. Which they can change, depending on what they are doing. E.g. I’m having a Categorisation binge, so have the categories section appear first on every profile I want to view or edit?

---

Chris mentioned above about having a [hide] link for the section.

Answer 5

This is a great improvement.   I know that as a mentor I work with a lot of people who just wanted to add what "they know" about their ancestors, maybe up to their great grandparents.   This would allow them to experience WikiTree and maybe interest them in learning about genealogy!

Comments

But they won't be able to edit open profiles or add to existing profiles unless they request to be on the Trusted List, so it doesn't seem that much more simple. It may encourage creation of duplicate profiles, which is a risk now when people don't understand one-tree-one-profile, but without the privilege of being able to correct (e.g., merge) it.

---

There's always been the option of Volunteering and then not signing the Honor Code.  It's available to both genealogists and non-genealogists.

The new system may be less inviting to uninvited non-genealogists, as the questionnaire basically says "you don't belong here".

As for the non-signing genealogists, they'll still be advertised at, and have restricted editing, and get pestered after 100 edits, and edit-blocked after 300, so it's hard to see the attraction.

The 300 limit means you're committed from the start to signing the Honor Code sooner or later, just so that you can continue to revise your own previous work.  Every genealogist knows how often they need to revise their previous work.  Too many have posted embarrassing stuff on the net that they can't now fix, and they don't need somewhere else to make the same mistake.

---

I wonder if these new people could be restricted to adding only their own direct ancestors.  I'd think that would reduce the likelihood of unknowingly creating duplicate profiles.  In my own case, I got back as far as third great grandparents before I encountered anyone already on WikiTree.

---

I second Julie's idea.  I have had a difficult time with new people adding duplicate ancestors because LNAB was not sourced,  and also messing with long ago added and proved profiles.  

Recently I came across a person adding over 1,000 profiles with nothing but a FAG link.  Needless to say, many errors were made  in LNAB.

---

I support Julie's suggestion too.

---

If everyone thinks the general idea has merit, then I agree with Julie that "these new people could be restricted to adding only their own direct ancestors." I believe this would likely help in populating the most recent generations from people with more direct knowledge and curtail the introduction of spurious older lineages. From the viewpoint of coordinating Westward Ho project, WikiTree would greatly benefit from those willing to add family post-1850.

Answer 6

I do like the new help page.

? "This would replace the Followed Tags section that we currently have on profiles, and as you can see, the badges are moved up as well. The idea is that everything that sets members' profiles apart from other profiles on our tree would be on top -- front and center to highlight who we are as genealogists."

If this is replacing the followed tags section on the right side of the profile, then I assume the biography section would move up to fill the left side of the profile. That sounds ok

However If its "front and center", by the time you list 20 tags, (the example only listed five, 20 is a long list) the biography section of the profile is going to get pushed way farther down the page. That would be less desirable.

Answer 7

As a Mentor, I am concerned about allowing someone the ability to have 300 contributions before they are shut down because of not signing the Honor Code.  We have recently had some people that had signed the Honor Code and had 300 contributions made very quickly with no sources and questionable profiles.  That could be happening much more frequently with this change, possibly causing damage to the tree, by having relationships and profiles that are invalid and not sourced.

Comments

I agree, but I think even 100 contributions is perhaps too many for someone to make without realizing that they need to take this seriously. I have not let immediate or extended family members know yet that I'm working on our tree here because I want to get a few profiles correctly established before anyone comes in just adding what they "know" (I've already found that family members' memories are faulty).

---

I agree that 100 is more than sufficient and they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near 300.

---

I think the 300 limit has been there "since forever". I have just never seen it made explicit before.

The first time I ran into a "Family Member" who had created a slew of unsourced ancestors (back to 1700, I guess) I was astonished. Then I learnt that, yes, this is the way that member class works.

---

As a fellow Mentor, Linda's point has great validity. I, too, have worked with several mentees where I was astonished at the quantity of misinformation added to WikiTree before the person's work came to the attention of someone.

Answer 8

Still doesn't seem very welcoming.  WikiTree still manages to give the impression that it doesn't trust its members as far as it would like to throw them.

And the more so in the Second Class group.

If a Signer gets a Genealogist badge, the implication is that those who don't sign aren't proper genealogists.  Is that the message to give?  (Don't expect people to understand what you mean by "wiki genealogist", because that's just your own usage.)

There does need to be a junior membership, but the specific reason to have it is so that invited relatives who don't do genealogy can access private information and post DNA.  Presumably invited members won't have to answer the new questions.  Maybe they should get a less genealogical view of the site.

But if the aim is to attract people who do do genealogy, but might not want to sign the Honor Code straight away, or ever, the logic is that the offering to non-signing genealogists should be made more attractive.  The new proposal doesn't, and neither did the other one.

What counts to the 300?  Qs and As on G2G are logged as "contributions" if the thread is linked to a profile.

I'd suggest that the counting shouldn't include

- comments and G2G posts

- posting images

- creation of Space pages

- edits where the member is on the TL

All of which would be unlimited indefinitely.

Comments

Laurie, if you don't understand something, chances are that many others don't either.  So just ask for clarification!  Can't hurt!

---

I didn't find Wikitree unwelcoming. I was surprised, in a good way, that I received messages so quickly from people who welcomed me and offered support.

I don't find the learning curve steep either. It is apparent when one tries to enter a new person that a source is required. I had an account for 3 years before I realised that categories exist, mainly because I didn't use the account for most of that time, so now I add categories to profiles. Likewise it took me 3 years to find the suggestion list. Now I check it regularly. I learned about different features in my own time, either as a need arose, or I had time to explore, or when someone else made a change to a record during a challenge. I find the Data Doctors and various other project members are fabulous and take the pressure off newbies.

I find it frustrating to wade through 50 trees of the same family on another site, where the first person made up garbage and the other 49 just copied it. I like that there is one record per person here and evidence is the priority. Sure there's the occasional difficult member, but those people are to be found everywhere. There are rules in place to deal with them here. On another site I've found myself and other close living family members in someone else's tree, I'm showing as dead and the parent of kids I don't have. When I contacted the owner, asked her to make the tree private and take more care because she had numerous errors that are likely to upset people, all I got back was abuse. Here if it's wrong, it gets fixed.

There is one issue here I would like to see addressed. Some members have uploaded gedcoms years ago and manage profiles here that are unsourced, contain errors and gedcom junk. They've then gone on to make several thousands of contributions but have not cleaned up the mess they created when they first came here. Is it possible to allow them to make a limited number of contributions, then their work is audited, and if needs a lot of fixing, they have to do it before they are allowed to add more people?

---

I find those GEDCOMs for some of my family with no profile manager and just a reference to a family tree for a source. I have the information but it would take me years to fix them all in addition to the families I am also adding. I have suggested to cousins to join WikiTree to look after the ones they descend from, but this hasn't happened. I have just left them for now. There is only so much I can do on my own.

---

Yes, Leandra, it is very frustrating to find profiles originating from gedcom uploads, untouched since their creation which is sometimes years ago, when the person who uploaded turns out to be an active WikiTree member with tens of thousands of contributions and a profile full of badges!

---

Guilty! I just haven't had a chance to get back to all of them yet.

---

Oh, sorry!  I really didn't mean you!

---

It is often those who have lots of contributions that are busy doing other things on WikiTree.  So much so that they don't get around to editing their own earlier contributions added when they had less experience. I know that I have plenty to update and am always happy when others have been helpful and added a useful update.

---

Well, I don't claim to be perfect and I see I am probably going to offend some people.  But I'm not willing to back off from saying that people who uploads gedcoms do have some responsibility not to leave WikiTree littered with empty profiles and other gedcom debris.  The ones I come across are generally done by a few WikiTreers with whom I share ancestral lines.  I'm not saying they are representative of everyone who uploads gedcoms.

---

Julie, this is my biggest issue with WikiTree, the large number of unsourced GEDCOM profiles without any biographies. I would say most of the profiles I look at are like this, so to me that means that's what most of WikiTree is like. Some have profile managers but many have not. These orphans are what gives WikiTree a bad name among the people I see comment about WikiTree.

But what is the solution? Should every orphan profile that is like this be deleted? What about those with profile managers who do not edit and do not respond to messages? To me this is the issue that a solution should be found for. It annoys me when I find a potential distant member of my family with a useless profile, incorrect information and sometimes incorrect relationships (another one yesterday!)

---

Margaret, thanks for the support!  Several comments:

Based on another recent G2G thread, I'm relying on someone else who reported that half the profiles on WikiTree are unsourced.

I only wish the unsourced profiles were what keeps some of my most important genealogy contacts off of WikiTree.  More common, in my experience, is entrenched PMs who have posted garbage to profiles they manage, and my friends just don't see any value in fighting things out when they can have their own trees on Ancestry (or other websites).

WikiTree does not delete, and I have come to accept that.

Here is what I do:  First, if I find a profile of a direct ancestor of mine orphaned, I adopt it. Second, if a PM does not respond, I feel emboldened to update the profile, as long as I have sources.  My problems have been less with absent PMs than recalcitrant ones.  In those cases, if it is important enough to you, you can file a Mentor Intervention Request (if you have the sources on your side), or, depending on how far back it is, appeal to the relevant project to take over the profile.

Answer 9

I can see value in streamlining the Guest-to-Family-Member process, and I like the content and layout of the combined Membership help page (particularly the clarification of the Family Member benefits/restrictions and the use of headings).

I don't see, however, as much value in having up to 20 badges and 20 tags in the center-top of a member's profiles. We would surely need to limit the number of badges and tags, as well as the accompanying text for the tags.

This proposed change (as well as previously implemented changes) leads me to ask if WikiTree.com is moving to a single column profile layout.

Also, how will implementing this change affect the tabs, navigation links, and the shaded information section?

Finally, do we have a specific definition of "modern family" in our help pages?

Answer 10

I'm a firm believer that in order for this site to continue to grow and prosper, it must be able to attract and retain a continuing flow of new members. Making the site more welcoming to newcomers is definitely a big step in the right direction. I'm just not sure whether these proposals accomplish that or whether prospective members will just see it as a different set of hoops to jump through. I wonder if the target 'genealogists' are primarily the experienced genealogists who have logged time in libraries, cemeteries, court houses, and other web sites, and have accumulated pertinent data and experience? Or do we wish to be equally welcoming to those just beginning to take an interest in "finding out where I came from"? (And who would flounder a bit initially and not meet the standards of quality work that some members demand?)

For what it's worth, I was solidly in the latter group when I joined. I came aboard in the era when there weren't any such hoops, but you had to be invited by an existing member. (Not a big deal as I recall -- I didn't know any members, and I think I just sent an e-mail saying "Hey Chris, I'd like to give it a try," and I was in.) I wouldn't have labeled myself a "genealogist" any more than I'd claim to be a brain surgeon. I still wouldn't, but I have gotten better at it, and this is where I learned most of what I have learned. Do we still wish to be welcoming to hobbyists like me, and perhaps function as a training platform? If so, try to envision all this from the perspective of a raw rookie looking at all the candidate web sites out there. All the observations here so far are from long-standing veterans.

The other point that caught my eye was "We intentionally try to scare off genealogists who aren't sure they want to do collaborative genealogy." That was me again! I certainly wasn't opposed to it, and I was a believer in the single tree, one profile per person concept, but I really had no grasp of what "collaborative genealogy" meant. Then, after people I didn't know started editing some of "my" profiles of "my" ancestors, the light bulb finally went on. But I must tell you, the concept takes some getting used to and it takes some time to become comfortable with it. It might be wise to scare off those who are dead-set opposed, but I'm not sure it's desirable to scare off everyone who's not sure.

Comments

Dennis, I think that you've articulated well the same view that I had coming on to WikiTree: I wouldn't have identified as a genealogist even though I was doing genealogy. And there are probably many others out there in the same boat.

Also, I'd totally skimmed over Chris's comment until you highlighted it: "We intentionally try to scare off genealogists who aren't sure they want to do collaborative genealogy." 

The real problem with that, I suspect, is that WikiTree does a very poor on-boarding process for new members explaining why and how it's a global family tree, and the logical consequences of that. Very few people are truly "against" that in my experience, rather most just don't realize that their relatives might already have profiles set up. 

WikiTree would really benefit from having a professional 30 second video explaining (perhaps in the style of CPGrey or Kurzgesagt) what a global family tree is and means and how, as a consequence of that, we have to "share" ancestors' profiles... and how that can be helpful and save us work. Something that's mandatory viewing for new recruits.

---

I like the video idea; I think it should have captioning for every word though - and advertise that it is that way. I often WikiTree when I do not want to have my computer or device's sound on. That alone kept me from watching any of the training videos for months.

Answer 11

This is solely my opinion, I am not speaking on behalf of anyone or any group other than myself.  Wikitree is my happy place and a spend a good deal of time on the site every day.  However, I am an intensely private person and I decide what information I share about myself with whom when I feel comfortable .  I don't see how this is going to make joining Wikitree any easier.  If you had started asking me these questions on when I first signed up, I would never have finished signing up.  I would have found these questions invasive, instrusive and judgemental.  I would not have stuck around long enough to ask why you wanted to know these things. I would never gotten to know some great fellow genealogists or found a third cousin.

Comments

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Michele. You are surely not the only one to feel that way, so I thank you for speaking up.

---

Good point, I think a lot of people find the same thing and they will hesitate to become a member.

---

Ah, you said it already. A multiple-choice questionnaire would probably have made me turn on the doorstep. I did find WikiTree while it was still by invitation only, and that made me turn away.

Guess it took a couple of years before I returned. I think I snuck in at a time when there was relatively little fuss and I could write my self-presentation without having to squeeze it into readymade little boxes. Actually, I mostly made a summary of where my ancestors came from.

Answer 12

With regard to question/comment #1:

1.)
o I am a professional genealogist.
o I am an amateur genealogist.
o I am new to genealogy.
o I am interested in family history.

Rather than giving a choice of either being a professional (e.g. genealogy is your profession for which you receive compensation), an amateur, or new, I'd prefer to see something that was along the line of what some sites use, such as beginner, intermediate, advanced, professional.  Otherwise, the bulk of us fall into 'amateur', which doesn't tell me anything.  While I find it interesting to know if someone is a newbie or a seasoned genealogist, it usually becomes pretty obvious after someone participates for awhile . . .

Comments

I concur with Darlene.

Also, the existing set of options is not mutually exclusive: I could be both new to genealogy AND interested in family history.

o I am a professional genealogist.
o I am an amateur genealogist.
o I am new to genealogy.
o I am interested in family history.

---

I agree, as well. Anyone can call himself or herself a professional genealogist and hang out a sign claiming as much, even pay a small annual fee and join the APG (with no qualifications) as evidence of it. I know BCG Certified Genealogists and CGLs who do not consider themselves professionals because they don't accept work-for-hire. "Amateur" doesn't mean inexpert, and "professional" doesn't mean expert.

If noting the distinctions is thought necessary, I think Darlene's beginner to advanced scale would be a much, much better option.

I'm unsure why the "professional" designation is pertinent at all because no one should be using WikiTree as a marketing platform for a genealogy-related business. But if we want to keep it, maybe we separate into two questions what really is conflation of two concepts, anyway. Maybe one for self-assessed experience that runs from "interested in learning" through to "advanced." Then a second (checkbox, not radio button) question that's about participatory status, perhaps:

• I am a professional genealogist.
• I am a Certified Genealogist (CG, CGL, AAS/BA, etc.).
• I have had formal genealogical training (SLIG, BCG, NGS, etc.).
• I have other university degrees specifically related to genealogy.
• I write and publish about genealogy and related topics.
• I lecture and teach about genealogy and related topics.
• None of the above.

Yeah. I don't like that either. It's not only elitist and unwelcoming toward beginners, but exposes professionals who might not have much to back it up.

I vote that we shouldn't care at all about whether or not a member is a self-proclaimed "professional."

---

Years ago, in London, there was a "workshop", as these meetings are called, where a couple of dozen people self-trained in a very abstruse field were convened round a square of tables to "work on" something or other.

It was a mystery why somebody thought the meeting was a good idea.

Then on the day, the convenor thought it was another good idea to go round the table asking people to introduce themselves.  Several people left at that point.

People want to be heard for what they're saying, not for who they are.  They don't want to be prejudged and pigeonholed.  They don't want to start at a disadvantage to those who claim better qualifications.

If all this is supposed to be broadening the appeal of the site, it seems to be going in the wrong direction.  It's sending out messages about the core assumptions and target market of the site, and giving people reasons to think "not for me".

In particular, it's all very American.

Genealogy is like football.  There's genealogy, and there's American genealogy.  Americans think their sort is the only sort.  Everybody else thinks the American sort is weird.  Almost nobody does it outside North America.

---

Hear, hear, RJ!

---

I wouldn't call myself a genealogist. Family history incorporates genealogy.  And from my perspective,  for the most part what we do in the UK is  Family History.  We don't have recent books tracing our names back to  ancient forefathers or lineage societies .(that was an eye opener for me ) 

For the most part getting back much before the late 18th C is very difficult.  So we have books with titles such as my ancestors were ag labs, lunatics  coalminers or lawyers.http://www.sog.org.uk/books-courses/books-publications/category/my-ancestor-series/  

Even the old Society of Genealogists (founded in 1911 when only a select few were interested in their pedigrees ) now positions itself  as the National Family History Society. We  have  a network of Local Family History Societies. https://www.familyhistoryfederation.com/societies-az   and we have Family History events and family history magazines. 

Undoubtedly if I were in France or Germany or India my perspective would also be different 

---

The only option of the 4 that would apply to me is "I am interested in family history" and that is what I will choose. I am not a genealogist in any American sense of the word. How will that look juxtaposed to by abnormally large number of contributions?

---

Good points Isabelle.  I would also have a difficult time answering this, and probably choose the last item. I used to be a professional genealogist but I am no longer doing genealogy professionally --by that I mean taking clients and getting paid for my work.  But I wouldn't select amateur either as I have received significant training and been doing genealogical research for over twenty years.

I also wonder what the purpose of this question is. What are we trying to accomplish through it ?

---

Howdy, R.J., Eva and Helen, I don't mean to interrupt the dialog, but I'm wondering if you could give a few comments on what you mean by "American genealogy" being different.  I definitely do not wish to sound critical or anything negative,  I just find it interesting and would like to understand a bit more.  I have gathered from reading the forums the last few years that things like the naming practices (first, middle and last names) may be particularly American in orientation, and that such items are not supportive of the cultural practices of other areas of the world, but I'm wondering if you all are suggesting something more elemental than that.  Maybe there is another discussion somewhere I have missed?  Thank you.

---

As an example of cultural difference, not in terms of genealogy, but in terms of WikiTree friendliness: I cringe every time I get posted as a Wonderful WikiTreer. I feel exposed and intruded upon, rather than gratified - but since it is well meant, and embedded in the WikiTree system, I just have to grin and bear it. The discreet accumulation of simple thankyou-clicks is rewarding enough for my reticient Swedish habitus.

So I resonated with RJs story of the people who left the meeting rather than put up with the round of self-introductions.

---

Thanks for the reply Eva, I believe I understand a little of what you mean.  Even I have wondered about those "Wonderful" messages myself and I totally understand not wanting to be in the public spotlight and that it can be a cultural thing also.

I find the points system a bit disconcerting myself, but I have learned to overcome decades of training to "click and save" after each edit and only save once a session, thereby cutting way down on my points count.

But I'm beginning to ramble; so I'll thank you again for  your reply.

---

If we are wishing to encounter people to join WikiTree, it would be more welcoming to have this list (or its variations) in reverse order. I’ve been a family historian for most of my life and that’s how I still perceive myself, regardless of WikiTree’s desire to call me a “genealogist”.

Answer 13

As far as I am aware, WikiTree is the only genealogy website where an actual person greets and confirms members, then answers questions for them as long as they need answers and help. To take this one thing away and have an "automatic" membership would be a huge mistake in my humble opinion.

Comments

I must agree with Ginny on this. As a greeter, I am often contacted by new members who ask how to do stuff. I don’t just send a link. I also try to spell out the kind of assistance they need. This heads off many members from making mistakes that are frustrating to them and to others. It’s also a personal touch. Some new members who have contacted me have been surprised to get a message from a real person.

---

I agree with you Pip. When I started, 5 years ago, I wanted to place a language template in my profile. Had read that somewhere in the jungle of the help pages. Could copy the template but had no idea where to paste. Asked... and a Dutch-speaking greeter or mentor / leader then showed me further in Wikitree.  If this had not happened I would have stopped it very quickly.

---

I also agree that the greeters process from the beginning has to stay. I am no official greeter (neither do I want to join them, I have enough projects to work on), but when I see a post on G2G in a language I know, I jump in and answer the post. And often this really helps the people to get started.

---

I don't know why or who would consider WikiTree unfriendly to a new member. It's remarkably friendly! Kudos to the greeters! I'd just like to add, if it's not part of the process already (and if it is, maybe strengthen it!) more checking a few times & mentoring, if needed, regarding new members' documenting their inputs. Like the bunch I just now came across, here's how the Bio text boxes went:

Biography

John was born in 1791. He passed away in 1856.

Sources

• ancestry.com

The wonderful greeters... now this would be the place to come up with personal, not-preachy, kind methods to have (and use!) in their tool boxes to nip this sort of thing in the bud with a new member. We all were beginners at one time or another, and it seems like Copycat Genealogy really is the norm and what people mostly see these days. Except in WikiTree...I hope!!!!

---

I totally agree with Barbara B. Huff. 

• Anysite.com 

Is not a Source and is not sourcing.  

I'm on a couple other World Trees. One allows links to a tree on another site, but at sometime, there has to be some truth in sourcing.  Wikitree really needs to be the standard bearer.  

---

Just to clarify, the role of the Greater would change only slightly. No confirmation would be needed, but we absolutely would still want them welcoming, guiding, and working their amazing Greeter magic on new members. WikiTree indeed wouldn't be the same without them when you "walk in the door" for the first time.

---

Abby, This is good to hear. As a Greeter, I was a little worried that there would be less communication with new members. Thanks for clearing this up. :) Would we still greet new members as usual? I know I get a lot of PM's from them asking questions about DNA, how to join, etc. They seem to be happy not having a robot communicating to them.

---

Absolutely, Greta. The primary change is no longer waiting to be confirmed. We still need Greeters to say hello and introduce what being on WikiTree means!

---

Great! I'm glad to hear this news. :)

Answer 14

To me this sounds like the 2 tiered systems used a lot in Europe.  The serious genealogy is maintained by people who do sourcing according to specific quality criteria vs. user trees with no validation..  These family trees are not treated as junk but as a collection of clues that need to be followed and proven or disproven.  The goal is to get to the truth.  I think Europe did this a lot because there were so many fraudulent genealogies written to make people seem noble who weren't.  There were time periods where if you had the money you could buy a title by hiring someone  to write your pedigree in such a way that your family looked connected.  Lists of those are available under known Frauds.

The one thing that attracted me and a lot of people I know to this site is that you can count on the profiles to be better than what you find on a lot of other websites.  No WT is not perfect.  No site is.  But quality will always attract more followers.   

You can be inclusive without opening up the site to less than valid profiles.  

Family knowledge can be accurate or pure myth.  Our goal should be not to allow the one tree to be corrupted by the blight of unvalidated family lore.  

So let people create a profile but don't let it be attached to the one tree until the data is validated.  Validation should consist of something that is a credible source.  Credible sources are generally defined as primary sources from official sources like government records, church records, military records, school and employment records.  At least one critical piece of information like birth, marriage, military service, graduation, employment, or death record with date and location.  This should not be difficult to produce for people born after 1700 in most cases.  Obviously other trees are not a valid source.

First person accounts from someone who can prove they knew the person should also be allowed.  Most people unless adopted or the product of a NPE know their parents and grandparents and siblings and aunts and uncles and first cousins.  So let those be entered with the moniker of family contribution looking for independent validation and either let WT member or the family add sufficient validation to move the profile onto the one tree.

That would minimize damage yet allow for family contributions of what they know or think they know.  

Even official data can have mistakes so nothing is going to be fool proof but looking to minimize the damage and the time it takes to fix problems should also be a goal of bringing on any unvalidated profiles.  

I also think that difficulty people find are a lot of the style rules and guidelines.  While intended to facilitate a database they don't make it easy for the kind of people you are trying to attract.   So are you going to drop those to entice people to the site?

Location names being historically accurate are a pipe dream when you open up profiles to the casual person wanting to park their family history here.  I mean how many people list USA for time period before 1776?  We know from all the suggestions that have been fixed and still needing to be fixed that even seasoned users are not always understanding the ins and outs of location naming tied to a time period.   So do you intend to add fields for dates to include what that location is called today?

As the adage says... The Devil is in the details....  

Other sites that allow the co-mingling of seriously researched profiles and family lore trees do not have one tree as their central theme.  What they have are a bunch of stand alone profiles.  

Those are my two cents.  Think long and hard about what you may ruin as well as what are your really trying to gain?  As someone who spent years fixing the problems when I was a newbie (not on this site) and without understanding the consequences imported a tree into mine and ended up with a huge mess.  I would not wish that on anyone.  And far to many people have put in countless hours to make this tree solid and healthy.

Comments

I wholeheartedly agree.

---

This was my concern the first time this matter was raised, and I continue to share it with Laura and Traci.

---

I think this approach would cause more problems than it solves, and as well would either create a double standard (maybe that's what you mean to do) or require a significant change to existing policy.

When these new members create profiles from their own knowledge, then what?  Could other WikiTree users see the profiles stuck in limbo awaiting validation?  Who would have access to them?  What would prevent creation of even more duplicates--e.g., if a trial member creates John Brown, but he isn't attached to his father for lack of validation, what will stop the next person from coming along and creating another John Brown when they see that the father is missing a son?

I see newly created profiles all the time that have only personal knowledge, unsourced family tree, Ancestry tree, etc. as sources.  These are done by people who have signed the Honor Code, and as discussed at length on another recent thread, this is not against WikiTree's current rules.  So could full members--arguably, the ones who should know better--be allowed to do something that these new trial members could not?  Would that be perceived as fair?

---

Also in agreement.

---

Julie I think a query should include both validated / attached profiles and pending unattached profiles if my idea would be adopted.   

No it is not a double standard.  Instead it is one standard but a way to train people to work with real sources to make contributions healthy ones and not be introducing blight into the tree.   

Every badly sourced profile weakens the tree, has the potential of doing extreme damage.  Depending on how deeply it reaches.  So it is important I think to the current members to make the tree healthier not open it up to questionable profiles.  

Many previous answers here and on other threads have talked about quantity vs quality.  What I am proposing here is a way to allow for quantity but have it go through a weigh station of sorts before it gets merged into the one tree allowing it to go through a quality review.  

I know the Sourcerers would love to know where profiles like this sit because they would love to source them! That is true collaboration.  Family members who want to do a data dump of what they know but are really not interested in doing research or becoming as one person has indicated genealogists would be aided by those of us who do care about quality.  

So let's say Joan adds Dave and Mike and Gwen to the tree based on her family knowledge and nothing else.  She has not added any sources except what she knows and has said Dave is my brother, Mike and Gwen are my parents.  If Joan is in her 40s (the average age I read where people start seriously working on family history) then she was born in 1971-1980.  No census available but school yearbooks exist for most people, birth and marriage announcements may exist in local newspapers.  So there are ways of finding official evidence of the person with some dates tied to them.   The parents are likely born in the 1950s.  So still not in a released census record.  But once again there are things you can look for to find them.

Grandparents should show up in the 1940 and 1930 census.  And there might be obituaries that name the family existing for any of the people as people die at all ages.  

I just think opening up the tree to questionable profiles is asking for trouble.  I wonder if anyone has a sense of how many times someone has done something by dumping a lot of these into our current tree and what it took to fix it.  

I do not see quantity and quality as competing unless your force them into a competition by not developing a path to make sure your quantity gets a once over for quality.

---

Laura, thank you for the thoughtful answer.  Setting up a means for Sourcerers to access the new, unconnected profiles seems like a good idea, but I have no idea of the number of Sourcerers compared to the number of profiles that need their attention, so I wonder how well that would solve the problem.

While I agree with you, more or less, that every badly sourced profile weakens the tree--I can think of any number of cliches here--that ship has sailed, etc. and these new ones will just be a drop in the bucket...If this new group of people were limited to creating profiles only for their own recent direct ancestors, as I proposed elsewhere in this thread, I think the damage could be limited.

I do see the question of quality vs. quantity as being central to this and many other discussions.  I was just thinking, but hadn't dared to post this yet:  It seems clear that part of the drive to attract more people to WikiTree is financial.  Yet I don't know anyone who knows why.  Is WikiTree losing money?  Making money?  If members could be made more aware of the financial pressures, I think some of us might be more sympathetic to the need to bring in more traffic, and some might have creative ideas for doing that rather than opposing such efforts.

---

Good point, Julie. I was thinking the same thing. Wikipedia, which doesn't allow the general public to just go ahead and add unverifiable information to its database, also does major fundraising at year-end ... as does Internet Archive. I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes at WikiTree re: financials, and I'm sure the Team is on top of it. I do know that I'd happily donate money to keep the Honor Code in place (for me, they'd have to be small donations ... but together, many small donations could do good things).

---

Last month we had over 150 people participate in the monthly Sourcerers Challenge touching over 9500 profiles.

Most months we have over 100 sometimes over 150.  But we run both a Month Long Challenge and a weekly weekend Sprint.  Besides the 3 day Source A Thon run by the Admin Team.  So there is a lot of continuous sourcing going on to correct unsourced profiles.

---

Traci, I've donated to Wikipedia and to the Internet Archive, and would also donate to WikiTree.  As far as I know, though, WikiTree isn't a nonprofit and I'm not sure what issues might be created.

---

Laura, earlier in this thread, RJ Horace commented that WikiTree has 20 million profiles, half unsourced.  9500 out of 10 million suggests that Sourcerers can't keep up with their current workload.

---

Precisely why I am concerned attaching profiles with dubious sourcing is adversely affecting the tree.

---

Laura, my fear is that the Sourcerers and Data Doctors (Connectors and Arborists, etc.) will get overwhelmed. There is already too much work for them to do. I belong to each of these groups and I'm not sure I'd continue if part of the job was sourcing/correcting errors for people who don't care to sign the Honor Code.

For the record, I love the thought of making the site more welcoming to new members. This is a great community of really helpful people. Help/guidance is only a click away on G2G or profile comments. IMO, unregistered members/family members should be welcome to post their questions/info to G2G or in comments. We could set up a team to help those inquires/additions specifically. (I know nothing about the tech side of this, it may be untenable as it would be an opening for bots/spam). But allowing them to add/edit profiles seems a bit too much.

---

Traci, I logged out and then found this thread, and I can already post a comment (or, I suppose, an answer).  So I don't think that would add anything for the proposed new class of members.

---

Traci just to be clear.  I do not agree with the Admin decision to allow post 1700 profiles to be created from things like internet trees or family knowledge without requiring one good validating source.  My idea is to look for middle ground.  It is not ideal but the current situation in my opinion is worse.  

I understand a site wants to grow and attract more members and there is likely some financial rewards for that.  However sacrificing the quality of the site for quantity seem very short sighted to me.  As Julie points out we are losing the battle to source unsourced profiles as more and more of them are coming in.  

If you ask people why they come to WT what I hear most often is you can trust the data more than on other sites.  Now, if that is indeed the main attraction, then why would you decide to make a move that destroys your largest draw?  

If the driver is a need for more members / financial then figure out how to do that without destroying what sets you apart.  That is what my original comment was all about.

---

And I agree wholeheartedly! :-)

Answer 15

In the form I am missing at point 2: I do not yet have a family tree.

Comments

Good point.

Answer 16

Is Wikitree striving towards quality or quantity?

The scent that I'm picking up on is that it is great to have 'n' million profiles but not really caring about the percentage connected (which I thought was the goal). I get the impression that gradually the goalposts have been subtly moved over time.

Approaching 4 years of being a member and I'm still struggling to fix up and obtain proper information on members of my extended family that a distant cousin uploaded via a GEDCOM dump.

I'd rather focus be looked at areas such as the search parameters (the number of times I have searched for a profile to see whether one had been created, not finding one and upon creating one discovering that one actually did exist is beyond frustrating) or maybe checking to make sure that the FAQ/Help sections are written in a form that people can understand clearly (just think about the number of DNA related questions that are asking the same sort of question over the years...) just because we/you understand doesn't mean that others do!

I don't think those questions are a good idea

Answer 17

Can be included in the questionnaire: what is your natural language?  So that Greeters and Mentors who speak that language can directly guide new members in their own language.

Comments

Joop, the Greeters currently use google translate, so we are all capable of greeting and directing the new members in their own language, and it has been a wonderful experience for all of us.

---

That does not seem advisable to me, because a translation of Google Translate, for example, from English to Dutch is often poor.  A good translation depends on the context of a sentence and can sometimes be completely incorrectly translated by Google Translate.  In addition, the words are often put in the wrong order and you get strange sentences.  If you use standard texts, I would advise you to have the translation checked by a Dutch or Flemish person.  I myself translate the English Wikitree Help Pages into Dutch and use Google Translate in many cases for this, but I have to regularly adjust the translation to make it good Dutch.

In addition, there are also Dutch greeters.  It seems to me a small effort to refer the new Dutch member to them and to the Project Netherlands, also known as the Dutch Roots Project. This is more pleasant for the new member and prevents any misunderstanding.

Answer 18

Showing a member's activity on surnames they have contributed to looks like a nice feature for those who work on surnames.

It will be interesting to see if the result is in any way meaningful for the minority working with patronymics.

Comments

Hey, I worked on 261* Andersdatters last month! Great family, the Andersdatters of Norway. Maybe they deserve a One-Name study. (* no, I didn't actually count them)

Somehow, I'm reminded of the American lady who sent me a mail once, wondering if I knew what the Larsen family coat of arms looked like.

---

Leif - Thanks so much for a good laugh!

Answer 19

An entry-survey approach does sound more efficient and potentially more friendly in terms of improving the on-boarding process. While some surely appreciate the personal touch of folks acting as Greeters, there's definitely a large segment online who find the idea backwards or who prefer to work in a "lurker" mode. So in that regard, this could be a good move, having a "self-serve" option.

However, the problem here is that it still tries to shoehorn potential (and current) users who may not identify with the term, genealogist, into being "a genealogist". I wrote briefly about this in my reply to the previous thread, but I'll repeat the gist for simplicity:

First, some people who do genealogy as a hobby might not consider themselves as "genealogists". I do genealogy; I don't consider myself a "genealogist". To me, that carries a semi-professional connotation. 

Second, it limits the range of participation that the community welcomes. I'm not sure that someone who loves writing good biographies necessarily considers himself a "genealogist"; someone who loves building hierarchies and categories might not consider herself a genealogist. So what if by using such a narrow term, we are leading to people intentionally excluding themselves from participation?

So I'll tell you two stories of my personal experience: 

Experience 1. A few years ago I was able to get in touch with a cousin (3C1R) who I noticed had been researching some common ancestors. By complete coincidence, she happened to live in the same neighbourhood as me, so we decided to meet up at a local tea shop in person. While there, she asked me a curious question, "So, how did you become your family historian?" Not exactly how I'd term it, though given her cultural background it was how she understood the role and how she identified herself in that regard. That stemmed from her LDS background. Different, but a very reasonable descriptor. 

Experience 2. Last fall I had the pleasure visiting the local provincial archives. While there, I was sharing the space with three indigenous researchers who were collecting genealogical data to help advance their community's land claims. They identified themselves as "researchers", not as "genealogists". While it was intensely personal work to them and their band, they viewed themselves as doing legal, historical research, even though the immediate end product would be a genealogical database!

If one looks at the Wikipedia discussion on the motivations for doing genealogy, it includes medical, historical, political, legal, forensic, scholarly, community, religious, and personal motivations. My cousin the family historian was engaged through a religious motivation; The indigenous researchers were motivated by legal considerations; My uncle who gave me the first glimpse at my "Murphy family tree" was just passing along personal knowledge. None of them identified as a "genealogist".

Ask yourself: Is every person who writes down a family tree (no matter how many people are in it) a genealogists? Is everyone who documents and records any relationship (for instance by declaring parents, "my father is Jacob Jingleheimer and my mother is Johanne Schmidt"), a genealogist?

Many of those who are doing genealogy very likely do not self-identify as "genealogists" and WikiTree would be better, I believe, if it did not shoehorn them into that identity. As RJ Horace wrote, 

The new system may be less inviting to uninvited non-genealogists, as the questionnaire basically says "you don't belong here".

Hence my push for a more functional and descriptive titles than "family member" and "wiki genealogist" in that previous answer. Editor or Contributor, Member, and Guest would likely be sufficient. 

Chris, I think that the way this is written by someone who has blinders on. Those blinders being partly constructed by the pre-existing community on WikiTree largely on G2G (ones already largely self-filtered by the site's current state), genealogy professionals, and the genealogy industry. "Genealogy" as a term is largely a term from the industry side of the fence. The user side of the fence is what needs to be considered. Millions of people do genealogy (anyone who records or relates any family pedigree info is doing genealogy) and very few identify as "genealogists". And by shoehorning the term, many will self-deselect saying, "Oh, this isn't for me."

I would also suggest taking a casual survey of the public, user-facing messaging of other "genealogy" websites. 

Look at how Ancestry.com and MyHeritage.com present themselves. Sure, "genealogy" is part of the their SEO game, but it isn't the best foot forward that users see. It's entirely absent from the MyHeritage page, which invites people to:

• "Create your online family tree"
• "just search a name to learn more about your ancestors"
• "Collaborate with members and join the thousands who reunite with long-lost relatives every single day through our network."

Ancestry too focuses more on "family" with 9 non-menu mentions on the introductory page and only 2 non-menu mentions of "genealogy". It's clear what they (rightly) believe is on the "user" side of the fence.

Neither site else mentions "genealogist(s)". Neither site later tries to categorize its users or members as "genealogist(s)". I'm betting that they have done surveys and found that is a non-starter. The top percentiles of those active might consider themselves that, but not the average person, and not those starting out. It doesn't resonate with ordinary people.

* * * 

So if it were entirely up to me, I would consider replacing the first question with something more broad and purpose-oriented, where one can mark as many options as one perceives applies, e.g.:

1. How do you want to be involved on WikiTree; What purposes of yours are served by WikiTree?

☒ Family history

☐ Professional

☒ Hobby

☒ Help others

☐ History

☐ Writing

☒ Programming

☒ Contact cousins

☒ DNA stuff

☒ Photographer

☐ Art

☐ etc...

Rather than auto-generating a biography (not sure why one would do that, when we have a free-form biography available), one could just have a set of purpose-related tags. Something like this, but with those user-purposes listed:

Again, a feature commonly used in other sites which should provide some level of intuitiveness. e.g. Maybe it can be used to filter and find fellow users in the future.

Note: the same could also be done for current "user-interest tags" (i.e. surname / following list) and the layout might benefit from the compactness. Clicking on "Oldford" might open up the comment. "Oldford is my maternal grandmother's name. Her parents were from Newfoundland." etc...

Again, this could help open WikiTree up to a greater range of interested users and allow for greater user specialization. For example, what if those folks asking for database dumps were encouraged to stick around by giving them profiles... even if they weren't interested in doing genealogy? Maybe a couple would choose to continue contributing in more technological ways. Right now, it's kind of limited to the subset of those who consider themselves genealogists and who also have programming skills. That's a lot more narrow and exclusive than simply those who have programming skills. Same could be said for many other skill sets. (Not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia consider themselves to be "encyclopedists": many niches exist within the citizenship-like identity of "Wikipedians".)

---

Help: Membership

One thing immediately jumped out at me:

Again, I don't see why one should need to "indicate that [one is] a genealogist" to have a tier 2 account (again, calling it "family member" is problematic). 

Say that Alice is Googling and finds her grandparents on WikiTree. She doesn't know who added them, and the profiles aren't managed, but she decides to add herself to connect. Alice shouldn't need to be "a genealogist" to do that, but she might state her purposes (as above). If she likes WikiTree and has a positive experience, Alice will likely be an unofficial ambassador, showing off her family tree to friends and family, "Hey, check out this cool site". That's what I described before:

 Being a lurker or observer isn't a bad thing, and many studies show that lurkers eventually do become contributors or editors when they feel that they have something to contribute. In my own experience, lurkers are often promoting the sites that they frequent through word-of-mouth. So WT would benefit from that. Much in the way that many genealogists here benefit from WT functioning as "cousin bait". But if those lurkers were given accounts here, that would provide WT with a more permanent audience. Other sites do this by having one of those frustrating pop-up messages, asking you to sign up for updates, before you've even read half of an article. WikiTree doesn't need to do that. It has an opportunity to being people on-board more organically.

(I need to end here, but more could be said. Might come back to edit my answer later.)

Comments

A long and very well expressed answer.  But what I really loved was John Jacob Jingleheimer . . .

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
His name is my name, too
Whenever we go out
The people always shout
There goes John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
Da-da-da-da-da . . .  

---

Loved the "purpose-driven" question - I think it will cover the options better than the proposed set of what-level-of-genealogist-are-you questions. I stared at the proposed set for a while - still don't know how I'd answer it. The purpose-driven set of questions not only was easier to answer for me (ticking several boxes) but it also serves to offer ideas as to what one could do as a member of WikiTree.

---

I think there's a lot of value in what JN has said. There are definitely many points worth pondering.

---

This is a well-thought-out comment, JN. You make some very important suggestions which I hope will be taken into consideration.

---

I really like and prefer the idea of purpose-focused questions. Much more informative and useful.

Answer 20

I see a red flag with the question about "my family tree."  What makes WikiTree important is that we work on "our" family tree.  We get static every so often on G2G from a new member who discovers that "someone I don't know has edited MY family tree!"  Of course if it's located on ancestry it is indeed "my" family tree, but we should want to educate from the beginning that if they come to WikiTree, they will be helping build "our" family tree.

Comments

"Documentation of my ancestry" would be a good generic term (to substitute for "my family tree") that encompasses both traditional family trees and what we have on WikiTree.