Can a public Username be mentioned on FamilySearch under the Terms of Use?
(Apologies. This is a re-post. I deleted what I thought was a draft version of the letter, and my published post disappeared. I didn't get a chance to read any replies, and I'm hoping for some clarification.)
Background: I am on FamilySearch almost daily. I spend between 20-60 hours a week on genealogical research. I am not an easily-offended novice FamilySearch patron. I am quite familiar with research disputes.
In my years on FamilySearch, I believe that I have reported only two individuals for abuse. The first sent me a profanity-laced note.
The second recently made some libelous statements about me on an ancestor's FamilySearch record. I reported him/her to FamilySearch for the libel.
The abuse report to FamilySearch resulted in the following reply from FamilySearch:
------
(FSSRA-4531) Report Abuse for Discussions
Thank you for contacting FamilySearch Support and bringing your concern to our attention. Appropriate action has been taken and we have contacted the other patron about these concerns. We understand your frustration when others change data you have added to Family Tree.
We have removed the inappropriate comments that we found on this record. As a reminder, please do not call out other users with their Contact names in your comments, notes, or discussions. This is against the Terms of Use.
We understand that there is a disagreement between you both regarding information entered on this ancestor. We appreciate the attempts that you have made to communicate and collaborate with the other patron.
As you are aware, Family Tree is a shared tree where all participate in creating persons in their tree along with updating information, records, etc. to document the persons in the families. Since many are related to the same lines, we allow all users to add the information they have to the persons that have been entered into the tree. The hope being that others that are related may have information that you may not know or have possession of, so all can benefit from the information. This is why we allow users to edit and update information in Family Tree. Generally, this goes well, but occasionally there can be confusion and potential disputes between patrons about the same person.
When disputes or confusion occur, it is important that the information is clear and available to all parties involved so they may review, together, and determine the correct information for the person in the tree. Unfortunately, some individuals do not put in sources or other information to present to other users why some data is not about the specific individual or why the new data is not relevant. We have found that more communication and more information on the person can help significantly in educating each other.
Again, we appreciate the attempts you have made to collaborate and encourage you to continue.
Sincerely,
FamilySearch Data Administration
-----
(As a side note, only one of the libelous statements was removed. I'm trying to find out if there's something that can be done about the other.)
I have two questions:
1) Is this letter a canned response from FamilySearch?
The response from FamilySearch does not apply to my situation. I was not reporting a research dispute, nor complaining that someone was changing something on FamilySearch. I was reporting actionable libel. Also, my report to FamilySearch was about the libelous statements, so any information on the research dispute that prompted the libel came from the User I had reported. Frankly, the lecture about research disputes and adding documents was insulting. Pretty much all that I do on FamilySearch is correcting records while adding sources or documents. Can I chalk up the non-relevant response to a copy-and-paste job?
2) Is this statement accurate? "As a reminder, please do not call out other users with their Contact names in your comments, notes, or discussions. This is against the Terms of Use."
To be clear, I did not direct any comment towards, nor attack the User at any time in any of the information I posted on the ancestor’s record. In one case, I had quoted the User in an attempt to avoid antagonizing him/her by deleting his/her note in the birth information.
I simply quoted his entry with attribution when I changed the birth information. For example I entered: "Previous note dated 12/?/2021 from User: 'What he had typed' Then my information."
His note was posted to the public record, and was viewable to the general public. It's still on the record in the change list. It was made with his/her publicly available username, which is not private information, as defined in the terms of use. I completely understand the difference between what is available on the public record and private information. I am careful not to put any information about a living person on FamilySearch.
I have read the Terms of Use several times over the years. I went back to re-read it after I got the note which said “As a reminder, please do not call out other users with their Contact names in your comments, notes, or discussions. This is against the Terms of Use.”
I read through the Terms twice. There is quite a bit about private information. I did not see anything that said that we were not allowed to mention someone’s publicly available username in a comment, note, or discussion. Perhaps I missed something.
People attribute quotes, information, and posts to other users all the time on FamilySearch. If this is actually against the terms of use, it is not clear, and not consistently enforced.
For instance, if someone posts a will abstract on one page, but the will mentions other relatives, I will re-post the abstract on the other records, with a note saying something like: “Will abstract originally posted by John Doe on the record for Bob Smith (FamilySearch PID)” I thought proper attribution was polite, necessary, and a good research principle.
Any insight from the community? Do I need to stop giving attribution to people when I quote their publicly posted information using their public username? I hope not, because not providing attribution is a bad research principle.
Best Answer
-
Hi Melinda,
We surmise that your original post must not have been saved, you may not have pressed the "Post Comment" button at the bottom under the post box.
The contact name is used whenever the individual contributes to FamilySearch, by editing, adding information, merging, or adding sources. You see it on the Details page, as well as in the Latest Changes, and wherever they did something.
Yes, as long as they follow the code of conduct under Terms of use it should be fine. You can attribute the information by using the contact name for something they added. You can also click on the contact name to send the individual a private message. Use the article links below if needed.
Does this clarify your contact name issue?
0
Answers
-
Thank you for your question about what can be used in FamilySearch comments. You may be confusing Username and Contact names. Username should not be used in public forums. Contact names are used to send private messages to another user, and can be used here for addressing other guests.
A supervisor said to let you know that answers to certain questions, in an abuse report, will be the authorized comments for a specific issue, ("but that each ticket that is created through the Report Abuse link is reviewed individually.") Even though each case is reviewed separately, FamilySearch does have certain policies that will appear in responses to similar issues that may be sent in individual cases.
We hope this helps.
0 -
Ok. I guess I was using the wrong term. I looked at my Account, and I see that the Contact Name is marked as "Always Public" and Username is private.
But I don't know and cannot see anyone's username, just their Contact Name, which is public. So I quoted the person using their Contact Name.
My question is, are we allowed to mention other people's public Contact Name on FamilySearch records? Despite what the note sent from FamilySearch says, the Terms of Use do not address the use of someone's public Contact Name. The Terms cover extensively private information, and I would never post that.
0