Allow users to "lock" a person or couple's records from being edited.
Comments
-
Landucci said: First of all let me say, I am not for or against this. It was just an idea that came up after trying to figure out how to keep relationships as part of the discussion since they were being seen as too complicated.
A caretaker would NOT be an “owner” therefore it should only enhance the accuracy of the tree by providing someone with a vested interest keeping an eye on that portion of the tree so errors can be caught before they are submitted. It would be similar to the locks that can be unlocked as described earlier but in this instance the discussion would occur before not after the changes were made.. Discussion beforehand should quickly determine if the new info is justified (even if not fully sourced yet) or if it totally conflicts with the existing tree and will require a thorough discussion and accompanying documentation/sources. These discussions would also quickly determine the new contributors experience level and would also stop 3rd party uploads from wreaking havoc.
There are already people watching the records (hopefully) but this would just add a level of intervention beforehand if something doesn’t look right. As far as who would pick the caretaker (or the backups) or who would get the “grants”, my best guess would be that it doesn’t matter because the goal is to establish good caretakers wherever possible and only time will tell if they are doing a good job (if not then they would lose the job through the report abuse function). Even if the areas overlap or even if there are several different caretakers (dozens) in the same area it would just mean there were more eyes on it and more people in the discussions. Since there is no “ownership” it wouldn’t interfere with the open edit philosophy. It would just be a means of getting notified after someone was attempting to edit an already well documented area of the tree that you are watching. It would be a lot more focused that the watch list and you would just ask the program to notify you (at this email address) when someone is about to make changes in the area of the tree from this PID to this PID. I suppose an alternative system would be to just get notification “prior to changes” for everyone on your watch list.0 -
Randy Hoffman said: Another issue with this model is what happens when the caretaker and/or their siblings die? In 200 years, you would want hundreds of descendants bickering over who gets control, just as we don't want people bickering over who gets control over data from the 1800s.0
-
Randy Hoffman said: Agreed. Any locking feature can't give any specific responsibility to a single individual. That's why I would prefer any arbitration system to work like indexing.0
-
Guy Lamoyne Black said: Randy,
I don't think this is a good idea. Whoever wants to lock a record could then just get two friends or relatives to help him/her lock it down.
How can we ever be certain that a person is complete. New sources become available all the time. The conclusion we reach today may change by tomorrow when a new, primary source is found.
Open editing is the best approach.0 -
Guy Lamoyne Black said: I disagree with Randy's last paragraph. Locking is BAD0
-
Randy Hoffman said: My "family" suggestion has already been thrown out the window. It seems like this discussion is settling more on the ability to mark a fact or relationship as verified (with a green check mark), and then a pop-up will appear whenever someone attempts to change the data. In order for the green check mark to be placed initially, there must be at least one source attached to the fact. It's still open edit, but with warnings.0
-
Landucci said: If you die the "grant" returns to nothingness, there is nothing to bicker over. The one thing I haven't figured out is if there are multiple people watching what happens if one watcher agrees to allow the addition and another watcher doesn't agree. Like I said this is not fully thought threw yet but you are right, bickering would be its downfall because even in its simplest form (a watch list notification in combination with a trigger which has to be pulled to allow the modifications) there would probably be more infighting between the watchers than between the watchers and the contributors with new information. I find that interesting.0
-
Landucci said: How about a slight variation to the caretaker scenario. What if certain areas of the tree could be designated as “special” (needs a catch phrase) so that when someone starts to edit the information within that area they are initially notified that this is a “special” area and that by proceeding email notifications will be sent to those watching the area. The program would in fact alert the watchers of the pending changes. This would be an “after the fact” model and there would be no “control” issues with the watchers. It would only tell the new contributor to tread lightly as people are watching their every move (this would certainly discourage novices). The program could also have a “contact the watchers button” that would provide the new contributor with the public email addresses of those watchers that were (or will be) notified. This latter point would certainly be better than the current option of trying to find someone to contact (who may or may not be interested in helping).0
-
Randy Hoffman said: I think what you are proposing now is similar to Kathryn's green check mark idea, but I like you addition of letting them know that others are watching, and having a way to contact the watchers.0
-
Randy Hoffman said: Again, this idea has long since been passed over.0
-
Charlie Black said: So let's change the guidance to be consistent with what the users see! I tried the "restore" yesterday (before sending my last message - hence my "then tried to restore them today" in last message). My "batting average" on using restore is .000 - if other users have so little success then data admin may soon be inundated.0
-
gasmodels said: when you have a failure of the system - you should report to support so and investigation can be done as to why it failed. Sometimes there are changes that need to be made so the system will work for everyone.0
-
Cathy Anderegg said: I deliberately merged two records today, and then unmerged them using the Change Log. It worked fine. I was showing a class how to do it.0
-
Kathryn Grant said: Had any changes been made to either of the merged records? I understand that if no changes have been made, the process is pretty seamless. I understand it's more difficult once either record has been altered... does that match your understanding?0
-
GeneJ said: I'm sorry to learn you are having problems.
Restore is usually successful for me. When I've hit a snag, I file a support case, include the PIDs. The case also serves as a reminder to me.
The existing technology has been working for me, and I assume it will improve with time. I'm hoping the records remain open-edit.0 -
Cathy Anderegg said: I have not encountered that situation yet, but I remember someone else making that complaint on Get SatisFaction.0
-
Harold Primm said: Locking in the sense of disallowing a person to delete the information on a whim, then yes. Locking in order to say "We or I am right" so we/I want to lock, then no. Better to allow multiple entries for a said field detail and allow users to make the best choice on how they perceive the information where as they can "lock" their own entry while allowing other entries to still be available for others to see. This is one of the things I like about Ancestry.com...The way their software works it allows me to share details without forcing others to conform.
Why locking should not be "global"? A legitimate source for a record sometimes offers conflicting details as opposed to other legitimate sources...WW I & WWII Draft registrations typically have "date of birth", Unfortunately I have seen many, many of these, as well as other normally good valid sources off by a year. Same for Place details in regards to "Place" of death versus "Last Known Residence" as reported in SS Index - or even where someone enters a more local community or subdivision name rather than the City and/or county thereof.
See my post on Negative and Positive Confidence...0 -
Sydney Rhees said: I would worry that families would be missing out on opportunities to have different perspectives put forth on family members. Perhaps, locking portions if documents have been uploaded (divorce, baptism, wedding, census, etc). But, photos, an often overlooked gem on this site, should always be open for people to submit content. Stories as well. I love when I see photos uploaded of my grandmother by friends who knew her in her youth. This has been a great way to find photos that the family doesn't have. I wish more people would upload pictures, serving as vault for family photos.0
-
Melodious One said: What if you have a situation where one person insists that a person is not a member of their family and again insists on birth records as proof. As we all know, sometimes this is not possible, but we can submit census records, other court records, and in my case,numerous newspaper articles which back up the relationship. After submitting these items to this person as proof and they still do not want this person added back into the tree, how do I overcome that?0
-
Tom Huber said: Both "unmerge" and "restore" are valid terms and they have different meanings.
"Unmerge" applies when a merge can be reversed (few, if any changes have taken place since the original two profiles were merged). The end result are two profiles that now exist in their pre-merge condition and require no further action.
"Restore" applies to a merge-deleted record, which restores that profile to its pre-merge state. The surviving profile (in the merge) often is not fully cleaned of the changes that the merge made.
Neither is perfect. The solution is to keep a fully documented backup separate from Family Search Family Tree. This can be done on another site, such as Ancestry, or locally by using a family tree management program.0 -
Tom Huber said: One thing is certain (at least, I believe it is): the open-edit nature of FamilySearch Family Tree is not going to change. Having others make changes to what we have contributed can and will continue and so we need to be diligent in not only working with others, but also in our own research.
Most people (including myself) with a lot of experience with FamilySearch will recommend keeping a "back up" of my contributions to the conclusions and the reasoning behind those conclusions (including what sources are attached or not attached), that the user has contributed to the massive tree and its profiles.0 -
Melodious One said: Having done what you have suggested and written to this person a letter of conclusions, sources, etc, what if she still insists that without a Louisiana birth record, the ancestors is not related to her family? Would familysearch ever step in and mediate this issue? My understanding from another thread is that familysearch views the tree as all inclusive and doesn't belong to any one individual, so we can't say ' my family tree' persay. I don't want to bore you with the details of this dilemma, but there must be some solution to someone consistently removing a person from the tree just because one source cannot be found at this time.0
-
Tom Huber said: I wish I had a response for you, but I don't. I've only run into one area where a person questioned my information. In this instance, it dealt with the D.A.R. issue. She asked why I didn't believe the D.A.R. and I told her that it was the D.A.R. who had removed the name.
The only thing that I can think of is to ask her to either provide you with reimbursement for obtaining a copy of the birth certificate, or else ask why she hasn't accepted the evidence that has been presented. The real question is why she does not reject all records that do not have birth certificates?
From what I understand, FamilySearch will not step in a mediate any issue. About the only thing that they will do is where there is excessive abuse of the account involved, which seldom deals with these kinds of issues.0 -
Melodious One said: Thank you. I actually received a message from her that states she is willing to look into sources further. Maybe, I have finally broken through. Fingers crossed. Thanks for the moral support here.0
-
Tom Huber said: That's great news. I hope it all works out for you.
I was in the other person's shoes at one point, but another user convinced me to look at a relatively new publication and from there, I was able to accept the situation and help build a more complete profile of a person. Sometimes, those who seem opposed to what you are doing become strong allies.0 -
S. said: Their is many good thoughts on the idea, but I am in favor of this, but I feel it should be familysearch that does the locking of the Profiles Not people., and if people want to make changes they need to contact Family search, This is one idea Family search can learn from Geni.com, and Wiki tree, they already have this feature and I love it for many reasons, mainly to Help prevent bad info from being added in the future. Wiki Tree has it were People can lock it, Geni has it were it is locked and have Experienced People over look it, to make sure the Information is correct. IF FAMILYSEARCH was smart they would look into doing some thing similar to what Geni has done. it would fix many problems if they did do this.0
-
David Newton said: Familysearch already lock some profiles: try editing Brigham Young and see what happens. So what is the result of locking these profiles? Well two things happen. The first is that the profiles that are locked tend to stagnate. The second is that there are far too many out there who simply do an end run around the locked profiles and create more and more and more duplicates. They're the same sort of people who ignore instructions, ask silly questions that an ounce of effort on their part could see them answer themselves, completely miss the point that this website is open edit and collect massive numbers of names for LDS ordinances without doing the slightest check for duplicates.
So no your idea is not a good one.0 -
Juli said: Yes, the "end run" is exactly what happens on Geni and to some degree on WikiTree, too: people encounter a locked ancestor, don't really understand what they're seeing, and just go ahead and create their own version that they can edit to their hearts' content.0
-
Melodious One said: Where might I find the code of conduct addressing this issue of someone removing a person's relationship with no factual basis for it? Does such a code exist on familysearch? I am still hitting a wall with this person even though I have thoroughly referenced and attached several sources to prove the relationship.
Would this be considered abuse?0 -
Robert Wren said: There is a link to the 'fine print' (terms of use) at the bottom of every page, or here:
https://www.familysearch.org/terms
Perhaps that will help.0
This discussion has been closed.