How do I get the correct people attached?
So, in my Sclafani branch, someone has attached the wrong Pietro Sclafani to the branch with the wrong wife. I tried to show him the evidence of the connections via the ship manifest (the only clear documentation to show the connection. However, he changed the connections I made back to the wrong Pietro. None of the other documentation supports the connection he has made. I haven't wanted to be reprimanded by him again so I haven't changed it back but also, it's so convoluted, I don't know how to change the connections to the correct ones.
Answers
-
There are two basic approaches - that I can think of - to convincing a person to the error of their connection of incorrect Tree profiles/relations:
Actively
Shore-up the sources/evidence of the next descendant generation(s). Basically - show how the descendants of the correct relations differ from the incorrect descendant relations.
Pro-actively
Help the other person shore-up the family/relations of the proposed but incorrect person.
I tend to focus on Actively contributing to profiles (focus on my tree relations) - but there probably are occasions where I could be more Pro-Active as well.
0 -
There is no process available to stop this happening.
True.
Now we are getting to the Idea phase of this post...
... then if the person keeps adding incorrect information there's essentially nothing you can do.
You can continue doing Active/Pro-Active contributions. Yes - it may become an edit-battle - but you have to consider if the battle is worth the effort.
There is no actual dispute resolution process. There are no sanctions for knowingly adding false material except in the most severe cases.
Idea: This statement - directly above - is currently and unfortunately largely correct - but does ignore the current collaboration features. Reasonable people should be able to come to agreement over correct entry of profiles if collaboration occurs? Hopefully collaboration will result and correct profiles entered. There should be some evidence of attempts of collaboration/Discussion - before FamilySearch should step in and decide (which yes - generally they won't do)? FamilySearch could perhaps track accounts that submit/abandon or don't collaborate on profiles? ...perhaps accumulating merits/demerits in the Collaboration if non-responsive after so many logins? Perhaps collaboration attempts on profiles you have contributed to could become Profile Collaboration Hints that are required/mandatory - before other Tree/site functions are operational for an account? These hints could be resolved when a collaborative response is entered - yes this could be circumvented by a blank/non-collaborative response ... which could earn a demerit... I think you see the Idea. Unfortunately - I guess non-collaboration in Tree will take some oversight/review from FamilySearch - but requiring a response - or the site being non-functional - should hopefully get the needed point across to those not collaborating? There are probably other possible mitigating actions FamilySearch could take to persuade accounts to collaborate - but many people cringe at requiring or making things mandatory. If it helps the Tree be more collaborative (requiring response) - then I think I'd be all for it. Now if I can just remember why I contributed that ... oh I forgot to attach a source ... oh now I see why the other user is saying that is incorrect ... I guess I need to be more careful/organized.
I can't remember where the FamilySearch essay was that I read about the need for FamilySearch to pick and choose carefully about which features they implement. The basic idea was that - yes FamilySearch could pick up and develop every single latest/greatest idea out there - but how would those ideas affect the already implemented structure. Is the Idea worth implementing? I'm a big Idea person - and I like the ideas I contribute - but I'm ok if FamilySearch doesn't implement them all - because they see the bigger picture and the structure they need to provide and what should/could be developed elsewhere (hopefully I get another roundtuit and suggest my magnum opus Idea one of these days...but I do try to contribute to the one world Family Tree - the ultimate magnum opus).
Much of this could be avoided if users utilized the current collaboration/impedance features - IF users are careful/respectful to other users. But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of collaboration on many profiles to which I contribute - either they/I accept the profile as it currently exists (don't choose to engage in the battle) or they (or hopefully less often I) incorrectly merge/conflate records/profiles into the profile - there doesn't seem to be too much collaborative middle ground occurring (just my perception/opinion). There doesn't even need to be huge collaboration about what is/should be in agreement (Vital Records for one) - so if there is agreement and it is entered correctly - I still don't really understand the structure of leaving it open-edit - such that it can be changed from correct to incorrect. I would much prefer - if entered correctly and accepted as such by Family Group/professional curation department (which doesn't exist) - that those correct pieces be marked read only. It would be nice to have a more collaborative process - but I don't know how else to do that besides Note/Discussion OR allowing Family Groups to have more edit privilege/collaborative process. If a Family Group of descendants cannot collaboratively enter a profile with agreement - what makes anyone suspect the fully open-edit process as now existent - should produce a better outcome? My point is that I believe Family Groups should have a primary role for editing ancestor profiles. If I can see how cousin x believes this - what sources they cite - then maybe that will inform/change my existing conclusion about the profile - in the meantime hopefully I have attached the sources for the reason I conclude currently... or how I can represent my proximity of relation has conveyed such knowledge to me ...
Merry Christmas
0
