Looking for thoughts about changing the "sources needed" rules [closed]

Question

There has been a lot of discussion on sources and the need for better sources as profiles are created on WikiTree.   I have a proposal, but want so input before I formalize.   Mainly I need input because my rationale is VERY United States centric.

Here is the background.   The reasoning behind currently allowing people to add profiles with a source that is merely an identification of where you obtained information,   is 

We have a low bar for creating modern profiles because we want to encourage all our cousins to share their family history information. As long as they also share where their information came from, we have a starting point for collaboration and we can work together to improve our shared tree.

Here is my thought process, most of us have personal knowledge of perhaps our own generation back to maybe our great - grandparents.  We can look at the data and use common sense to say whether it is reasonable or not.   Some of us have that kind of data put together by our parents, maybe grandparents.   So, perhaps we have decent unsourced data for let's say 6 generations.   If we all look at our trees, that probably takes us back to early 1800s.

For those of us in the United States, a lot of our ability to define our ancestors and families comes from Census Records, which in 1850, started listing all the family members with ages.   Going back further, you really have to dig to be able to understand the difference between the four men who lived within 50 miles of each other named John "Doe" who all had wives named Mary.   I think this is where a lot of beginner genealogists make their errors by just copying someone else's unsourced information.

Based on the above, I would like to proposed that we move our Pre-1700 requirements for sourcing, ie, the use of reliable sources, to Pre-1800.   

Please, we all know that sources are an issue, you do not need to repeat that in your answer, I am looking for some critical thinking about whether Pre-1800 is the right bench mark.

This is the proposal which was rejected by the team.

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1138829/should-this-become-official-wikitree-policy-change-1700-badge

Comments

I put a lot of sidebar stuff in Research Notes, things like the spouse's parents, researcher's questions as noted in their research that might cast more information on the person.

I figured out how to use the <sup> to create links to research note's in the special section, and it seems to work fine for information that I do not have a specific source locations. I do create "unpublished" manuscript citations for material I have catalogued in my personal files. These sources document where the information comes from and where you can find it in my records.

Tenuous Sourcing to be sure, but at least I put my links on these sources so if someone wants to talk about it, they can reach me via e-mail through WT.

rsl

---

@ Roy

I had to laugh when I read your message from 2020.

First, I hope you are adding as much information as you can find and citing your sources.

Second, I don't remember the exact numbers, but there are at best several hundred Data Doctors and hundreds of thousand WikiTree profile managers. Surely you weren't suggesting that a few hundred people, who give freely of their time, try to cleanup the messes of several hundreds of thousands of people. Even with all the research cites at one's fingertips, that would be physically impossible. :)

What everyone should do is explore all of the tools available on WikiTree. There are Suggestion Reports in the pull-down tab under MY WikiTree ID, their are a ton of apps that do wonderful things, like making your research easier or even will write a bare bones Bio for you.

For a Free site, it has more tools to help the researchers than most paid sites. That is pretty awesome, don't you think?

If you can't find a tool you need, just ask if it exists on G2G, someone will answer. :)

See if you can find your Suggestion report today, if you have any suggestions, work on those, most have videos to show you how to correct them. If your Suggestion report is clear, go exploring, you will be surprised! :)

Keep up the good work.

edited for typo

---

@ Roy,

Sounds like you are on the right track. I am unaware of <sup> but if it works, use it. I may have learned something new today. :)

The only thing that causes me concern is this statement, "I do create "unpublished" manuscript citations for material I have catalogued in my personal files. These sources document where the information comes from and where you can find it in my records." Not everyone has access to your records and what would someone do a hundred years from now, where could they find this information??? Why not make pdf's of your research and attach it to the profile? 

Thanks for your hard work.

---

You can use the <sup> tag to link to Notes in the == Research Notes == section. You tag the material in the profile as follows: ^[[id=#|[X]]] replacing # with the number of the note, and X with the letter attached to the note. (I use letters because the <ref> tag uses numbers.

You put a span tag :<span id=#>X. followed by the information, down in Research Notes.

I just did one today for Kirkland-1621 - its in the first section === Births === and links to a list of his siblings in Research Notes.

Good Luck in using it.'

rsl

---

@ Roy,

Thank you!

---

Sorry, this isn't really my conversation...but that seems overcomplicated to me.  I'd just put the siblings in the bio.  I think of research notes as a place for discussion of biography issues such as conflicting information.

---

Listing siblings in a Bio makes it overly complicated, especially since they are already on the Bio Page with links to their personal biography!

At times, I question putting the sources on the children since it can make the <ref> list very long. But I try to make the Bio stand alone for that person, and give the links to others in the bio so a researcher can follow the line up or down as they please, but not have to wade through a lot of extraneous information.

This is just me - its how I do profiles, and others can always come in and change them to what they like. IMHO, you can never have too many links and references, as long as they pertain to the detailed history of the person in the Bio.

Happy Hunting all

rsl

---

This question is closed....why not start a new one so that everyone can participate.

---

Thanks, Robin!

---

@ Roy

Hi - Just so you know part of the reason for putting the sources for the children and siblings on this particular profile (the Kirkland one - it was myself that did the extras) is because the children and siblings need to be created hence it having a Scotland Needs Profiles Created categorization - once those individual profiles have been created it would be my experience that the sources would be removed from the first profile leaving just the names of the siblings/children with their wikilinks - the sources are there for when whoever goes to create the new profiles there is at least one source there for them ready to put on the new profile.

Suzy

Answer 1

Agree completely! And here's a wilder thought, which may be shot down from several directions.

At present the edit page for all profiles contains a set of hints designed for a total newcomer to genealogy. What if the text changes automatically once the date of birth is pre-1800 and shows a new set of rules and tips appropriate to the more challenging environment? Also, could the source box be parsed by the software to reject a wide range of improbable or unacceptable text (like “Ancestry family tree”)?

Comments

I don't think so, some links to Ancestry family trees actually lead to an actual source for whatever item it is, but still get called just Ancestry...

---

I guess that's the point Danielle: under these new rules, an Ancestry tree would not be a valid source.  The writer would have to go to the tree and use the source located there.  If no source at the tree, then the profile would need a different source for creation.

Stanley's suggestion would bring this reminder out at the time of writing when it may be forgotten if the person self-certified weeks or years ago.

---

lol, I don't disagree, constantly see profiles ''sourced'' using Nos origines, which is another tree base, with variable sourcing.  Annoys me no end when that is all that is present.  

But there should some sort of help page specific to Ancestry users that gives them the method for extracting the actual sources from there to add on their profiles, and not just one of these generic '' compilation by Edward xyz...'' and similar things.

---

I doubt the verbiage entered could be checked because there is so much variation in what would actually be qualified.  However, let's not lose the idea that when the birthdate is pre-1800, perhaps the language about what is acceptable for a source could be changed.  In the box that a source is entered where right now it just says "A source for this information is required".  This statement could be revised for pre-1800, pre-1700, pre-1500.

---

I agree with  a new pre-1800 certification requirement. A little more information is needed, rather than simply, "family bible" or "unsourced family tree passed down".

Answer 2

I agree that Pre 1800s would be the most reasonable point for requiring and enforcing quality sources.   I would leave the details to those who work so hard to train newbies and enforce those rules.  They know better than I what is involved and what would work.

We are lucky if the "personal knowledge ' of our ancestors goes back 3 generations.  I was recently scanning documents i  which my mother listed her grandmother as Ida Looser.   It was a lucky thing that I had missed that  when I  first began researching.  Her grandmother was Flora Bibby Looser proven by documents.  Thinking about it I can understand her mistake.   She was the youngest child in a family of seven children and was born in 1920.  She had an aunt that she was close to whose mother was Ida.  Apparently she didn't know that Maudie was her father's half-sister.  Her grandfather was born in the 1840s, fought in the Civil War,  married her grandmother (a widow with 2 children ), they had ten children before Flora died,  he married Ida and had 4 more children.   It is sad that when she filled out the family tree in my baby book in the 1940s she didn't know  (or at least remember) the story of her grandparents.  I am trying to avoid that with my descendants by leaving a documented history here on Wikitree as well as individual family history printed and sourced scrapbooks.

Answer 3

oh yes, make it a separate requirement from pre-1700, and maybe stiffen pre-1700 a bit.

And is there a way to stop the nonsense I am seeing recently where someone adds as their source (in-line) <ref>sources will be added by (so-and-so) no later than (xyz date)</ref>  I mean really, I see these after the stated ''due date'', still without sources.  Would love to see the program reject that as a ''source'' on creation of profile.

Comments

I'm pretty sure that is actually generated BY the "program" if you select that as an option. (Not 100% sure, because I always add sources at profile creation.)

---

gawds!  Hope not, else this is just an invitation to more unsourced profiles.

---

'Fraid it is -- -- --
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Alderdice-63

---

Agree.  Even after giving a generous amount of time after that due date, there is never any followthrough.  It's probably difficult to keep track of all the tasks one might have, but do the work now, rather than be in a hurry to start a profile.

---

oh lord, see the other ''unsourced family tree handed down to...'' also.  EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKK!   PLEASE somebody, kill those options.  Promote the best way to create profiles, which is to do it well first time around, then you don't have to come back to them.  Time and motion studies show if you do a complete job first time around, that's it.  If done half-a...ed, then you have to come back and scratch your head to remember where you had the data from, etc.

---

I disagree on unsourced family tree. It is indeed a source. It is how I started. I still have difficulty finding 20th century sources for some people for births and deaths, unless I have their obituary. Newer records may not be digitized and in family search. I know my great aunt's birthdate and place because that is what she told me, that is what the family stories said, and an unsourced tree. I was certainly not around for her birth, so I don't know her birth from personal knowledge; I know what I was told (which could be inaccurate). (Yes, by the time I made her profile I had a death record.) I also may not have tried that hard to find more records because I was excited to move the tree back before people I knew. So yes, I did need to come back and source my grandparents eventually. Regarding the chore of coming back and fixing things, coming back to these individually made profiles is not nearly as much of a chore as cleaning up my GEDCOM created profiles.

I believe I also have a few very young children in my family from the 19th century for whom all I can find is our unsourced family tree. I think I put unsourced on them all (although technically sourced) to remind me to keep looking. I do think unsourced family tree should not be allowed before 1800 (or even 1850).

---

it is not a ''source'' but a provenance of data, without any certainty that it is valid.  The problem with this ''automatic option'' is that I have been seeing it on profiles for which sources are readily available, I'm not talking 20th or 21st centuries.  It's an automatic gizmo that encourages laxness in sourcing.

---

I like your term "provenance of data".

---

I agree with Danielle, because really, for Québécois profiles, it is essential to check the baptism (the actual scanned image of the baptism, or something close like marriage of the parents or baptisms of siblings if the actual baptism is lost) and to look for possible existing profiles very thoroughly before creating any pre-1800 profile. In Québec Province/Canada New France, it is clear that the rules for pre-1700 profiles should apply pre-1800. Because really 1) a lot of these profiles already exist (risk of duplicates) and 2) the actual name at birth may be very different from the one the person carried at the end of their life, not to mention the name the family genealogist remembers. If you don't start at the baptism record, the odds of getting it wrong are overwhelming. 

I'm not saying the requirements should not be tightened a bit elsewhere; I'm not so familiar with what is happening there; but in Québec only having to give a "provenance of data" does create a lot of problems. 

Answer 4

I agree that there should be a pre1800. In the long run this will help the tree.

I had some concerns that this might infer that any 1700 to 1800 profiles should be in a project, and thought this would be overwhelming, especially when you reach those born in the late 1700s. So, looking at projects...

The United States Project has a great list of Reliable Sources   and many/most are not US specific https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:United_States_Project_Reliable_Sources#Reliable_Sources

Comments

don't see why they should need to be under a project, don't think even all pre-1700 profiles are under projects, although I could be wrong.

---

Danielle -  I was just thinking of potential side effects of going 1700 to 1800. The pre-1700 says to check with the project or if the profile is not in a project to ask on G2G. It can be somewhat left to interpretation, as the guidance is

Minor changes and clear improvements in accordance with style rules generally don't need to be discussed.

Major changes are usually discussed in G2G using the project tag or in the project's e-mail list, if the members use one.

---

I have created several pre 1700's profiles, on the create a new profile page it says: 

If you're not already coordinating with a project and familiar with applicable style rules click here:

under creating a pre 1700 Profile

 https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Pre-1700_Profiles

" You must never create a pre-1700 profile without citing a reliable source.

I do have sources, that I believe are accurate and are easily available on line. The few profiles I have that are pre-1700 are in Scotland and England. I have looked at the England Project Rules

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:England

I am a quite obsessive family historian but I also have many other commitments if I couldn't create a sourced pre 1700's profile without taking on a whole other job within the England Project, I would have to think again about creating those profiles at all, meaning that the connections to other parts of our family tree were lost

Answer 5

I agree that pre-1800 should have a real source, and not simply an unsourced family tree. I inherited quite a few unsourced family trees (from people born in the 1910s or earlier), which have all been basically accurate, but they largely just go back to 1800. I can tell they are largely accurate because records are pretty easy to find. This means that I could have added these as an unsourced family tree, correctly stated that an unsourced tree was my source, and then as I get more familiar with sourcing, add birth, marriage, death, and census records. I think this is a good way to learn.

Despite being active editing/sourcing profiles, I really only feel comfortable with 19th century records, which could be for people who were born in the 18th century, but died post 1811 (Netherlands) or after the 1850 US census, or the 1841 England census. It was very easy to get my pre-1700s credentials, which I did very early on. I try not to actually work on pre-1700s profiles now that I know more because I don't actually feel confident about my abilities with them.

I wouldn't want the same kind of progamatic barrier as at 1700, because I can confidently source someone who was born before 1800 with other records. But I would like to see the policy for sources change that a profile must have something more than another tree or unsourced information or personal knowledge (essentially the difference between source = where I got the information vs Source = something most of us would consider a "real" source)

Answer 6

I have several thoughts about this and some of them conflict with others.

I definitely agree that reliable and accurate sources are needed on all profiles.

I don't agree that ' most of us have personal knowledge of perhaps our own generation back to maybe our great - grandparents'. My mother was convinced that both her paternal grandparents had been born in Ireland, had traveled separately to England, then met and married.

Both of them were born in England, lived less than half a mile apart, and both attended the same R.C. church.

My dad was convinced that the family name of Ross had to indicate a Scots background and several family members spent a long time trying to find some documentation of that assumption. There isn't any because they were from the Welsh borders area.

I'm not at all sure that requiring pre 1800s qualification would be of any benefit. There are casual users of WikiTree who primarily want somewhere to stash their family history as they know it.

And as others have said; sometimes there is gold in them thar unsourced trees, and sometimes they really are junk.

And not meaning to be offensive, many United States based family trees have problems because records that exist in other countries don't exist in the U.S., because registration of birth, marriage and death was not required until much later than many other countries. Censuses often do not have names and other information for all family members.

I know that there is an unsourced profile grouping-maybe not the right word-but can unsourced profiles be automatically put into another area with a heading that says something like Unsourced information must be verified before inclusion in other profiles.

Comments

"I know that there is an unsourced profile grouping-maybe not the right word-but can unsourced profiles be automatically put into another area with a heading that says something like Unsourced information must be verified before inclusion in other profiles."

I'm not sure how that might be done, but I like the suggestion

---

I, too, have learned that family tales need proof...Like wearing the Wallace tartan and finding out you were originally Wallis and the folks at Ellis Island didn't understand.

---

Robin, there's a story behind you story! 

---

hehehe, and my mother used to say she was 1/4 Irish.  Not a bit of it, the Irish in my lines is on my dad's side.  

Answer 7

Robin, excellent recommendation! There are also some excellent suggestions in the answers and discussions. In MHO one should not create a profile unless it can be sourced. I have been working on Unconnected Profiles (my own from my gedcom) grrr shame on me! If, while sourcing these profiles I find parents, sibling etc, I have been entering that info in the bio section if I do not have the time to fully vet out those profiles. I try to leave enough information so anyone can come along and build out those profiles at a later date. My all time pet peeve is adding family trees as a source. Maybe something can be added to stress the importance of NOT USING family trees as sources. Just saying.  I will admit, I am not the best at finding records on the other side of the pond, so I usually ask for help with those profiles. As of late, I have been going back and looking at profiles I created when I first joined WikiTree. I have almost finished my list of unsourced profiles and only have one unconnected profile. It is a shame we can't get anything in writing before the Connect-a-thon, we may see a surge of "flakey profiles" after the thon. All in all, I support Robin's suggestion! Kudo's for coming up with better way of keeping our tree healthy! 

Answer 8

To answer the immediate question, I don't think changing pre-1700 to pre-1800 will change anything. We will still see new profiles with one source: "Family Records" and sometimes they go back pre-1700. I have most of the family Bibles that survive, and the earliest are about 1800.

FWIW - I created a "source" citation for the various records that I maintain in my different family surname Genealogy files, both paper and electronic on my computer.

I have many of them numbered, so I can find them easily if someone asks, altho I have yet to have anyone, besides the Stetson Kindred genealogists, ask me for copies.

I really don't want to put copies of birth and death records on WikiTree, for various privacy issues.

My only concern is that some day I won't be here to dig out all these records and I'm not sure what will happen to the files, etc, Maybe, by then, more of the official records will be online and someone who jumps in after me would be able to find the material.

We tend to think of the internet as "forever," but at some time all of the data online will be an immense pile of bits - and the search engines will have to be a lot more powerful than they are today.

rsl

Comments

How did you create your 'source citation'?

---

The Acadian project created standard source citations for all our Reliable sources and censuses.  We used citationmachine.net.  Like Roy, I keep quite a few of my most frequently used citations on a cheat sheet that is always open on my desktop for fast retrieval.

Answer 9

While I'm in favour of a change in the requirements, it's not clear to me if it should be 1700, 1750, 1800, or 1850.

With many records are freely and reliably (Canadian census  from 1850 to 1921, Church and government records on family search,  Most new users could easily master Canadian searches with a little direction on where to search from 1850 on.

Although many, including me, do not consider Généalogie du Québec et d'Amérique française, a source,I have found very few errors, and many links to primary sources. For new users, is can be a great place to start.

Going further back, is a little more challenging. The handwriting and search tools are not quite as easy. Place names can be more difficult to resolve.

I also think we can put more effort into making it easier for new users to get started. (video and written instructions for creating profiles, recommended sources for the region they are starting in. (if we don't now) 

Personally I find the pre-1500 badge requirements overly onerous.  I do not participate in Projects because all the ones I looked into require the use of Google Groups. I do not sign up because I believe everything on Google is data mined. To me, that means I will never pursue pre-1500. (I am pre-1700 certified.)

As we look at requirements for new users, we may want to look into introducing PM requirements. There are a large number of older profiles, that suffer the same problems we are trying to prevent new users from creating.

Comments

gawds Peter, Généalogie du Québec et d'Amérique française changed their name from Nos Origines.  Sourcing is extremely variable.  As a place to find hints, it's ok, but I have found too many errors there to trust it.  And it is a tree site.

---

I think we are agreeing. Everything on the site needs to be verified. I would not use it as a source (although many have), but it's great for hints. Occasionally, a source is linked!

Answer 10

Adding the requirement that a user needs to be quallified to create Pre-1800 profiles doesn't resolve the issue of them not including credible sources,

Also along the same line, profile creators are not activly getting notified of their unsourced profiles. There is a check box during creation, but no follow-up or follow through. It's an endless parade of community-based work constantly performing "housekeeping".

Comments

'Adding the requirement that a user needs to be qualified to create Pre-1800 profiles doesn't resolve the issue of them not including credible sources'

This is a very good point. If the issue is to make sources a requirement trying to educate members about the importance of accurate sources will not make them do it. 

Are we going to disallow creation of any profile of a person born before 1800, if we do not have any birth, baptism, marriage or death record, inclusion on a census record does not always mean that the person in question is the person on the record. 

Answer 11

I agree with this proposal.  It won't completely prevent poor sourcing pre-1800 even as the current pre-1700 doesn't prevent all poor sourcing.  But it could cause folks to slow up a bit, take it a little more seriously.  And it gives Projects something to use when guiding a new member.  It's certainly a teaching opportunity and a way to guide new people to connect with projects or others with pre-1800 sources and experience.   When I took the pre-1700 cert I was shocked at how easy it was to pass.  We could make that a bit more rigorous so there is a step progression across time periods.

Answer 12

I think this is a great idea. I know, from decades of experience, how difficult it can be to find anything resembling solid PRIMARY sources for pre-1800 information, especially on-line. Many are only accessible in the dusty musty archives in local courthouses and older libraries. 

Yes, there are a lot of microfilm reels of many of these sources, but most are not digitized, and can only be accessed at a library, usually an LDS family history library.

FamilySearch.org is slowly but steadily digitizing their microfilm collection, and perhaps someday they will be indexed as well. A lot of the real "goodies" may wind up behind Ancestry's paywall, I suspect.

I have become a bit, shall we say, "retentive" about primary vs. secondary & even tertiary sources. And the more I do genealogy, the worse I get. 

Nothing gets my steam up more than seeing someone claim "personal knowledge" on a 150-year old profile! 

And the same for citing the various on-line "family trees", without citing the actual sources. And there often ain't none to be found!

Long story short, PLEASE bump the Pre-1700 up to Pre-1800!

Answer 13

I would simply like to see proper sourcing enforced in a stricter way. I have sourced thousands of "unsourced profiles" the past 3 months for 3 specific surnames.  Sourcing is a process that I enjoy but am taking a break this month because It is also depressing to see how many people, especially in recent times are simply dumping Gedcoms or whatever and walking away, orphaning their Ancestors. Apparently, they don't care.

Keeping our current requirement for pre 1700 would protect those profiles in place now encourage active research. That is what is needed. The era from 1500-1700 needs to be protected, otherwise those of us that struggle even as it is to maintain will be hit hard!

Answer 14

One thing I am noticing with this discussion is that it seems to miss the point for pre-1700 (hopefully pre-1800) certification:  It isn't about slapping hands or in any way punitive.  It is a teaching moment.  A genealogy newbie is likely to start with parents, grands and great-grandparents.  This allows them time to get familiar with the program and they are often working on personal knowledge.

But if they have to stop when trying to add a pre-1800, a profile that likely affects many descendants, and learn what is expected of a Wikitreer for sources, the tree will be improved.  It is hard to "take it all in" at first.  But by the time they reach 1800, they should be familiar with the program and now can use the self-certification to re-enforce what is expected.

Comments

This sis an excellent statement about the extended purpose. It’s is not only to have better sourced profiles, but the way to get there. Teachable moments. I salute you Kathy for pointing this out.

Answer 15

INSTEAD OF A PRE-1800, HOW ABOUT A "NEW MEMBER TRAIL" AKIN TO THE ENGLAND TEAM "ORPHAN TRAIL."

Why pre-1800? When in 1800? I'm finding profiles that have early 1900 and late 1800 families and the source is "personal knowledge" (for 1800????).

Why not require a "New Member Ancestor Trail" in which they do a family member from early 1900 with a biography and (at least) one in-line source (census record or immigration record, or marriage record). When successfully created then one family member (connected or not) from 1800 (same deal, biography with a source...census, marriage, death). Then a 1700 family member, connected or not, with biography and at least one source (could be 1790 census, but if earlier, birth, marriage, death). In addition, with this 1700 family member, they could/should take the pre-1700 quiz.

This approach will help them to learn what is available with each century, there will at least be three complete profiles with biographies and at least one in-line source and we won't have to deal with Gedcom junk, 'personal knowledge", etc.

Plus, we will know if the new people will stick with this or not (and leave the rest of us to clean up after the nots).

Thank you for your consideration!

Comments

My concern is having enough people to oversee that kind of activity....

---

Robin, How much time is being spent by member now who are cleaning and following up on profiles of new members?

---

I would like to make a follow up comment to my original regarding a form of "New Member Trail."

When I first started on Wikitree, I found a number of Profiles that had limited information (generally no biography, just the upper information completed) and under sources, simple 'Personal Information' or 'Personal Knowledge'...not one source...just those words.

To be honest, I found myself doing this form some of my family who were, perhaps, grandparents or great grandparents. Then I started seeing what folks like Jillaine, Anne B, Pip, SJ Baty, Joe Cochoit, Kay Wilson and others were doing and went back to make changes and really learn the Wikiway. Then I met the England Team and participated in the Orphan Trail! Doing three from three different centuries, learning how to inline source, finding proper sources for the profiles, writing a proper biography have really helped me to become much better at Wikitree.

I understand that it would require people to oversee this type of training, but how much time would it save for all in the long run? Plus, pre-1800 certification does not guarantee proper biography/sourcing. Did this happen with pre-1700?

Thank you all for your time, talent and commitment to Wikitree. I know we all strive to make this the best possible site.

Answer 16

I have to agree with Robin, therefore I vote YES for pre-1800 certification.

Answer 17

I definitely agree that provision of sources on newly created profiles is an issue. By bringing pre-1700 forward to pre-1800 that is at least 100 years less of potentially unsourced profiles that are able to be created! I follow the unsourced stats data for one English county pretty closely and spent countless hours providing sources for profiles that are currently labelled unsourced. And I know that there are probably just as many profiles for that county that are unsourced but not yet labelled as such. It can be, quite frankly, depressing! I tend to think that pre-1800 might slow the rate, and while not a perfect solution, shouldn't create more problems than it solves.

Answer 18

I agree with your proposal. I think it is a great idea. Some details to be worked out, but a great idea overall.

Answer 19

Here are my thoughts on this from the point of view regarding the projects I am involved with at the moment.

I am a project coordinator for England Help Desk and Wales counties. I am also a Greeter and England Orphan Trail Trailblazer.

New members have varying abilities and experience with regard to sourcing their family. Everyone needs to learn how to format on the Wiki and sometimes it may be this that is the stumbling block. Ensuring there are easy to find formatting guidelines is a start and pages like the one that the England Project have https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:England_Useful_Links_Index can help.

For England and Wales a cut off date of 1800 is much closer to when those more accessible sources are no longer available. Birth registration did not start until July 1837 and census information before 1841 is generally not useful.

So I personally would be in favour of the change to 1800.

Answer 20

If there are going to be three sets a rules, I think that it would make more sense to add pre-1850 requirements to the now existing pre-1500 and pre-1700 standards. That's when census data was more details having names instead of headcounts.

Pre-1700 could be changed to pre-1775 to even up the time period to 175 years between pre-1500 and pre-1850.

Pre-1850 qualifications could include the challenges of having headcounts instead of names on census.

Pre-1775 qualifications can include how sources w ere different in Colonial times.

Pre-1500 could remain about the same.

Not sure how this scenario would work outside the Americas.