Why is their a double standard on lines and Trees?
Why does Family search Lock down and does not allow editing to some trees, yet they will not do it to every tree?
Answers
-
The FamilySearch family tree is a single, one-world tree which anyone with an account can add information relating to their family. Because of the Open-edit functionality, certain famous or noteworthy names and data need protecting and these are flagged up as 'Read Only'. If an apparently 'ordinary' name carries this banner, the issue can be raised via community and escalated to understand the reasons, which are usually communicated by personal message
2 -
Yes Barry I am aware of your comment, and have been aware of it for some time, because of how I heard that before I ask this question, but sorry that don't answer my question about the double standard and the Fairness to all..
0 -
FamilySearch Family Tree is One tree. FS does not "Lock down...some trees." FS places Read-Only restrictions on some individuals because of the reasons previously stated, all other individuals are left in Open Edit status. That's the nature of FSFT. @s10297588641, do you have an individual you think should have Read Only status because they are famous and need protecting?
If you want to maintain a completely private tree, you should consider a stand alone genealogy management program. Most have free versions. See at: https://partners.familysearch.org/solutionsgallery/s/list?category=family_tree_management
1 -
IF a person is living, Yes, other than that no, and that means if they or their ancestors are dead. Because why should non famous people be treated and discriminated against and treated like 2nd class people on here? Why should famous people be able to say to others, I am more superior than you are? while they say they treat every body equal? So why should famous people be treated like kings, queens, roylaty, and masters, to others. While are All other people are treated like slaves, Peasants, and Nothing else.
0 -
Yes Chas I am also aware of 3rd party apps also, This is a question, I want seriously answered because of how it Discriminates about every body else. So I am aware of Most things others are aware, of.
0 -
I don't think the issue is necessarily connected to famous individuals. As I have previously pointed out, even a profile for Jesus remains open-edit. The issue is far more likely to involve persons who had some status in the LDS Church. This is not always without reason, as their profiles can be very complicated and involve multiple marriages and children attached to whom they had no direct relationship. I believe it is to stop these profiles being messed-up still further that they are made read-only.
On the other hand, the read-only status does occasionally appear to have been applied for arbitrary reasons and users are perfectly entitled to query an ID they believe should be changed to open-edit. As with any piece of programming, there could be a genuine mistake involved, which (with this issue) I'm sure could be reversed if the read-only status appears to have been applied in error, or without good reason.
But I certainly would not take FamilySearch's actions as reflecting a practice of discrimination - in the way you are defining it, or otherwise. We certainly can edit the profiles of many individuals with royal titles, and others who were rich or famous.
3 -
one web site they have what is a over seer aka curator, explain to me why they church don't use them instead?
0 -
I dunno. Personally, I see the concept as being not that dissimilar to what they do on other large scale contribution based websites like Wikipedia. I believe that FamilySearch is an open tree to try to capture as much information and engage as many people as possible. Again, using the Wikipedia example, college professors will flunk you if you quote Wikipedia in a term paper, however that doesn't mean you don't use it because Wikipedia is a great source to get started and to find resources and links that you can use to write your paper.
Open systems are great at what they are great at. They promote the concept that everyone has something valuable to offer. Along with the potential for sharing bad information, they also allow for bad information to be corrected. In open systems you only close things down when the cost outweighs the benefit. So I don't think that it is discrimination, if anything it is the other way around. Those pages have lost the benefit of being open. Wikipedia will often close pages of certain political figures, or debated topics, because they can be targeted by bad actors for misuse.
Closed pages on open platforms are seen as a negative rather than a positive thing. It isn't generally considered a privilege. They are often the sad byproduct having to many trolls in the world. 😄
0 -
There are always better ways to do things. Curation is definitely an option some have taken. I suspect scale has something to do with the decision as well. Curation takes time and resources. I would imagine that following Wikipedia's example and just locking certain trees, allows the organization to allocate those resources to other activities.
0
