Volunteer's Helping Hand
Is there a good reason why other people are allowed to add all kinds of miss information to my family tree without consent? I am so tired of find people, photos, documents, etc. that are added to my family tree and causing more of a headache in trying to get things straighten out! That all keeps me from making any real progress in doing my genealogy here on this site. I am considering moving all my information over to Ancestry.com, because at least on that site other people can't screw up my family tree whenever they want to. Your volunteers should be trained in how to do research before being turned loose on adding incorrect information without having the common sense of checking Names, Dates, Locations, etc.
My suggestion is to leave the decision making up to the individual that owns the tree.
Is there a good reason why other people are allowed to add all kinds of miss information to my family tree without consent?
The reason is that the Tree structure is built upon open-edit. The quality of the edit is up to the individual contributor. If most contributors submit poor quality - the overall quality is decreased. So is that a good reason? It's just the way it is... There is the Change Log, Alert Note and open-edit to allow me to 'change it back' - but sometimes unravelling all the changes can take a lot of unnecessary work.
The problem as I see it - if I know the information I entered is correct - either from proximity of relation or research or both - why should that good information remain open-edit? Why allowed to change from good to worse or not even the same person?
You can submit a 'static tree' under Genealogies - which hopefully maintains 'your correct tree' and at some point could be developed to override changes ... But that's another Idea ... These static trees also strip much of the richness of Memories you add - but do maintain Vital Records/relationships.0
It can be frustrating when others make changes you don't agree with. Sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes they have more information than you do, even about close relatives. It is a collaborative tree, so it isn't "your tree" or "my tree", there is no person who "owns the tree". There is great value in working together. I am thrilled when others add photos and documents of shared relatives.3
I have a suggestion to make this less frustrating. We should all strive to ensure we are entering the correct information. However, some people are desperate to create a tree, even if it is wrong, which any serious genealogy enthusiast would find counterproductive as we are trying to create one huge CORRECT family tree.
I too have come across some misinformation and does make me hesitant to share/correct/edit. What I encountered was a discrepancy that lasted 10 years. It was an ongoing battle back and forth, complete with exclamation marks. In short, someone tried to attach the wrong female Marie Marguerite to a male and had not checked the dit name of the male. They even stated Marie Marguerite was born and married on certain dates and locations, however, in viewing them, these were for the correct female, Marie Louise. The last names were completely different. If they had actually looked at the parish records in the parish, it would confirm these were for Marie Louise with her parents named on both records. This was compounded by a volunteer overriding the corrected information back to the incorrect information. I took the time, to settle this dispute, citing the actual source (none had previously existed) and giving a quote of the information in the parish record. Then, cited the correct marriage for the female, attached to the correct male, with source and transcription. However, I felt I had done something wrong, even if I was doing something right.
MY SUGGESTIONS: (feedback welcomed) A static tree is a nice thought but loses the richness of memories. as mentioned above. There has to be a better way than just accepting misinformation or having to constantly correct your hard work.
- The original contributor should be allowed to remove edit availability, providing they cite source information or reasons why they feel it is correct. Instead of an alert being sent after someone changes it, why not restrict it to allowing someone to only be able to make a suggestion of the correct information? Which they can only delete or disregard by stating reasons for their decision. Or possibly, leave the suggestion attached to the record as an alternate, allowing others to see this information as well as their discussion in regard to this individual?
- However, the issue with this would be if the original information is incorrect. This is where I feel an experienced, dedicated, genealogy volunteer would be helpful. If there is a discrepancy in a record, why not flag it for a volunteer to review? One that is able to look at the CITED sources/information and make a final decision and have the ability to lock the record so that it cannot be changed by either party. However, I have witnessed a volunteer, not checking the information and changing the record to the wrong information. How do we prevent this? Could we then have the ability to flag the record to a senior volunteer to make the final decision who would then lock the record?
- Also, being able to snip the record/source using a SNIPPING TOOL, would be very beneficial to all. Instead of text-based text boxes in vital record information, (I came across this when I was correcting the record mentioned previously) why could we not do a snipping as shown below? The resizing option here is only available in Small, Medium or Large when usually in Word you click on the bottom right corner of the snipping and you can resize it to save space. To view it, simply temporarily make it larger.
- This would be ideal for the volunteers when determining disputes in information.
I welcome any thoughts or feedback. I have been working on my family lines for about 20 years now, have used many programs, and have combed through many documents. It really bothers me when I see BAD information just because someone is a name collector. It is frustrating and even more so when someone manipulates a correct record.
Oh, a tip to all, some may know this, in Ancestry I believe, if someone didn't know the deceased location/date and they just entered "Y" for yes, the system would automatically assign their first location being "Y, Somme, France". Some people are trying to connect similar names/families, who died in Y, Somme, France. Be very careful of this.0
There has to be a better way than just accepting misinformation or having to constantly correct your hard work.
I agree. But developing such Ideas so that it protects these known/sufficiently complete profiles - but still maintains open-edit for profiles where it can be advantageous - is a bit of a chore. I have suggested multiple times - that 'sufficiently complete' profiles could be marked read-only. If changes were still being requested - which FamilySearch handles for read-only profiles - I believe those requests should be required to 'disprove' not only the particular change request fact in question - but the entire profile (dates, locations, relations) - basically impede or make the onerous work be on the person wanting to submit the change (not on the person needing to 'change it back'). Supposedly if we have entered correct information - we have attached our sources, and conclusions. Changes that affect the profile to a significant degree should bear the additional burden of proving such changes - open-edit in my opinion currently is too accepting of any change. All significant profile change does not equal improvement. True it might be difficult to determine which profile is accurate - but as you say - when the profile already contains so much evidence/proof - I feel it should be marked read-only.
Perhaps an additional thought/question ... If good genealogical process has been followed - my understanding is that a sufficiently exhaustive search of sources plus differentiating between possibly difficult data (similarly named persons in proximate locations) is also required in a thorough conclusion. Perhaps I need to start being more detailed and include these summary conclusions in every Source Note, duplicate it to Discussions - basically become a professional genealogist? But why go to that effort if it should be self-evident to anyone that the information is 'correct'? I have further Ideas - but I need to go enjoy Christmas Eve ...0
JIkkala You seem to have only 2 statuses for when someone has created a new person: sources are there to support this person's existence and that someone should be able to turn off edits, or sources are wrong and a volunteer should be assigned to sort out and fix the incorrect sources. That is so very narrow, and will have to be defined. Who calls for the volunteer? What does the volunteer do? Evaluate the attached sources, remove the incorrect ones and stop there? I suspect due to time constraints that will be the case, which is not overly helpful. There are many persons in the world tree who have multiple sources that are correct, and one or two that are wrong. Why does that situation even warrant action? I will just add a comment that the source is applied incorrectly and explain why in the reason statement. Others remove the sources and explain why in the reason statement so it shows up in the change log.
Also, there are many persons who have one and only one source: a marriage or baptism record or census, perhaps. That meets your criteria that the original contributor should be able to close editing. What if someone comes along with more information? In fact, that is ALWAYS possible regardless of how many sources exist for a person. What is new information becomes available? This is why no one should be able to close editing, and it is also why many descendants of people with read only profiles go nuts: they have new information they want to add and apparently have to go through a special process to have it added. I think some of us would simply stop using FamilySearch, but do you know what most people would do? I suspect most people would create a duplicate person, add all the "new" info as well as the old, and attach that person to the tree. So father John and mother Mary could have 2 sons John Jr, one editable, one not. I think that would never be helpful!!!
This is a collaborative tree, and that comes with pros and cons. Only you can determine which outweighs the other.1
You could try WikiTree for your family's history, it is also a collaborative tree, it also has much more emphasis on accuracy.
There are people who don't stick with WikiTree because they don't want to abide by the sourcing and other rules.
You can look at the entire website without signing in, it is free/no charge at all ever.0
I highly recommend watching these videos that discuss the collaborative nature of Family Tree.
WHY USE FAMILYSEARCH FAMILYTREE
I'm trying to figure out how to correct a mistake someone made in what I thought was my family tree. I'm getting the idea from some stuff I am reading here that anyone can attach a person to a tree even if it is wrong.
In my case a person with the first and last name the same as my maternal grandfather has been attached to this tree. Problem is my maternal grand father was living in New York State during the time this person was married in England. So unless granddad managed to hop ship back to England and marry a woman there while at the same time having a family over here I don't think this is the same person.
Also I have the original copy of his citizenship papers and his papers from when he was in the Canadian army for WWI and none of them show a middle name, but the person in question has the middle name of Dawson.0
If you feel the middle name is wrong - and none of your source documentation has a middle name - and if attempting to contact the submitter of the name - didnt get you anywhere
then simply correct the name as you feel it needs to be - along with anything else that you feel needs correcting..
The nice thing about a collaborative system - is that people can correct mistakes like this . . .
almost everything in FamilyTree can be edited - its up to you and me (users of the system) to make such corrections.
name fields - like many other attributes - will have an "Edit" link next to it to make a correction.0
@KennethHansen66 it sounds as if someone has merged your grandfather with someone else with the same name. You may want to read some articles in the Help Center. The terms "undo merge" brought a few articles up.
Definitely possible it could have been a bad merge
but I have seen plenty of cases - where a merge had nothing to do with it - simply that a user updated a middle name that never existed on primary documents.
a simple name change can correct that . . .0
Since the mistakes you indicate were made on your maternal grandfather - it is your family tree (your near relations) - within the open-edit, one-world shared Family Tree. Yes, anyone can currently edit your near relations (unless they happen to be famous/read-only or Confidential). You may have entered relations correctly - but others can morph/combine those profiles into other persons (usually similarly named) but obviously separate unique individuals.
To correct the mistake you will need to check the Latest Changes log on your maternal grandfather's Details page (right-hand column probably about halfway down the page):
You may be able to Restore to the profile that existed prior to the change Or you may have to manually undo the change. What I seem to harp on above - and other times - is that if a profile is sufficiently correct - it would be nice to be able to read-only/lock those profile pieces in - so that they could not be changed (since they are correct they need no change). Others may point out - well you didn't have a middle name and maybe someone else adds a middle name - that's fine if correct - but shouldn't change the correct first and last/surname names (that are documented...).0
Recent death dates, cemetery records, lead to obituaries and wills which have living people in it. Some people on the 1940s and 1950s census' are still alive.
I try to be as respectful as possible when it comes to privacy to my non researching relatives.
I and others have had our recently deceased on here in a bare bones fashion, originally believing only genealogist would see them.
Then a stranger links all the suggestions, which are correct, but now that person is on the world wide web for anyone to see.
Some volunteers are over enthusiastic.
Can we have a special red star or something similar that says Looking for Help.
Or a blue star that says Work in Progress, so some volunteer will not help where its not wanted/needed.
Then the volunteers can see the stars and focus on someone who wants help, not someone who doesn't.
It is a joy to do your own family tree, and it helps to learn your tree by heart if you've done it yourself.
Collaboration with relatives is fine.
I've just had strangers, with names and locations not connected to my family tree, who I've messaged to ask how are you related to this person? (no reply) Just link everything to recently decease relative.
I wish there was a 100 year privacy coverage, and that we only worked on ancestors not openly with our parents or grandparents. Yes what every we find on the internet is fair game, but is it really necessary to make it easier for nosey people to see it all at once?1
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
I have made it a point of not adding anyone to Family Tree of my or my parents' generation to Family Tree, but this has not prevented others from doing so, of course. In one case, I was quite shocked to find an ID for my mother's brother. When I contacted the contributor, she turned out to be my uncle's sister in law (wife's sister), so not the unrelated stranger I had expected.
I can understand your views but cannot see your ideas are practicable. Even I will continue to work on recently deceased individuals who might be totally unconnected to my family - especially if my notes / additions helps to distinguish them from individuals of my family who are of similar identity, and likely to be the subject of a merge, by a careless or inexperienced user.
Legally, of course, there is no rights of privacy for the deceased. I do wish I could "hide" some of my deceased relatives, but have long accepted the nature of Family Tree just does not allow for either that, or prevent others adding potentially embarrassing, or downright incorrect, details.
If we don't like the format of Family Tree we can always quit using it, but others would still be free to add profiles of our close relatives, for all the world to see.
On the other point you touch on, yes, the release the 1940 and 1950 US census records has made it only too easy for volunteers to add living persons with a Deceased status. At least things are that much more difficult for those with U.K. parents / grandparents, etc., with the census records not being released until 100 years later. The attitude towards privacy of the living appears to be a little too casual, especially when it comes to volunteer projects, where the participants appear to be disregarding the fact that many of these individuals are probably still alive.0
This is a thoughtful conversation that touches my concerns too. In reality no one owns their family tree, which lets us contribute information about our common ancestors, and I've been fortunate to be contacted by cousins who've shared knowledge, which helps everyone including future generations. But I've also seen instances where bad information has destroyed a lot of hard work. I have a particular ancestor whose first wife is unknown and several children were born to that couple before he married again. His name is fairly common and some of the children's names are not particularly unique. There is another person with a similar name and matching children's names, who has been mixed up with my relative, and the unrelated person's wife has been attached to my relative. I've researched these families and have posted some of my findings and I have corrected the relationships in FamilySearch to the best of my ability. Over the last dozen years I've learned to be careful and to clearly state my reasons when changing relationships, yet someone (or a group) has repeatedly joined a wrong tree into my family while ignoring sources and discussions. I keep my database on my personal computer at home; while there is advantage in sharing, still I'm getting old and don't have time enough to fix the internet. I'd like to present my findings to a volunteer who can fix the problems (going now through multiple generations.) I've got sources for both my relatives as well as some for the family of the similarly-named other persons, including biographies from history books written 150 years ago, county, state, and federal records, findagrave memorials, newspaper archives, etc. Enough at least to distinguish separate individuals. I don't want to create a duplicate tree branch, but it's gonna be a big cleanup job.
Does FamilySearch have this kind of resource available, and if so, how can I reach out to ask for help, or should I look for a different approach?0
Does FamilySearch have this kind of resource available, and if so, how can I reach out to ask for help, or should I look for a different approach?
Yes, FamilySearch Center volunteers are probably the best reference I can give for this sort of request/help. If you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you can contact your local Family History and Temple Consultants for such assistance.
If you click Discover a Local Center button or go to: https://www.familysearch.org/centers/locations/
You can find the nearest center and Contact information - to arrange for a visit (it would be good to discuss your tree cleanup needs before going so that someone with such experience can be prepared to help with the project).
If a local Center cannot be of assistance (because of limited volunteer staff/resources) - you could post profile questions here in Community and anyone willing can attempt to provide such assistance (there are some very helpful people here in Community that do such tree cleaning all the time).1
I really don't understand the overall attitude I perceive about "strangers" adding information to people who are not their ancestors, and the belief this will always be wrong information. That is an attitude that needs to be questioned. First, I do keep up my own family line up and am trying very hard to attach all information I have from inherited sources as well as online sources. When I say family, this includes various in-law lines as well as several birth lines of adopted relatives. I should point out in those lines I would like look I am not related, but all that falls under my "family umbrella". If someone not related to me adds information, I welcome it, if correct, and fix it if not. Someone added an obituary to my father from a scientific society he was a member of. The only negative feeling I experienced is regret that I hadn't done it myself. Second, I put LOTS and LOTS of information and new sources on people who are not my ancestors. Why? Two reasons. I have lots of information about family friends and business associates of my ancestors from things I have inherited. This includes personal information about the Civil War dead and those who mourned them. I have been looking up these people and adding the digitized information to their person record, and in some cases, I've created new people. The second reason I add sources to non-relatives is I do volunteer research for a lineage society and a historic preservation society. I assume when I find wills, deeds, land grants, tax records, etc. that are not yet attached to the tree, people would appreciate it if I added those sources to the appropriate persons. Are you saying I should keep all that new information secret to myself? Really?
The recently deceased close relatives and / or living relatives makes some sense, although if records are in the public domain now (such living family in some obituaries) I see no purpose in keeping them private on FamilySearch. Also some states have dumped recent records into the public domain. Virginia has published marriage certificates through 2014 and Indiana has published birth certificates through 1944, for example. I have a living aunt whose birth certificate is in the public domain! (I am NOT saying that is good practice, by the way!) Within my own family (including in-laws) when deceased parents are named in sources as attached to children still living, I have added the record to the deceased parent anyway. And before anyone criticizes me, all I have to do is point out that the 1950 Census contains BOATLOADS of living people.1
I really don't understand the overall attitude I perceive about "strangers" adding information to people who are not their ancestors, and the belief this will always be wrong information. That is an attitude that needs to be questioned.
@Gail Swihart Watson The 'attitude' probably stems from the open-edit structure - which accepts the contribution (if some can be called that) - of someone distantly/non-perceivably related (although we are probably all 'human family' related - hi 100th cousin!) - as equally as someone that knows, has researched, has entered near-family-relational data in Tree. But there isn't a perception that additions are ALWAYS incorrect - unless the profiles you have worked on are 'sufficiently complete' - at that point you can pretty much tell whether an addition applies to the profile or not. If you experience such Tree changes - it bothers one - especially when it is a close relation.
Because of the way open-edit can change the identity of a person - rather quickly - even when there is "so great a cloud of witnesses" already attached - this can make such successive changes (if one cannot be very watchful through Following) - difficult to recover from. And if one makes the herculean effort to correct/recover such - one would certainly hope to protect from such reoccurring.
FamilySearch obviously realizes such risk and therefore has developed Recent Changes, Following, Source attachment/merging alerts, Sources/Reason statements, Notes/Discussions and now the recent Alert Note feature (maybe I have left something out?) to impede/mitigate such risk. But all of these features do not prevent 'determined, careless/incorrect changes' - because of open-edit ... I could probably go on and on the rest of the day...
I apologize to all you cousins if I come across with an attitude unaccepting of good/correct information being entered into Family Tree - such is not my intent (no matter how passionate my words may seem). I am just trying to get implemented a solution (which I hope comes about eventually) which further impedes/protects profiles and family relationships from such incorrect and identity morphing contributions from occurring.
In my simple mind - correct identity should be able to be 'sufficiently established' and others convinced of such - to the point there wouldn't be anything - of 'vital identity/relationship importance' - to further to add to a profile. Which profile/vitals/sources could then be marked read-only (no vital changes need research added) - or be left open-edit IF ALL respected such and contributed with care. I realize the further back the generation with sparser records - the more and more difficult this becomes - but why should this prevent the protection of 'known identities' of recent relations/generations for which there 'more likely' exist such records (and yes there always seem to be exceptions)...?
It's a bit like 'finding the end of a tangled ball of yarn' - so could just end up with me 'spinning my wheels, but getting no where'. But that's my decision - to try to see if there are Ideas that can help - 'Lord help me'.0
genthusiast I do not consider any of my ancestors as sufficiently established such that nothing of vital identity or relationship importance will be found. WW II records are still being declassified. Korea and Vietnam war records are yet to be declassified. Many war records earlier than that are still being digitized not because they have just become "old" enough, but because there are so many records that not all have been digitized. Many collections with county governments are still being digitized, as are newspapers and court records. I have found much "new" information on "recently" digitized "old" records. Do you really think no new information is out there on ancestors you love and revere? When I research lineage for others, I have never yet found a single person record in FamilySearch where I looked at the sources and memories and exclaimed "I have EVERYTHING I NEED!!!". Nope. Doesn't exist - or it exists in precious few records that I haven't seen yet.
We all want to impede the destruction of good, correct information. But your idea, to let family members become content and have the ability to mark their ancestors read only, will stagnate the level of competence and keep it at the lowest levels. I am so happy someone will NOT have the ability to say "Two census records and one marriage register are all we need. Let's close down editing now."
I think there will always be mischief in an open edit database like this. But more than that will be people who unintentionally make mistakes because they are rookies. Now THAT one could have solutions if FS chose to pursue it. I think I could be all about limiting the edit rights to those who have taken and passed little proficiency exercises. I find it interesting no one has suggested the concept.1
Oh boy...I guess we aren't on the same page... again (that's fine - we can agree to disagree...though there is probably more of agreement - we just aren't communicating it. Apologies for my communication barrier.). I guess at some point I should stop talking about Ideas and go work on them and just present them. I may need a vacation from Community. It would probably be best anyway ... as my 'social media outlet' it is probably occupying too much of my time. There is a point at which ones' influence could probably be directed in more 'profitable' directions - like working in Tree, rather than talking about it - or expounding upon theory/opinion. Does it really matter? Is this the best format for contributing constructive Ideas in FamilySearch Community? Certainly as Community members we can do better with a different approach toward constructive Ideas - than to argue over open-edit (that's the way the Tree is until constructive Ideas can convince change)?
Do you really think no new information is out there on ancestors you love and revere?
To the contrary - I think they know a lot more about themselves than probably any records I could find - but the records I can find are sufficient for the purpose of establishing their profile in Family Tree - except for the many profiles for which I can find no record. It's tough to find records that don't exist. But the ancestors existed... 'Sufficiently complete' profiles in my terminology - relate specifically to Vital Records and Spouse/Parent-child relationships (again I NEVER said don't continue adding Sources - and yes some Sources may comment on/tag vitals - but do they CHANGE them? Or are they constructively contributory to the same profile/identity?).
In my simple mind - any valid birth record A (and all it's duplicates, derivatives/substitutes) - apply to one unique individual - to the exclusion of any other unique individual. Similarly with death records. Marriage records obviously apply to two unique individuals to the exclusion of all others... Name, date, location and relationships should be sufficient (if included in these records) - plus as mentioned - all the other Sources/Memories attached - to be convincing of such unique identity. Birth record B should not replace birth record A unless all the vitals/sources/memories attached can be disproven?
For someone randomly attaching some other record type - with similar name, possibly near location, maybe even possibly similar relationship profile name(s), but maybe differing date - to think it applies has to be done carefully. Family Tree does not have a current good method/indication of such proposed/provisionally attached records (other than including Notes/Reasons for such attachment - that I can think of). Such attachment does not require collaboration with previous contributors/Followers nor disproof of current profile information - it is simply allowed to proceed - and yes, may conflate the profile to the point that other incorrect vitals/relationships are then attached.
Again my statement and argument deals with Sourced/documented profiles that are well established as near-relations in ones tree - within the Shared Tree.
But your idea, to let family members become content and have the ability to mark their ancestors read only, will stagnate the level of competence and keep it at the lowest levels.
Many family members may not want to participate if their contributions are not valued enough to prevent them from morphing into people they are not - they are content with the knowledge they have and NOT entering it into Tree - or with only submitting their tree to Genealogies, for example. But for contributors - If the profile is 'sufficiently complete' - especially since Tree profiles for the 'common person' are rather 'thin' representations anyway - I care not for others opinions of stagnation/competence. Is a correct profile that hasn't had any changes for an extended period of time stagnant? Does it lack competence? Or rather is it demonstrating competence by it's acceptance and lack of changes? If after such 'an extended period' someone randomly changes it to a different identity - who is demonstrating incompetence? Shouldn't that be prevented? Wouldn't such demonstrate either ignorance, carelessness or maliciousness?
It would be interesting to know whether transcription of a journal and it's attachment would be desired by FamilySearch. Certainly reference as a Source with abstract could be included from Source Box - but do I really need to attach the complete transcript for anyone to see that it is self-evident I (the contributor) 'know' the person/profile 'sufficiently'? Yes, attach any Sources you feel needful - 100th cousin - but please don't change the identity of grandma!
I think I could be all about limiting the edit rights to those who have taken and passed little proficiency exercises. I find it interesting no one has suggested the concept.
I have seen such suggested multiple times on other threads. Proficiency exercises could be circumvented - and still might not achieve desired results or prevent undesired ones. Perhaps locking access to offending/malicious/non-collaborative accounts might be more desirable? Lock the Tree to those until ... ? Allow them to Search Records or even upload Memories - but restrict Tree? When they ask why - show them the damage their contribution to Tree did. Explain that if they have learned the needful lesson and promise not to be careless they can be allowed to use Family Tree again? Who knows maybe I might be on the naughty list for something...
...Anyway I'll keep working on constructive Ideas ... those matter to me ...0
I've made plenty of mistakes as my experience has grown, so I won't disparage the contributions of others. I appreciate the value of sources, and I leave detailed explanations of changes I make (such as merges). One issue I see that is beyond any genealogy website is that a website will be cited as a source, and that sometimes is used as a source on another site, and the errors propagate across the internet until the sheer number of citations gives weight to the original unsourced error. I think of it as circular references. An example that persists is Elizabeth Sudduth and Levi Lee. Levi Lee is a fairly common name, my ancestor helped establish Leesburg, Kosciucko, Indiana. Elizabeth Sudduth married Levi Leigh, sometimes spelled Lee, and there are sources to confirm. Both Levi's had sons named Henry, and both resided in nearby areas of Ohio during overlapping time periods. I can see how the associations began, but now the erroneous family connections have been repeated across the web, and have gained weight because of the repetitions. And the problem connections now affect members of both families across several generations in multiple public user-maintained databases. This family has a separate issue that causes two or more individuals to become cross-linked (Levi's grandson John Lee vs. John Marion Lee.) Fixes I've made had been reversed by others with a different viewpoint, disregarding solid sources, and communication is weak.
I keep my information in RootsMagic, which interacts nicely with FamilySearch. It becomes harder when whole branches are disconnected. If I wasn't already following, it might be a long time before I become aware of changes made, do my research, and communicate with others who are also concerned about the accuracy of the shared data. At the end of the day, people I disagree with are probably cousins anyway. This is truly a never-ending project.2
DT Goodwin I hear you! I have a Smith line that I stay away from because I just don't want to deal with the extra care one must take with common names. I also have a series of generations in my not-so-common maiden name which I also stay away from because it seems all the brothers of each generation named their sons after each other, so did the cousins, and so on. There is a small town in PA during the late 1700s until the 1830s where I do not think it's possible to sort out all the Gabriels. I choose not to enter the fray, and some how I can still sleep at night. These really messy places on the tree are the most difficult to solve, perhaps even impossible because of so many people of the same name living at the same time. I think they are even outside the scope that genthusiast is referring to about.0
That's nothing. In one census I have five Catherine McArthurs in the same house! To make matters worse, two of them are the same age and another two are only one year apart. At one point someone helpfully merged them all together.
I suspect that at the time they were known as Catherine, Cathy, Katy, Kitty and "the baby" :) But trying to sort them out 150 years later...1
Getting rather off-topic here, but I have to:
Elizabeth, Betsy, Betty, and Bess
Went out one day to find a bird's nest.
They found a nest with five eggs in it,
They each took one and left four in it.
(No, I don't know of an equivalent rhyme for Catherine, Cathy, Kitty, and Kate.)1
Family Bible ✭✭✭
Catherine, Cathy, Kitty, and Kate
In search of a treasure, one night they went out late
They found a nest with five eggs in it,
They each took one and left four in it.1
No. Nothing is beyond the scope of what I am suggesting. But I will leave that Idea to another day, time and discussion...
I think I've said all I wish to on this thread and maybe in Community (since I perceive my Ideas are not being received in fertile ground nor allowed constructive conversation/format - partly my own communication style/fault). Read Only wiki doesn't appear to be too popular here on open-edit implementation - but my Ideas I believe are well reasoned - perhaps just not well expressed. It is abundantly evident that there IS/EXISTS a process by which profiles can be marked read-only (repetitive for 1000th time) - why are not profiles allowed to reach/request that process?!
I believe I will just go devote my time to Ideas and try to get them in a presentable form, present them where I feel they may be received, clear my conscience and move on ... "time is running out".
Good luck! God bless!1
to let family members become content and have the ability to mark their ancestors read only, will stagnate the level of competence and keep it at the lowest levels.
Exactly. That's WikiTree. And that's why I don't work on WikiTree.0
@genthusiast, it isn't that we don't understand you. I think we all do understand you perfectly.
The fact that we disagree should give you pause to closely examine your own thinking. I would be asking why are you arguing this point here instead of spending your time and energy more productively over on WikiTree?0
@dontiknowyou I have - and I'm good. If you truly understood - then I'd think you'd agree. The fact y'all don't might give y'all pause to examine?
If I suggest good Ideas then I think that should show if my thinking is 'off'. I think I've seen you have a better record - so I'll give you that spread...
Read-only available but not reachable .... Logical?
... Back to work - breaks over.0
The fact y'all don't might give y'all pause to examine?
Indeed it should. In my case it has. I very carefully examined the pros and cons of both approaches, among others, back when I first began contributing here. My examination was very detailed, in part because I have decades of related experience in more than one adjacent field of research, for which I have received hands-on training, attended conferences, read textbooks, and more.
My experience includes witnessing that the most contentious genealogy fights by far consistently occur among closely related cousins. They have conflicting family origin stories over which they have fought for generations.
All that said, I still do not claim open edit is the one right way, only that it is the one right way for me. For me, the contributor experience on WikiTree was intolerable. I am thankful that in the genealogy research ecosystem there are multiple platforms with a variety of operating models.4