Read only for Historical figures
Hello.
There are many historical figures that are well researched and should be read only. People are constantly making changes that are not accurate, changing proper names to other languages etc.
The second suggestion is that if someone finds a new profile that should be merged with a read only profile that there is a way to do some type of basic merge to eliminate duplicates.
Examples might be Karl 'Martell' Hausmeier von Neustrien und Austrasien 99KR-KTJ , Karl der Große König der Franken und Langobarden Römischer Kaiser LZ62-TSV, and Rollo de Normandie comte de Rouen LZDH-NFR
Comments
-
Please see this Help article for information: What are read-only records in Family Tree?
1 -
Unfortunately, the Help article provides no background to advise of any set criteria FamilySearch uses in deciding exactly who should qualify for read-only status.
In practice, the "list" is likely to comprise mainly of prominent (LDS) Church leaders, but it is true that suggestions from the public are not accepted (with regard to who should qualify for such status). Hence, the profiles of many important historical figures are likely to remain subject to edits. As has been previously stated, even if IDs for famous individuals are made read-only, there is nothing to stop users creating further versions of their profiles, which will be subject to the same problem.
4 -
If FS wants FT to be collaborative, as indicated at the link provided above, it has to get people to actually collaborate. How can a collaborative data store work properly if contributors can do such drive-by shootings and then just vanish from sight?
I had a look a few days ago at the Trustpilot reviews for FamilySearch, which are interesting reading - most of the (many) bad reviews relate to data quality.
Wikipedia is nowhere near perfect but it is definitely genuinely collaborative, and, regarding the specific point under discussion here, it provides a 'semi-protected' article setting where anyone can suggest a change but only experienced contributors can make edits.
1 -
I am sorry to the person posting, but I disagree. I think historical figures should not be read only. I do think that it could be if too many direct descendents complain about too many changes to their ancestor, then and only then should it be read-only.
0 -
@MrsLCJ said " ... I think historical figures should not be read only. I do think that it could be if too many direct descendents complain about too many changes to their ancestor, then and only then should it be read-only. ... "
The counter-argument to that is that the sort of historical figure that we're talking about (at least I am) is already well-researched and new data is only going to appear by dredging through medieval charters (say), which is the sort of thing done by PhD students.
Regrettably, the sort of additions done by non-experts to medieval etc profiles are generally wishful thinking at best. If you take Robert The Bruce (LDQR-3KB) (who isn't as far back as Charlemagne) there are odd aspects. At least this version of him doesn't have spouses like "Mrs Robert The Bruce" but someone has created whole lists of battles as Custom Events - a pretty pointless exercise when a link to Wikipedia would surely suffice.
Then there is his supposed son, "Sir Robert Bruce 1st Baron of Clackmannan", elder brother of Marjorie. It seems to have passed his creator by that as the eldest and legitimate son, the 1st Baron of Clackmannan would have succeeded his father as King of Scotland, rather than becoming a lowly Baron. It's nonsense in other words. And that's disregarding the fact that the profile for "Sir Robert Bruce 1st Baron of Clackmannan" has an alternative name of Thomas Bruce, 1st Baron of Clackmannan. He was a real person but medieval historians can't decide who Thomas Bruce's father was - and almost no-one suggests he was Robert The Bruce!
Sorry if this sounds over-the-top but once you get back in history, the sources that you need to make a difference are hard and you need massive expertise in using them as well. Most people, I suggest, should have enough to do with their own relatives within recorded history.
4
