If there are protocols about changing merging records without consultation with an existing owner/cr
Hello
Another family search member /user deems to be making an inordinate number of changes to members of my family records without consultation discussion or reason ... There is no note as to why changes have been made, other than in my opinion to take ownership of the records.
I would expect out of common courtesy such changes to be discussed, there have been previous instances ... If find the lack of consultation disrespectful and against the spirit of family history research collaboration on which a Wiki such as familysearch.org exists and depends.
Please advise where I can find a list of ground rules to point the said user at.
There have been communications from myself to said individual but he has clearly disregarded my previous requests for consultation ...
Kind regards
Rob
Answers
-
@Being Rob
.
Rob
.
I totally understand the premise of your post ...
.
Now ...
That said ...
.
"Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why ANY registered User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".
.
We DO NOT, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" - EVEN if, we "Created" them; and/or, they are our immediate Family or just an Ancestor.
.
'Yes', "Collaboration" is what "FamilySearch" is about.
.
But ...
That said ...
.
"FamilySearch" CANNOT Enforce "Collaboration".
.
And, the problem/issue is NOT just about or limited to "Changing" details on individuals/persons, for Members of the Church, it ALSO includes "Temple" Work.
.
There is a section about "Collaboration with Others" in the "FamilySearch Terms of Use":
.
Where it states:
Quote
------------------
Collaboration with Others
.
You acknowledge that a primary purpose of this site is to enable collaboration between users of this site and other sites who wish to expand their genealogical databases and knowledge. You acknowledge that we may utilize Contributed Content, including any personal information of living individuals, that you submit for the purpose of collaborating and sharing with other individuals and organizations (including commercial genealogical organizations) in order, for example, to create a global common pedigree for the purposes of increasing participation in family history and preserving records throughout the world. You acknowledge that collaboration between multiple individuals and organizations allows us to obtain additional data that we may provide to users of this site—thus allowing users to extend their own ancestral lines. Our Privacy Notice provides more details regarding our use of your Contributed Content.
.
You agree to input data accurately to the best of your knowledge. To maintain consistencies in traditional genealogical views available on this site (such as pedigree charts, landscape views, fan charts, and other views and charts), you agree to identify persons by their biological sex and input them in their traditional male or female positions on these charts and views (e.g., father or mother). In a **** marriage, both spouses will be of the ****. You may enter any notes regarding gender identity in the comments. Please refer to the Code of Conduct section for an outline of possible consequences for the improper entry of data.
.
This site includes a discussion feature in which individuals can comment and otherwise provide Contributed Content regarding a particular deceased individual and provide details regarding that individual. We reserve the right to reuse the discussion information and other Contributed Content provided and to publish it to others in an effort to help resolve open issues posed or to help educate others. We ask you to be selective in the information you include in your online discussions and other Contributed Content, communicating instead through e-mail or other means where personal contact information or other personal or sensitive information is being provided. You acknowledge that any items you submit through the discussion feature will be viewable by anyone able to access this site. The discussion feature is intended to help collaboration efforts, to coordinate the correction of errors, and to facilitate additional research with other interested users. The discussion feature may not (a) be used for reasons irrelevant to the deceased individual being discussed, (b) include information that might harm or embarrass any living person, or (c) include offensive, indecent, inappropriate, threatening, or abusive language or content. Disagreements regarding facts pertaining to a deceased individual are likely to occur, and such disagreements should be set out in clear terms based on the facts and citing sources where possible, without resorting to abrupt, insulting, or unkind language or comments. The discussion feature may not be used to provide links to external websites with inappropriate content (although links to related and tasteful information regarding deceased individuals may be appropriate) or in order to solicit business or offer research services. Although we have no obligation to do so, we reserve the right, in our sole and absolute discretion, to delete or edit Contributed Content provided in the discussion feature and similar features and to deny users access to such features for any or no reason. Please refer to the Code of Conduct section for an outline of the possible consequences for the improper use of the discussion feature and similar features.
------------------
.
It certainly would be nice if we ALL "Collaborated".
.
And, even better if that "Collaboration" was a 'two way street', more often than not, it is NOT.
.
But, I doubt that "Collaboration" would happen for every single detail that was "Changed", we would spend more time "Collaborating" than getting the work done.
.
Whereas, as in your case, where you "Collaborate" with another User/Patrons; then, that is another.
.
But, remember, they often ignore such 'Messages' or 'Discussions'; or, just go ahead and do what they want anyway, regardless of what you have suggested/discussed/requested.
.
That I afraid is 'human nature' ...
.
If your "Collaboration" between yourself; and, another User/Patron, it at a 'stalemate'; then, you could submit a 'Support' Case for assistance from "FamilySearch" to "Moderate"; but, such does not always work in one's favour.
.
Whereas, when such "Collaboration" constitutes "Abuse", that is another matter, where "FamilySearch" can and will take action; but, such "Abuse" has to be of an extreme nature.
.
Here are a few "Knowledge Articles" in "FamilySearch":
.
How do I report abuse, spam, inappropriate memories, and other content?
.
How do I report changes or problems made by other contributors?
.
I hope this helps, just a little.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Are the changes or merges correct? Or incorrect?
Since Family Tree is an open-edit wiki-style system, there are no owners of records, other than FamilySearch, in the tree. Accordingly, there is no requirement for consultation.
It is expected that one is a careful researcher and is improving records. Some people do do a better job with reason statements than others but again there is no requirement.
If these edits are correct and improve the record overall, there is nothing wrong with the person making them even if he is not being very courteous about it and even if the result doesn't match your preference or style of how a record should appear.
Now if this other person is doing a lot of bad work, replacing good data with bad or merging completely different people, that is a completely different issue and, unfortunately, can be more difficult to deal with. Sometimes all you can do is put a watch on people in the tree and consistently reverse any changes made until the user making the mistakes either gives up or contacts you.
Can you post an ID of someone in Family Tree that shows a typical example of what this other person is doing?
0 -
Hello Gordon
Thank you.
I am not sure what it where you would like me to respond with in response to your suggestion to;
<<< Can you post an ID of someone in Family Tree that shows a typical example of what this other person is doing? >>>
Thanks
Rob
0 -
Every person in Family Tree has an ID number:
That is the quickest way to find them. When addressing concerns with what is happening to records in Family Tree, it really helps to be able to look at very specific examples.
So if you have a couple of people in Family Tree where you feel there is a problem with what this other person has done or where it looks like the person did something to just "take ownership of the records" (which we can't do because none of us "own" them."), then post those IDs here so that others here can look at exactly what has been done to see if this is inappropriate, in which case you have a legitimate concern, or if the other person is using Family Tree appropriately and is just lacking in social skills.
0 -
I make merges only on occasion and when I think the information is absolutely correct. Sometimes all I can think of to add as a reason is that the info matched up. If a person had to consult every family member related to the person they are merging, it wouldn't make family history fun to do at all, and it would be a deterrent all on its own. I understand feeling frustrated with changes being made, though!! Especially when those changes are made without the user adding a reason. But I think that is why FamilySearch added the reason box. You can make changes to the information as you see fit as well, so it is fair on all levels. Hope that helps!!
0 -
Thank You
0 -
It might help to send a message to the person making these changes and ask them to please provide evidence for the changes by adding Sources to support their conclusions, even if the evidence is just "family tradition." When we take the time to add Sources it saves time for all family researchers in the future.
I keep a private database on my home computer (using Legacy Family Tree software). Since I am the only person who can access it, I control what is in it. FamilySearch's Family Tree is like Wikipedia … the theory is that all of us together are smarter than any one of us alone. I love it. I review what is in it on a regular basis and look at any changes that have been made, and I really appreciate learning from information that others have added. If Source information is attached, I can quickly check it, confirm it, and add the new information to my private database. If no Source information has been added, I take the time to try to confirm it myself. If I can't find any evidence, I usually do not add the information to my private database although I may add it in a note and state that it is "unproven." If we add the Source reference when we make changes we can avoid all the wasted time of each researcher trying to confirm them independently.
0 -
Will do, and I can see the sense of Reverse engineering but learning from the crowd ...
I agree the Wiki Ethos I fully support
Thank You for you thoughtful comments
0 -
On merges I often use the statement "see (or review) attached sources" and will sometimes add "incl. [birth record, etc]" This points out the exact source or sources you use. Sometimes info can match up but it's still wrong. Always review all latest changes before you merge. I have found many instances where a person's identity has been completely changed. How can someone merge Zeruiah Beadle with Elizabeth Rogers simply because they both married someone with the surname Woodward? BTW one marriage was in NY and the other in PA. You really need your own sourced database to make sure FS is correct.
0 -
Oh no, I would never do something that drastic. I mean 'matched up' as in names, dates, pretty much everything. If the names are completely different, they are not the same person. I merged a match with my great-great-grandfather on Ancestry about a week ago because the birth year, place, date of death, and name were the same. Most of the time, if the name or birth year are different, I don't merge because it's hard to be sure.
Thanks!! I didn't realize that I should have clarified what I meant. 0 -
Oh, I knew what you meant, this was just a general caution. I'm just been so surprised about changes people make with no sources and doing things that make no sense. It's a challenge for those of us who are striving to make this the most correct tree possible.
0 -
If somebody replaces a sourced person or other information with something with no source, I believe I would click “abuse.” Is that not one of the reasons the abuse option is present?
0 -
Thank You Brett
That is a very comprehensive response and addresses the spectrum from rudeness, ignorance to through to abuse.
I have so far on familysearch.org had only three interactions with users. This interaction with you and the other kind folks who responded to my query have confirmed my understanding of how the Wiki works, and how interactions might operate friendly, helpful and providing opportunities for shared learning. Two were wholesome and rewarding interactions with mutual support and understanding. The third was simply one way, I reached out to the said individual more than once for some insight and got no response. That same individual appears to have returned after a two year absence to stroll through records I watch and erase records.
I had forgotten the previous instance and it is sad to see such behaviour.
Thanks for your response Brett. Maybe I am over reacting but I will endeavour to not take it personally and continue to pursue new records and learning.
In Friendship
Rob.
0 -
@Being Rob
.
Rob
.
I am so sorry ...
.
I responded to your post not long after you posted it; but, BECAUSE I used "Words" (which I will not use here) that "Trigger" an AUTOMATIC "Review" by 'Admins' of the Forum, my response was HELD in "Limbo" for MANY Hours (between 12 and 24), "Pending a Review", BEFORE it has actually FINALLY 'posted' - I am so disappointed (it took way too long).
.
I, 'hear' and 'know', where you are coming from.
.
And, when I say that the "... (?) ..." has to be of an extreme nature, before action is taken, I really mean that.
.
Unfortunately, some (in fact, many) Users/Patrons believe that, THEIR version; and, ONLY their version, is the ONLY 'Correct' version; and, therefore, should prevail - no matter what, no matter that that is 'debunk' by "Sources" and "Documentation".
.
Plus, some (in fact, many) Users/Patrons see things through 'rose coloured glasses'; and, prefer to 'whitewash' history - especially that which they do not like or want to be made public.
.
That is just 'human nature'.
.
We just have to 'keep on, keeping on' ...
We have to keep on "Collaborating", no matter what ...
.
Much of the time "Collaboration" is good; but, unfortunately, not always ...
.
In Friendship
Brett
I am forever the optimistic pessimist ...
.
0 -
Unsourced changes are not considered abusive. Please, see this article for the definition of abuse.
0 -
@H Kurt Christensen
.
Howard
.
'MEDoran' is spot on.
.
That link to a "Knowledge Article', is the same one I referenced in the FIRST response to this post.
.
And, in any case, the matter has to be of an extreme nature, before action is taken.
.
Just "Changing" any "Details"; and/or, "Removing" the "Sources" or "Replacing" a "Sourced" individual/person with an "Unsourced" individual/person, is NOT considered such.
.
Brett
.
0
