Question

Should the Honor Code require accuracy ?  At present it merely says we care about it. 

I propose that it states that accuracy is required.  Below is a suggested draft.  Please do not get hung up on the exact wording of the draft.  The main aim of this proposal is to focus on requiring accuracy at the “creation of a profile” stage. I have added two answers, one for, and one against the proposal. Please vote up the answer you feel best represents your personal view as an individual WikiTree user. 

Suggested Draft for Honor Code point II:

"We require accuracy. We aim to create accurate profiles, with the existence and relationships  of the people they represent being confirmed by the citing of correct, traditional sources."

Comments

I don't see the problem with resigning the Honor Code. A refresher will be very useful.

---

Considering the down votes double the up votes, I'd say the Honor Code hasn't held up well at all. The down votes suggest that those who don't care about accuracy outnumber those who do.

---

That seems like an inappropriate assumption to make.

They aren't downvoting having accuracy. That's not what the statement there says. They are upvoting the wording remaining as it is.  Not the same thing.

---

The HC says that we source and we care about accuracy. If people agree with that, which they should do since they signed it, there is no logical reason to be opposed to stating in the HC that accuracy is a requirement. Making accuracy a requirement would mean that online trees can't be copied without checking and adding original sources, and unsourced family trees must be checked before uploading here.

---

And who will do the checking???

---

Those who signed the honor code to say they care about accuracy should be doing the checking before they create the profiles here.

---

I would like to quickly point that sourcing information actually has an influence on the accuracy that we are striving for. If we didn't care then we wouldn't be concerned about sourcing. And that as far as I am concerned, has a huge relevance to our Code

---

There are good sources and there are unreliable sources.  A tendency to prefer unreliable sources is incompatible with a commitment to accuracy.

---

Julie R., in general I agree with you on this point, that WT just does not have the manpower to check everything.

However, the problem of uncritically copying trees is not just a problem for WT, but for all hobby genealogists.  It is just as foolish to do it on Ancestry.

So I wonder if one approach might be for there to be a welcome message created for WT, that new members would see when they sign up, warning them that copying others' undocumented trees is almost never the route to an accurate family history, and that the results are not welcome here (maybe in nicer words).

---

I agree Julie K. The profile creation form could also use a reminder that unsourced family trees are notoriously unreliable and copying them leads to more work in the long run when they need to be fixed.

Answer 1

Yes, I agree with this proposal.. The Honor Code should require accuracy and state that it does.

Answer 2

No, I disagree with this proposal.  The Honor code should not state that it requires accuracy.

Comments

Won't this conflict a bit with "We assume that mistakes are unintentional"?

---

Not really. If the military hand you a rifle, they require accuracy.  If you miss the target they assume it was unintentional.

---

I wonder if this might scare off some people.  If they come here, see that, and realize that some of their information is approximate, or family hearsay, etc., might they think they can't live up to this requirement?

---

A mistake can be unintentional but if there's a source provided, it is easy to see an error has been made. When it is unsourced, people spend ages hunting around for a source that doesn't exist.

---

Nan, I understand what you mean about it scaring off some people.  The idea is that people don't just see the accuracy requirement, but the whole Honor Code, which includes "Collaboration" .The impression to give, is that newcomers with approximate information, or hearsay etc can come here with that and be helped by others, by a Mentor, or by Project Members for example.  So they can create accurate profiles in collaboration with existing members. In doing that they will learn useful skills.

---

In my opinion, accuracy is an ideal and a goal which can never fully be attained. Accuracy depends upon original, contemporary records, which become less attainable as we go back in time. We should not have as a requirement something that is not attainable.

We can strive for accuracy and we can stress that accuracy is a goal, but we should not demand it.

edit: added italicized text

---

Lindy, WikiTree already requires accuracy.  The proposal is that the Honor Code reflects this more strongly than it does at present.

WikiTree also demands higher accuracy for earlier profiles, where contemporary records are less attainable ( e.g. the pre-1500 requirement ).

If you were to add inaccurate branches to the one-tree , the hope is that others will spot it and collaborate with you to correct it.

---

While I would love to see more accuracy on WikiTree and more emphasis on the use of reliable sources even for modern profiles, requiring accuracy on the Honor Code would be a much bigger change than it looks at first sight. For instance, it would be at odds with such help pages as https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Uncertain and https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Disagreements_about_Certainty and possibly others.

A more recommended/classical approach would be to take baby steps towards being more strict about accuracy. Perhaps start by revisiting the help pages listed above and seeing how they could be amended (step by step). 

(note that I won't be alerted to comments under this comment).

---

I have not found a style guideline that specifically states that accuracy is a requirement, Joe. Please direct me to any such statement.

Regardless of the existence of any such statement, I am against changing the current wording of the Honor Code to require accuracy. I do not see the necessity of such a change.

---

Hi Lindy, ithe Wikitree Mission as stated here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:The_Free_Family_Tree

“Our community is on a mission to grow The Free Family Tree — one accurate, shared tree that connects us all, and is accessible to us all for free, forever.”

and here: www.wikitree.com

“ Together we’re growing an accurate single family tree using DNA and traditional genealogical sources. “

Obviously, you can't grow an accurate Tree without accuracy.

---

Those statements do not say accuracy is a requirement.

---

How do we achieve an accurate tree if there is no requirement for accuracy? If we're not going to rise above the other collaborative trees, what is the point of doing this?

Here's a blog post from 2013 that says we're now improving our former standards for sourcing. I shudder to think what the previous standards were for sourcing. Note we were "aiming for accuracy" back then too.
https://www.wikitree.com/blog/wikitree-honor-code/

Clearly that "aim" for accuracy hasn't worked, because we're now planning for 2021 the year of accuracy. It's proof that when a low bar is set, people have a tendency to orient to it.

Wikitree's critics see through the lip service. If we're claiming to build an accurate tree then the talk needs to be backed up with action. Why do people want to get away with the bare minimum standard possible and resist improvement? Self improvement benefits our own tree as well as everyone else's. What is the point of creating one's family tree by copying errors from other trees?

Answer 3

We should have a stronger statement about the need for documentation, but accuracy implies no errors or conclusions and any good genealogist knows that is not always achievable.

Comments

Hence the words "We aim to create accurate profiles".

Remember that Honor Code point III states "We know mistakes are inevitable. " 

---

I agree with Daniel.

My take is that the two statements "we require accuracy" and "we aim to create accurate profiles" are saying two different things.

---

Indeed, it would require a good definition of what accurate is. In research in general this is not possible as it implies something like 'the truth'. Good work, sourcing, good documentation is all possible and required, but will that make the tree accurate?

The current Honor Code covers all aspects for me, it is a matter of training people and discouraging the use of bad sources and adding profiles without thought.

Also remember this is a WIKI, a joint work in progress where people add little bits and work on other bits. If you can only add 'accurate' stuff, it would mean you will need to do all the work off site and only use WT as a publication place.

---

I agree, Michel. WikiTree was always meant to be a work in progress. We tell all our family members, please, share what you know and why you think you know it. Anyone who can improve on our information, please do.

---

I wouldn't state it like that Chris, and I do have (serious) problems with the rule on non sourcing post 1700 profiles, but I do agree fully with the idea that WikiTree should be an encouraging and fun place to share knowledge and experience. Most people just want to know something about their family history and do not want to take a course on scientific sourcing. Those also should not get the opportunity to create too many bad profiles.

For the ones that do sign the honor code however, there should be a very clear statement that not documenting new profile harms the accuracy of WikiTree and creates a lot of work, mainly for others. For Family Members there is a good system, but due to the popularity of WikiTree it is difficult to keep up with all the new additions. It is all about scaling I think.

---

Accuracy does not imply that one will never make a mistake. We're human and humans make mistakes. Caring about accuracy means that we check and document sources and go back to the original source wherever possible. For example, people who care about accuracy don't take an unsourced family tree at face value and reproduce the errors elsewhere.

Answer 4

I think the emphasis needs to be put on point 8: sources.

You won't know if you have an accurate tree without the sources.

I think the emphasis needs to be put on "primary" sources versus "secondary" sources.

A primary source is the record of the event at the time it took place or shorty thereafter. However, primary sources can contain mistakes.

Joe's suggested point mentions accuracy with sources.

Comments

At the moment an unsourced family tree is considered a source. Using it contradicts the claim to care about accuracy.

For the emphasis to be placed on sources, then the definition of an acceptable source becomes problematic. For example, there are profiles where the only sources are rather flimsy, but genuine searches for better sources have not yet found them. The whole purpose of having a wiki is to put that profile up here and perhaps someone else has a better source. Those brick walls need a collaborative approach to break them down. However, the flimsy sourcing is being abused and profiles are being created from unsourced trees simply because people can't be bothered looking up the sources. The real problem is the lack of commitment to accuracy.

Answer 5

Very fitting amendment for the "Year of Accuracy"

Answer 6

People are down-voting.  If you disagree with the proposal then please upvote the "No I disagree with this proposal" answer".

If you down-vote, it will skew the results and make the whole process less accurate.  Now that is ironic.

Answer 7

Still getting down-votes, sadly.  Clearly the proposal system with two answers to up-vote is flawed and open to hidden manipulation.

Comments

Agreed. Sorry this is happening ... There must be a better way ...

---

Joe, don't take it to hard. People do not understand the system of down and up voting and the software here is not suitable for these polls.

Do not get frustrated about it, your gentle request to not do it got 8 upvotes at this moment.

---

Thanks Michel.

---

You are right that people should not be downvoting to vote twice, but don't worry too much about it. The team can see who votes twice. And more importantly, nothing is really decided by voting in G2G. It's just a way to gauge community reaction to something.

---

Ah, OK. I see.  Thanks Chris.

Answer 8

I agree our tree should be accurate and sourced. I am very big on sourcing. I am also against using other online user trees because they are very unreliable.

Now, the monkey wrench.

First, that is a strong statement and although true, we are talking about throwing it at new members who have not yet learned how to operate WikiTree yet. That would be enough to scare many away. I work with new members all the time and many of them are nervous and have a lot of questions. The way that is worded would definitely be intimidating to a lot of new members.

Second, while I really do not like user trees being used as a source, what will you do about GEDCOM's? We allow and encourage members to join and upload them. What is a GEDCOM but a user tree? They, upload an entire user tree to our system, and 9 out of 10 times there are no sources. I believe that affects the accuracy of our tree and we allow Family members to do that. They have not even signed the Honor Code. So, would this not be something we should consider too?

Answer 9

A clarification:

WikiTree already requires accuracy.  This question is not about whether WikiTree should require accuracy, but rather whether the Honor Code should express this more strongly than just “care”.

WikiTree already requires accuracy; we can’t build an accurate tree without it.  

The very first page of WikiTree : ( www.wikitree.com ) states: 

“ Together we’re growing an accurate single family tree using DNA and traditional genealogical sources. “