How does one deal with a person who is abusing the tree by hyphenating female surnames en masse? The person has a sociopolitical ax to grind. She cares not to see only the maiden name only, and she refuses to understand the problems it causes in searching and merging. She gives the same copy-and-paste response to anyone who rids the hyphenated names. She doesn't care that she's not the only person related to the deceased. She will not appreciate what she is doing is not welcome. Whenever people correct the hyphenated surnames, she jumps on it ASAP, hyphenates again, and then adds the same canned copy-and-paste response as follows:
"Why do you want less information about a person's life instead of more? Does this make sense that Catherine Zeta-Jones, Olivia Newton-John, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Paula Modersohn-Becker, Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, etc. can't use their names? That's why ancestry.com and findagrave.com changed their policies to bring them up to the modern era, not 1894! Hyphenated last names go back further than 1894 when the Mormons started their genealogy program. The decision to not use the women's married and maiden names which they earned was made by a male oriented society which is considered discrimination today and leaves out vital information in a persons life and family."
I have reported the abuse via the abuse link, and I talked to a FamilySearch representative today who will send the complaint up the channels. I was informed that FamilySearch will remain a wild, wild west open season to users who have little or no understanding of genealogy. Hence, they know the mega-tree is riddled with errata born from user ignorance. I'm left with questions:
Whose responsibility is it to educate the uninformed or misinformed?
How many users have never first sought what to do and how to do genealogy before ever making attempts to fiddle with the tree?
How many person profiles are there with no validating source attached to confirm?
How many times must one see "GEDCOM file" in Reason This Information Is Correct without a source ever being added for years?
How long must we wait to see sources attached when data entries show things like one's "family tree" et al when no source is never readily attached to validate the data? "
Should FamilySearch remain "inclusive" by looking the other way as slipshod research provides family connections based on a single secondary or lesser level source?
Again, whose responsibility is it to ensure that users have some level of education before working the tree?