Allow Editing of Memories Regardless of Contributor
Currently, only the contributor may edit a photo or document that they attach to the MEMORIES page. I first noticed problems with the current state when I visited the record of my grandfather Kurt Waldemar Schmidt KWC8-NH3.
- An undated color photograph with Kurt and his adult children misidentified the matriarch. Not only was the person incorrect, but the name was also. After some time it was corrected.
- Information such as the title, topic, date and place of the subject were not entered.
- People in the photograph were tagged multiple times.
I can correct personal data and edit source citations. I can delete branches of the tree when relationships have proven incorrect, but I cannot correct misinformation on a memory. I am aware editing someone's else's work can prove sensitive; however, if information is incomplete or incorrect, it should be completed and corrected before the contributor passes leaving the submission permanently inaccurate and flawed. I personally would appreciate correction of my work. I have made several corrections to many records in past years and have not been challenged when my reasons have been supported by clear reasoning and supporting documentation. I notify the contributor of my actions and the reasons for them. I rarely hear back from the majority, but those who do respond are generally appreciative.
There are pros and cons for maintaining the status quo or allowing unrestricted changes, but I feel the weight should be given to accuracy.
Thanks for reading, Bart
Comments
-
You can certainly leave a comment. I have done that.
1 -
At the moment a part of my tree is subject to identity theft by another contributor and the only way I can keep integrity is by posting screenshots of eg baptism records. As with Ancestry.com, I'd rather edits were only allowed by the poster but comments could be added.
0 -
The year that my husband passed is wrong. He passed in 2021 not 2011. His name is Robert Earl Mendum
0 -
If I record a Memory that is genuinely my memory of someone, then no-one else can get inside my head to tell me that this isn't my memory. If my Memory (item) is incorrect or inadequate, then I'm happy that someone has the ability, as mentioned by @Gail Swihart Watson , to comment. But it would be unacceptable to me to have someone directly contradict my memory. It's not me being sensitive - it's something more fundamental than that - it's my memory and no-one is able to tell me it's different. (It might be wrong - but it's still my memory)
Things get slightly more ambivalent when I create a Memory (item) that isn't my memory but is a record of my research (say). In that case, it is perfectly possible to talk of me getting something wrong. However, the whole point of me creating the Memory (item), rather than (say) a Note on the Collaboration tab, is that the Memory cannot be altered. This is my research (or whatever) and I really don't think it's acceptable for someone to mess it about. I'm not being precious / senstive / whatever about my research - I've said several times that I'm happy to be thought to have written rubbish if the real story emerges. But we have to respect the research process and leave my text untouched. Like I say - feel free to comment on my research but altering it simply breaks all research processes.
2 -
@Adrian Bruce1 To piggy back on your comment, here is an actual comment I made to someone else's memory. See link below. The person who posted the memory believed the man in the photo was someone who died in 1861, and one of the women was someone who died in 1843. I believe casual scrutiny of the clothing as well as the quality of the photograph calls this into question. To be helpful, I researched better candidates for the identities of the individuals, based on how the owner of the memory was related to me. I put my suggestion in my comment.
I believe there is nothing wrong or insulting about this. Even if I had the ability to "correct" this misinformation, I wouldn't have out of respect. I believe we should NOT be able to edit the memory information of others, to be honest.
1 -
@Gail Swihart Watson Agreed . Commenting respectfully and helpfully is fine. Directly altering my memory is not.
Incidentally, it's remarkable how many photos seem to involve time travel and depict someone who died before its invention... 😉
3 -
@Adrian Bruce1, I've always been a bit bothered by the term Family Search uses for Memories but never been quite sure why. Your statement that no one should be able to edit your memory, and actually can't, because it is your memory, finally clarified my vague discomfort. The trouble is that very few of the items under Memories are actually memories.
Only Stories and audio files are actual memories and I agree completely that those should never be editable by other people. The are the personal memories, opinions, feelings, and/or expressions of the author. Biographies, autobiographies, and research summaries all saved as PDF files would fall in this category, also. Being PDF files, they can't be changed anyway.
Everything else on the "Memories" page are historical artifacts, not memories. The dates, places, and descriptions certainly could editable by about anyone who has information about them without this being an issue of changing someone else's memory any more than editing a birth date in Family Tree based on historical sources is an infringement on someone else's memory.
For example, if someone posted a photo of Grandpa Jones standing in front of the Eiffel Tower but never put on a title or place, I don't see any problem with a cousin adding the title "Grandpa Jones in Paris," and adding the place and even adding a date if known or estimating one.
If someone posted a photo and titled it "Grandpa Smith's Favorite Dog" but the picture is of a cat, I also don't see any trouble with someone changing the title to "Grandpa Smith's Favorite Cat."
But is this a fuzzy, problematic area? Of course, just like everything can be in history. Should someone be able to change the title of that cat photo to "Grandpa Smith's Least Despised Cat" because that person knows what Grandpa Smith thought about cats?
1 -
(Heh. What if the cat-picture caption of "Grandpa's Favorite Dog" is an expression of Grandpa's opinion on dogs?)😁
3 -
"The trouble is that very few of the items under Memories are actually memories."
Quite so, @Gordon Collett - I'm going to sound like I'm moaning but "Memories" sounds like yet another term that FS have employed that, really, isn't what it says on the tin. Which rather makes me concerned about whether FS are really succeeding in what they want. Perhaps I don't understand what they want...
If I'm honest about it, the content of Notes, Discussions, Memories (anything else?) is all a bit of a spectrum and the crucial difference for me is that Memories can't be altered. It hardly makes sense for my research notes on my 3G GPs (say) be declared as a Memory. But I do want the ability to make my authored research notes unchangeable (but not uncommentable).
Re the idea of a "historical artefact" on the Memories tab being editable - I have worries over that - if it's the equivalent of a Wikipedia article, fair enough. We have the (viable) model of Wikipedia to look to for that. But I'm not clear yet in my mind how to define such a thing so that people aren't shocked when someone else alters their "historical artefact".
1 -
It does seem to be a common problem: "What single word of fifteen letters or less in all languages comes closest to kind of meaning what we are trying to say even though we have not really clearly defined for ourselves what we mean?" I sure don't want the job of answering that.
1