Proposal: Remove the "Source will be added later" option on new profile creation [closed]

Question

How about a small reasonable reform to the process for adding new profiles--remove the "Source will be added later" option?

Yet again yesterday, in searching for profiles related to my own family line, I've come across unsourced profiles, added recently, with the promise that "Source will be added by xx by xx 2021."  Months ago.  Sometimes years ago.  Sometimes every profile that a WTer has added has that same promise, often dozens of profiles or more.  For some people, this seems like a meaningless promise.  It is so easy to add something better, if you have it, and if you don't, you shouldn't add the profile!  Shouldn't we remove this option?

Please express your agreement or disagreement using the answers below as described.  If you really want to vote me down,  vote down the question.  But please don't interfere with the tallying of support and opposition.

Update:  I had closed my question with the note “Thank you to everyone for your comments. I hope leadership will take note of the significant support for this proposal and make a change now.”

I had envisioned my proposal not as a rule proposal, but simply a proposal for a technical change to minimize the number of unsourced profiles. Thus, there was no draft policy to be written.

I am re-opening the question to make sure that anyone who wants to respond has a chance to do so.

I hope that we can have some clarification on what would constitute “significant” opposition.

Comments

Well said, Loretta.

---

opps better not comment here

---

Being fairly new here I have to plead guilty! I've had a profile I'm working on and sometimes run across a person connected to said profile, if I don't add that second person while it's fresh in my mind it goes unadded. True I should make a notebook of people to add and which person to add them to but that gets to be a mess, or forgotten. Wouldn't it be better to at least have that profile started? Or maybe not.

PS..A notice would be fantastic, these unsourced profiles more often than not get forgotten! At least by me, and unintentionally.

Robyn..

---

Robyn, you can find a list of Unsourced profiles you manage by checking your watchlist.

Edited to fix typo.

---

Thanks so much! There's so much to learn here, and sometimes I learn more from G2G than all the reading there is to do!

---

Wonderful reply!! Especially for those of us who are really trying to learn...it's nice to hear someone with compassion, as well as common sense. No offense to those who disagree, but you must admit this site can be pretty complicated and we all have to start at the bottom & learn our way up.

---

I ment the reply by John Morgan.

---

Also, maybe in greeting newbies it would be nice to mention how important "Projects" are. I'd never heard of OT until now, and I just joined PIP which I just happened to stumble upon. It might be nice too to have a list of "Learning Projects" so we don't go along blindly, not realizing how complicated things are until we're in the middle of things not really knowing what we're doing, but trying our best to figure things out. I've had some snide and arrogant emails that made me want to just walk away but thankfully there are some super nice and helpful people here that perked up my spirits and got me going again! When I finish PIP I'll be joining OT...and the Tartan Trail. The more learning the better. ;)

---

I guess OT is the Orphan Trail?

Yes, I have long thought that better new member education, including more messages right up front, would be useful.

But it is unclear whether there is a good way to get new members' attention.  Often they are overwhelmed.  I don't even remember whether I read the links provided by the Greeter messages on my own profile.

What do you think would be the best way to reach new members who might be struggling?

---

When I had a link to WT from My Heritage I thought WT was just another website to add your family to. I had only been to My Heritage and thought all sites were basically the same. What a surprise! WT looked so interesting..and FUN! I didn't realize how strict the rules could be. I started reading and one link lead to another until I was completely lost & couldnt even find where I'd started! I DID read the greeting but it would have been so helpful if they'd emphasized how different WT is and mentioned a few "Beginner Projects" where you'd have someone to help you understand the things that needed to be done and how to do it. I had no idea what Familysearch was until someone on G2G told me to check out those types of sites to find sources. I know one day I'll be good at this and will be happy to help newbies, but I have a lot to learn and I think the Projects will be the best way to learn..I just have to find the "right ones". I really love this place and the advanced snotty people aren't going to chase me away, lol. Greeters have the opportunity to point newbies in the right direction. I really think advising them to try a Project to get started with is the way to go..it would have saved me a world of learning the hard way.  Sorry for the preachment!

Answer 1

Please vote this answer up if you agree with the proposal.

Comments

Interesting, Stu. When was the feature added that the unsourced tag is automatically added if "will add source later" is chosen? I have seen tens if not hundreds of profiles still waiting for that source and without an unsourced tag. I will add the tag myself except for recently created profiles. I like to give the profile manager the benefit of the doubt and believe that they will add a source even if it has been days since the profile was created. Are they removing the unsourced tag or is it really automatically added?

I always add a basic source, then after the profile is created, I generally flesh it out.

---

I have no idea when it was added. I know that I select that option for every profile I create, immediately go into Edit mode, delete the Unsourced tag, and begin creating a biography with inline sources.

---

Kathie, I love the 'First hand information of ..." line, especially when it applies to an event over 150 years ago.

---

Edie, I think that change (automatic addition of "Unsourced") is fairly recent.

---

If one considers a person important enough to create a profile then surely one would want it sourced! It is simple, find your source prior building a profile. Just saying!

---

I completely agree Loretta. If a person is interested enough in their family history to participate on WT finding one source before creating a profile should not be a problem.

If the PM is expecting others to do the sourcing for them , they need to think again.

---

Hi M Ross, I think I might be the profile manager you are talking about, because that is what I used to put on my early profiles before I took the OT and Ros showed me how to do them properly, I know that I still have some to put right, and they will get done eventually xxx

---

Karen, I really doubt it's you!  We all probably have profiles we created when new that aren't up to our current standards. The problem is those people who never try to do better.

I think OT = Orphan Trail?

---

Thanks Julie, and yes OT is the Orphan Trail, taking that with the amazingly patient Ros was one of the best things I did, it was a great learning experience, and the PIP Voyage with the lovely Robin was also a great learning experience  xxx

---

M, I particularly like your comment about the education of newbies. I wonder if the second Greeter message could be tweaked to emphasise the need for sources and to provide appropriate links. Projects could also step up and provide support with sourcing when newbies add a geographic tag, too. I’d be more than willing to help with this.

Answer 2

Please vote this answer up if you disagree with the proposal.  Please explain why you disagree.

Comments

I don't see much point to this.  Frankly, the way I usually work is to create the profile, then comeback to worry about the sources.  If you force people to add a source, they will just work around it by adding in fake sources.

---

You're saying people are simply going to lie, Joe?

---

Joe, Why would they do that? If they have a source, surely they would just add that source (even if it's only one) rather than making something up.  What would be the point of that?  If they didn't have a source at all, they probably shouldn't be creating the profile.

---

It's all very well to say that you will create the profile, then come back to add the sources.  What if you forget? or real life gets in the way? What if you fall down stairs, break your leg, and need to go to hospital?  Are you going to say to the doctors and nurses "Excuse me, I've just got to go and add some sources, because I promised I would before today"?

---

I wonder what percent of the unfulfilled promises are due to broken legs?  But if forgetfulness or "real life" stop people from doing what they said they would do, that seems like all the more reason not to let them postpone adding sources in the first place.

---

I use this on every profile I create, then immediately create a biography (at least a birth narrative, usually more) and add sources. Since I use inline sources exclusively, the little Sources box on the profile creation page is useless for me. If this suggestion is adopted, what would you suggest I do?

It would make much more sense to get rid of the Unsourced Family Tree option, which is equivalent to saying "No Sources."

---

Stu, I agree that it's awkward to type much of a source into that little box.  What I usually do is type some brief thing like "birth record" and then replace that with a more complete citation when I edit the profile immediately afterward.

As for your second suggestion--well, one step at a time!

P.S.  But WT does allow "unsourced family tree" for people who only want to input a generation or two, and I doubt that's going to change.  I'd like to see a time limit so that they can't use it for someone born in, say, 1800.

---

Julie, yes I am.  Just to get the profile created, so they can work on it after.

Ian, it is not that I don't have a source. It is that I have 20 sources, and it is going to take a long time to write the biography and properly source all of the various data points. What is the point of adding a source when it is not sourcing anything in the biography. For me their is no point in trying to source something when all I am doing is the initial profile creation with a blank biography.

---

Joe, as I just said to Stu, I see nothing wrong with saying "birth record" or "1850 census" or whatever is a brief description of a source you actually have and will be adding.

It almost seems to me that you're arguing we shouldn't have that requirement to add a source in the initial profile creation step, because people won't do it right or it can't be done well.

---

I see that as just as useless as the current promise to add sources. It may even be worse as many people will consider their work done.

---

Good point!  But what would you suggest?  How do we get people to add sources?

---

@ Stu -- that "Notes" box immediately above the Sources box on profile creation?  You can post the entire biography in there on creating the profile.  So long as you have your sources/citations all <ref>tagged</ref> correctly, there should  not be any problems having them display correctly.

---

Thanks, Melanie.  I didn't know that.

---

I did not for such a long time, then I read on g2g how it was possible, and have done it ever since.  Not always, mind, but more than 70% of the time.)

---

Writing a biography in the little notes box is not a very practical solution though Melanie. I won't do it; I doubt anyone will.

---

i think she was suggesting you write it elsewhere (like on a Word document) and paste it in.

---

I mostly write my biographies in a text document, then copy and paste.

It works wonderfully well.

---

Or...in the bottom right-hand corner of the little box are three lines.  If you click and drag on them, you can resize the box to much more comfortable writing-size.

---

Joe, the Notes box is expandable.  You can just drag the bottom right corner and make it as big as you like.

---

Um...wasn't my comment showing, then?

---

Sorry, Ros, no.  I guess I read the comments and then responded.  You'd answered in the meantime.

---

Ros, absolutely you can expand both the biography and sources box. Just as you can expand the answer box here on G2G.

Also if you are adding more than the bare bones to a profile, after the profile is created and saved, go back and edit the profile adding certainty levels to the information already entered plus more details to the biography, research notes, more sources, photos, docs, etc, etc.

I almost always create the person with one line in the biography and one source, then go back and add more details.

---

We do see profiles that members have not gone back to in order to add sources .... QED ... adding the phrase "Source will be added by .. " does not work. But is this true? Do we understand the percentage of profiles that members have gone back to compared with the percentage they have not? Do we understand whether the situation was better or worse or no different before "Source will be added by .. " was introduced? I suspect not.

---

I know that I encounter it quite often, as I said in my question.

---

Yes, I know you can create the biography in the Notes box and that you can expand the box. But when I say sources to be added later, save, and the reopen, it gives me a useful stem with the names of the parents with the WikiTree links, and I can edit that and not have to futz around inserting the link. As far as creating the bio elsewhere, I'm way too addicted to the way-cool enhanced editor to consider that an option.

---

replying to multiple comments:

Whether one uses the option stating one will add source citations the next day or one uses shortcut terms to indicate one's actual source(s), one still should return within a reasonable time frame to edit the profile. So the latter practice is only a small improvement.

Getting members to return to add their source citations is the problem that needs to be solved. So not giving members the option to say they will return later, and instead, making it clear that every new profile must have at least one cited source (and preferably one or more citations to source each piece of data entered) at creation should lead to improved sourcing of new profiles.

Citations provide proof for the data in our data fields, not just the data in our biographies. For profiles of individuals outside one's "nuclear family," one should be expected to provide cited proof for each and every piece of data one enters at profile creation.

If we are serious about our sourcing requirements, we should not provide any "slacker" options.

---

Thank you for the thoughtful comments, Lindy.

I completely agree with you that typing in a little shorthand reference to a source should only be a very temporary measure.

As this discussion has progressed, I've come to think of that little box on the profile creation form as more of a problem than a good thing.  The options to expand the box and paste in information from elsewhere, while available, seem like more of a hard sell than just getting rid of the box.  

But what to replace it with?  How to get people to add good sources, at creation or any time?

---

One advantage of the "added later" option is that when it's used, WikiTree marks the profile as unsourced. If the only options left are personal knowledge (for more recent people) and unsourced family tree, the person who is determined to create unsourced profiles will just choose one of those, and the profile will not be marked unsourced

>If we are serious about our sourcing requirements ...

But we are not, and will not be as long as the only official sourcing requirement is "where you found the information," regardless of how reliable a source that might be.

>...we should not provide any "slacker" options.

I don't consider it slacking to promise to add a source and then immediately go in and create a biography with inline sources. Can slackers use this option? Yes, but no more so than the other default options.

> How to get people to add good sources, at creation or any time?

Step 1. Change the policy.

Step 2. Enforce the policy.

(Neither is going to happen, of course.)

---

I've always wondered how any self-respecting genealogist could stand to see his profiles marked as "Unsourced."

That and your other comments do get to the heart of the matter.  I still think small incremental changes are more likely to happen at WT than drastic wholesale changes.

---

The only way an "add later" function would be to have a "reminder" function if you don't go back to that one. At least for those of us who end up creating a mess of profiles all at one time and can easily forget the mess minus one, and that poor thing goes through life without a source. And the bad part is that I might be the only one for the next 5 years who might even look at that (I even have great examples of that from my original Gedcom upload, which still has several unsourced profiles that I periodically run across). So if you're an incredibly organized person, I'm sure you can create a source-less profile today, and a week later, come back on your schedule and update it, but some of us are squirrel chasers, and we're off to the next race pretty quickly and sometimes leave a few of these littered around if we're not diligent and ensure there's at least one anchor source before we run away.

So I acknowledge the argument that there are good solid individuals out there who can manage under the current "no source required" mechanism, and I'm not a huge believer in a "Nanny State", but I fear the majority of us would have a hard time recalling what profiles we entered last week, much less could swear in a court of law that we definitely sourced them (or did we maybe forget) if we didn't make ourselves do it at time of creation.

---

I just did an unscientific sample of 20 profiles from the current (4 Jul) Data Doctors report.  All were created before 1 Jun 2021; all have the Unsourced template; all have Open privacy.  I skipped any profile with a PM I had already looked at, to avoid having a sample dominated by two or three PMs' work.  Out of the 20,

* 14 were created 31 May with 'the promise,' now over five weeks old;

* 3 were created pre-'promise' (2011 and 2016), and recently modified (perhaps given their Unsourced tag?);

* 3 have non-sources: 'ancestry.com,' 'unsourced family tree handed down,' and a link to a FamilySearch profile.

I had to go through about 60 profiles in order to check 20 with different PMs.  Almost all of the 40 same-PM profiles I skipped had PMs who reneged on their promise to add sources.  I think it extremely likely that those 40 also have the broken promise.

I have no idea how many PMs made and kept their sourcing promise since 31 May.  I also have no idea how many profiles got the promise but don't have the Unsourced template. To me, these results strongly suggest that making a hollow promise to add sources is the current preferred way to avoid the sourcing requirement.

If WikiTree is serious about Honor Code Point VIII ('We cite sources'), we need to do better holding people to it.

---

Thank you, Herbert!  (I was still trying to think of a way to do a sample.)

---

But what would you suggest?  How do we get people to add sources?

Scott has it right.  The only thing that will truly make a difference is a reminder system. Also, maybe add it to the error report as people like trying to clear out those errors. I'm sure Ales can search for {{unsourced}} and add it in as some sort of report.

---

To be clear--are those profiles not already included on people's suggestions reports?

---

It would be illustrative if we could have a report showing how many recent profiles (pick your time period) use the "will be added later" option and how many use the "unsourced family tree" option.

---

I agree, Stu.  I tried using WikiTree + Text Search for "Source will be added," with/without quotes, and with/without underscores replacing the spaces, and got zip.  I guess the text it searches is not the biography text?  I have only limited WT+ skills.

If anyone's interested, WikiTree has 1,052,732 Unsourced (templated) profiles, of which 916,683 are Open.  That's about 3.3% of all profiles. Is that number growing or shrinking?

---

I am a little confused. For the small number of profiles I've created, I don't see this option being discussed to "add a source later." When I create a profile, step 3 says, "Third, add any additional information you have available. All this is optional, except including the source of this information," [emphasis mine]. And in the source box, it says, "A source for this information is needed." I suppose I could type "Because I just know," in the box, and I don't know how the system could be altered to check for a legitimate source versus random gibberish.

Second, I thought we did have a system in place for PMs to check for their unsourced profiles. If I'm understanding this thread correctly and the unsourced template is automatically attached to profiles created without sources (I've never tried this so I'm taking you guys at your word), all the PM has to do from that point on is go to their watchlist and click on the "unsourced" button to get a list of all their profiles without sources, right? (I don't have any unsourced people, so I can't verify that - but I thought that was the point of that little button).

---

Mel, I added a new profile yesterday to make sure I understood the current process.  Here is the screen I got when I tried to skip adding the source (you can click on the image for a closer view):

---

It is true that you can add any gibberish.  It is also true, I think, that PMs can check for their own unsourced profiles (I'm not sure because I don't have any).  What I think we're discussing here is those PMs who either inadvertently or deliberately fail to add sources to the profiles they've created.

Edit to add:  People can check on their unsourced profiles using an option on their watchlists.  I do have one unsourced profile, one I adopted in order to propose a merge.  It will be sourced once the merge is done.

---

haha Julie - I'm such a sheep - it never would have occurred to me to try and add someone without a source since it said I had to have one. No wonder I never saw those little options. It definitely seems to me like those options should only be available for 20th century profiles. I certainly agree that their presence legitimizes sloppily adding profiles.

My second point was addressing Scott's and Joe's comments, which suggested a reminder system - which it seems to me is basically already available.

---

Ha ha, Mel!  If the reminder system could be made more...well, aggressive, that might help.  Now I think PMs have to check their watchlists.  How about if people got e-mails once in a while reminding them that they had left profiles unsourced?

---

Goodness, this conversation could easily be never ending.

We would need some sort of system that would either prevent people from creating a new unsourced profile or using a 'source' that is meaningless or gibberish.

Whether that is possible is big question. And one I am not qualified to answer.

---

Julie, no, I think a reactionary hand-slap when people haven't done it "right" probably isn't the best approach. You are on the right track with your original post. The answer is to proactively encourage people to follow policy and not enable them to do otherwise.

This could be done much more strongly than it is now. But I'd guess that admin is trying to find a balance between quality and quantity, since you really need both to make a site like this work. Discussions like yours hopefully help to bring awareness to issues where that balance is faltering.

---

Well, M, think how I feel!  

Yes, as the discussion has gone on, as I've said, I am more coming to believe we should get rid of the requirement during the profile creation process.  What to replace it with is a big question.

Some people have suggested monitoring of new members.  Some of that is already done by the Rangers, who monitor various activity feeds.  The problem there, though, is that when Rangers review new activity, they have no idea whether the person intends to add a source five minutes later, or never.

It wouldn't be impossible to do some kind of monitoring of new members to see how they are doing with adding quality profiles to WT.  But I doubt whether WT has either the manpower or the will.

---

It isn't only new members that need the reminder, the PM referred to above has been here since 2016 and continues to create profiles without 'real sources'.

---

My thought on a reminder system would be more like something that shows up as a pop-up, or on the front page, or at worst case, an email reminder. Some of the suggestions people mentioned might be interesting to implement as well. For example, if you have 20 with the unsourced template, maybe it won't let you add more profiles until you reduce that number. That way it would slow down those who just spit out unsourced after unsourced profile, although I would venture to say those are probably rare. As mentioned, just putting in "This is my source" would probably qualify as an acceptable source in that field, so there's a million ways around it. But each of these things (reminder, unsourced limits, etc.) would require special programming approaches and we'd have to get on the programming team's schedule, so they're unlikely to happen very quickly.

---

M, I'm not sure which post you're referring to.  I think you have a few options:  1. contact the PM, 2. add sources yourself and hope the PM gets the message, or 3. file an MIR.

---

As for constructing sources elsewhere before creating a new profile. I tend to create the sources on a connected profile. Say I have just finished Profile-1, and want to add parents and children. I go searching for basic (Birth Death Marriage) sources for the parents and children of Profile-1, and properly type up all the sources at the bottom of Profile-1. Then I copy all the sources into the parents and children, as I am creating them.

---

Thanks Julie, I have contacted the PM before regarding one branch of the family, it was a long process, I have a list of the profiles that need attention, and will work on them as time permits.

---

I like Scott's idea just above this too. I think it may be constructive to think what other solutions may be available.

---

You can't create a profile without any dates or locations, so you must have at least one source you can add at the time of creation or minutes later. Julie is referring to profiles where the PM hasn't returned even a few years later to add the source.

---

There is a way for PMs to view their unsourced profiles, as you describe, however many probably don't know it exists, or they forget to check it periodically if they do.

---

I'm coming very late to the discussion sorry, but I'd like to support the suggestion from Melanie and others of composing the entire biography off-line in some other text editor, and then posting it into the Notes box. I always do this, even on a tablet where expanding the box is not possible (you can't drag the corner). It would be good to encourage users, both new and not so new, never to create a profile without researching a full set of sources first. I thoroughly support Julie's proposal.

---

It isn't always possible to find a full set of sources. Encouraging people to delay creating profiles until they've collected the whole set then means they miss out on the benefits of collaborative genealogy. I can recall numerous benefits to my own research, as well as when I've helped others, where we were unable to connect all of the dots on our own and we only learned about some connections due to collaboration. I've learned of my direct line ancestors witnessing the marriages of people I'd never heard of, and whose records I had no reason to view. Those connections turned out to be significant.

There should always be a minimum of one source that proves that a person existed, and can fix them in a place and time. It should be used to create the profile.

---

Indeed, I expressed that poorly: it's often not possible to get a completely full set of sources. I meant the fullest that you can find with a diligent amount of work.

---

I agree with Leandra (as I think I said further up the page).  You can start a profile with one source citation.  If you have 20, that's even better, but start with at least one, rather than zero.  That's not a difficult concept.

---

Right, Leandra and Ian.  My understanding of the current policy is that one source is all that's required to create the profile.  One good source will (should) identify the profile sufficiently to give other researchers a starting place.

---

reply to comment:

I see no advantage to a system that adds the Unsourced template to a newly created profile that deliberately is created unsourced. Even if one is diligent and edits the profile immediately after creation, the practice sets a bad example for other members. And having the ability to create unsourced profiles basically built into the system, sends the wrong message to all members.

I would prefer that the other 2 options be removed, also. Our only option should be to provide source citations for the data we place in the data fields.

Many of us are serious about our sourcing requirements and would like to remove any functionality that implies otherwise.

Fulfilled promises aren't slacking, but unfulfilled promises are. Rather than promise to source later, we should establish good sourcing practices, starting with profile creation.

Removing options that work against our sourcing standards would be a step toward improving our sourcing practices and toward improved profile quality. We should send the right message at the beginning to direct members toward sourcing profiles, not give options to avoid one of the most important steps in genealogy.

---

Very well said, Lindy.  The only thing I disagree with is that as long as WT does not change the current system, slapping on the Unsourced label is better than not doing it.  Personally, I find the label ugly and humiliating (I've only encountered it on a few profiles I adopted, as far as I recall).  When people seem willing to live with it, they appear to be saying to WT: "You find the sources.  I can't be bothered."

---

My only heartburn with the Unsourced label is that I see it added to too many profiles where the issue isn't that it isn't sourced (it has sources or at least one), but that it is under-sourced, or has sources that the person who added it does not agree that are adequate sources. We could get into a whole separate tangent on what is and is not an acceptable source, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'd be fine with accepting that a "source" constitutes an explanation of where the information came from that was put into the profile. That could be a link to another site, a link to source documents like a Census, or an almost "verbal" description of something (Family Bible entry, Personal Recollection if it's someone like yourself or immediate family members, or even "my Grandma told me about my cousin Earl"). I'd much prefer primary sources, but for the sake of this discussion, I'd be willing to accept at least "something" to constitute where the sources of the information is.

---

One other problem with the 'unsourced' banner is that many people think that it's automatic.  I know most, if not all, of the people reading this know what's going on here, but many others who are not as familiar with the workings, policies, etc., of the site think that this banner has appeared automatically. They also think that they don't have the power to remove it.  This can be true of people who know that a person put the banner there but don't want to start some kind of fight.  They think whoever put it there will come back later, judge the profile again, and then maybe remove the banner.  (I say this partly from experience and partly from things I've read on G2G).

---

So what is likely to happen if the choices are removed (all of them)?

I'm now a new user who's adding family members who my grandma assured me came over on the Mayflower. I add my first one, and I'm not allowed to save without adding a source, which I have to enter into the Sources box.

I have now two options: I can decide this is way too much trouble and quit the site, or I can enter "Grandma" in the Sources box and merrily move on to the next person.

(Personally, I'd hope they take the first option if they're determined to add unsourced junk to the database, but I suspect management would feel otherwise.)

If they take the second option, we now have a bunch of nonsense unsourced profiles with no indication that there's any problem with them. Perhaps someday, somebody will stumble across them and fix them—but given the number of similar profiles that have languished here for a decade in an unsourced state, I'm not confident that will happen. In the meantime, visitors to WikiTree find them and decide that this site is no better than Ancestry when it comes to serious genealogy.

At least marking a profile with no real sources as Unsourced shows the world that we realize there's a problem with the profile and also flags it for some dedicated Sourcerer to see whether there's any hope of fixing it.

It would seem to me fairly trivial to periodically identify all the profiles with the text "Source will be added by [somebody] by [date]" and send a gentle reminder email to the profile creator. That wouldn't solve the hardcore non-sourcer problem, but it might cut down on the number of abandoned and unsourced profiles. 

---

Scott and Ian,

I agree that the Unsourced banner is sometimes applied by people who are making a judgment that is not consistent with WT policy.  When I encounter them, I remove them (and also try to improve the stated sources, if I can, or add new ones).

I've also seen cases where PMs have not realized they can remove the banners.  I also remove those when I see that sources have been added.

I wonder--and maybe I just haven't found it yet--whether the banner could be connected to a help page so that PMs can better understand their options and responsibilities?

---

And that - Stu - was I believe precisely what led to the choice of allowing profiles to have the option of being added as "Unsourced". There's not much of a perfect solution. I do like the reminder, if we could get such a thing developed. The only perfect system would involve a team reviewing every newly created profile and validating it for standards, which means a lot of manpower that really isn't available for that. So I guess we'll find the best of breed solution - one that helps as much as it can, but doesn't overly restrict from day-to-day functioning.

---

One good idea would be for a small team to review the contributions of new members - those who signed up maybe 7 days ago - and check what they're doing.  If they seem to be adding lots of unsourced profiles, someone could send a friendly email to them.  Or is this already done by Greeters or Rangers?

---

Ian, I'm not sure if it's a regular task, I do know that I have seen comments posted on some PMs profile pages about creating unsourced or problematic profiles. I don't remember if the PMs were new.

It is a good idea.

---

replying to comment:

Removing the functionality to make hollow promises is the simpler and better solution to the problem of creating unsourced profiles. No reminder system will be required, at least none going forward.

We should use every available opportunity to reinforce our "cite your sources" requirements, not to circumvent our sourcing requirement.

---

M, I don't think posting messages on profile pages is a good idea at all, especially if it's pointing out a problem. I'm thinking more of a friendly email to say, "I'm not the police... Don't worry. But you may not have realised that we need to add source citations for facts that we enter. For example, 'Ancestry.com' does tell us the general source of your information, but people like to follow the trail, and that's not enough information for them. Adding the citation provided by Ancestry would be a big help. Also, many people do not subscribe to Ancestry, so adding as much of the information that you found as possible would be a great help." (Or something along those lines.)

---

Scott, Ian, M, and Lindy,

I agree with most of your comments, but my proposal here is for an incremental change, and my guess is that incremental changes are most likely to be accepted, if any are.

Yes, a team to review new member contributions could be useful, but, yes, I agree WT doesn't seem likely to have the manpower.

Personally, I don't like profile comments.  They seem like a form of public humiliation.

Scott's suggestion for a popup reminder to people who have created unsourced profiles seems like a great idea.

---

That (automatic reminder) and slowing people down from going pre-1700 or full Wikitree Volunteer from Family Member.

---

Profile comments can be worded badly but most of them I have seen are quite benign.

From greeters; Something like Hi X, I see you have been busy creating profiles thanks for your contributions. I have noticed that some of your new profiles are not sourced. Please check out the help page for sourcing and I am happy to help if you have questions.

---

M, sorry, but I want to disagree again.  One of the rules of G2G is not to call people out by name (I think).  Your benign example is calling the person out on their profile page(!)  Email would be better.  If there's no response to the email, maybe a message on the profile page would say, "Hi X, I've sent you an email.  If you received it, please respond to let me know; if you didn't, please update your email address. Thanks!"

---

Good point, Ian.

---

I've asked about the practice of placing comments on profiles, and was informed that this prevents the person from receiving multiple emails for the same issue.

I am also aware of people who have objected to the comment on the profile and requested an email instead. Then when others have sent emails, completely unaware that others are also sending emails, the recipient has become angry at what they consider to be a pile on.

---

I'm not quite sure what type of situation you're referring to, Leandra.  Who is sending the e-mails?  Mentors?  Projects?  Individual WikiTreers?

I just looked at my own profile.  Apparently I can delete or archive any comment I don't want people to see.  So maybe it's not a big issue.

---

People who notice that someone else is doing something incorrectly may choose to contact that person and indicate the correct way to do it. They're most likely project members of some description - data doctors, sourcerers or a location-based project, but they could also be PMs who have to correct someone else's contributions to their managed profiles. Sometimes we get people who are very enthusiastic, who rush in and "help" on profiles all over the place, but they don't understand as well as they think they do. Or they're in a rush to upload their gedcom and they create a mess everywhere. Hence they have a tendency to create numerous problems in a short time and may find themselves contacted by multiple people.

We're not allowed to discuss other people within our forums, so if 6 different people notice that Fred Bloggs is causing a problem, they have no way of indicating to each other that one of them has already contacted him. Those 6 different people may not be members of the same project, and some may not be members of any project. In any case, the same standards apply to Discord channels and Google groups as apply to G2G. The MIR process clearly tries to push responsibility for dealing with the problem back onto the person who wants to report it, which also creates a situation where multiple people may be contacting the same person.

---

Thank you for the explanation.

---

replying to comment:

The system already does the job part way - if you try to save a new profile without entering some minimal text in the sources box, you are given the 3 options to bypass sourcing the profile.

Remove those options and keep the functionality that won't let you save the profile without some minimally required text -  a source citation. Serious WikiTreers will learn; those who don't want to learn to source their work will leave. I would presume that we don't want members who don't want to learn at least basic profile creation.

Why encourage the creation of profiles that need the Unsourced template when we can prevent their creation in the first place?

---

The problem with "no ownership", is you remove the insentive for most people. It is my ancestors on Wikitree, therefore my tree, in collaboration with cousins and other helpers. Perhaps the difference is, separating out those who say "It's my tree, and I can put in what ever I want." from those who acknowledge, "It's my tree, and I want it accurate."

I don't see anything wrong with the discussion here. I'm not sure if I hit flag by accident or if someone else selected it. Does it come up with an extra page if you hit flag. I don't think it was me, because I still have the option to press flag, and I don't see the need to.

---

Thank you, Ben.

---

Another problem I notice frequently is that profiles that are unsourced have the unsourced tag removed by the person who created them, so they will never be able to check their unsourced list as a reminder of outstanding work. There are also some people who place a meaningless word in the source box so the profile is not viewed by the system as unsourced. The only way to enforce acceptable sourcing is to check manually.

---

I have thought very hard about this but going to say no.  What we need is automatic Unsourced tag and possibly a reminder generated. I worked in IT all my life and I know if you require a response people will type in the alphabet jut to get past it. I believe 99% of the time when people chose that option they have no intention or little intention to add a source anyway.  Choosing that option (i will add later) is no different than the curt “Census records” or “Ancestry tree”. All meaningless.

---

Kim, the logical implication of what you've said is that people have no intention of observing the Honor Code.  I'm not arguing, just clarifying.

---

Julie, I would say Kim is just being practical about human nature.  It may make everyone feel good to think they have forced everyone to source a profile at creation, but this fix does more harm than good. Yes, people will put in fake or meaningless sources, and losing the {{unsourced profile}} tag is a step backwards.

Edit: On Julie's behalf, seriously someone flagged her comment? It is inappropriate, and stifles conversation. How do I flag a flag?

---

Thank you very much, Joe.

---

I think the point of the proposal is to reduce the likelihood of  someone leaving profiles unsourced.  With this option - 'Sources will be added...' - giving the user the benefit of the doubt, we may find that they really do intend to add the sources the next day, but somehow they forget. Choosing this option allows them to feel like they're doing the right thing, even though the better option would be to actually add a source.  I imagine people are less likely to choose the 'Unsourced family tree' option if they actually do have sources to add.  So if there is only this one choice, in theory, there will be fewer unsourced profiles.

And for the record, I see no venting in Julie's post above.  I see a clarification.

---

Thank you, Ian.

---

You have every right to clarify!! Gee! I see your point and agree with you conclusion. I’d have to say SOME people have no intention of honoring the Honor Code. The majority want to enter sources and do, to some extent or other. I just don’t think eliminating that choice will force the “no intention” people to enter a source. I guess I’m neutral.  Like Switzerland.

---

Thanks, Kim!  I do understand why some people think that keeping the option, because it results in the addition of the Unsourced banner, is useful.  There could be other ways of achieving that, I think.  See the Herbert Tardy answer on this thread below.

Edited to fix typo. (Sorry, Herbert!)

---

I wrote to info@wikitree.com, pointing out that I believed the flag had been wrongly issued. Hopefully it helps the review, remove the flag against Julie's name.

---

Thanks, Ben! I guess it worked!

Edited for clarity.

---

First, the option existing doesn't excuse people from sourcing their profiles. Sources are still required by the Honor Code, and if you notice someone is abusing the option you can go through the problems with members process if you think it's an issue. 

The option was created so people who like to write nice biographies with inline sources don't have to make up some temporary source just to get to the main edit screen. It adds the {{Unsourced}} tag and it adds a sentence to the profile that makes it clear that a source should be added by the person that created the profile, and gives a deadline. If the person doesn't end up sourcing the profile, they can't claim they didn't know they were supposed to add a source.

As to having some sort of reminder to source the profiles, that's been discussed before as a possibility. It just hasn't made it to the top of the priority list.

I don't feel removing the option would help in any way. People that don't source profiles now wouldn't decide to properly source their profiles just because they are required to type something instead of clicking a checkbox, they would just type nonsense or an incomplete source in the source box. And then we would lose the ability to track the unsourced profiles.

---

Jamie and Eowyn, can you provide some guidance regarding what constitutes 'abusing the option?'  A user creates a profile or profiles, choosing the option to add a source tomorrow.  At what point does use of the option become abuse?  One profile, still unsourced the day after tomorrow?  Next week?  After a month or a year?  Some number of profiles sufficient to make it unlikely they could all be sourced by tomorrow or next week or next month?  Where are the boundaries for this?

Although my question is sincere, and I think we would all benefit from your guidance, I will add a couple of points.  By the time I suspect a particular member has abused the option, he or she is beyond reach either by becoming inactive or leaving our community.  An MIR against the inactive ones will most likely just convert them into ones who have left, and their unsourced profiles will remain so.  No benefit to WikiTree there.  For members possibly still active, I honestly don't believe it a good use of my time to collect the data to present some kind of 'abuse' case in an MIR.  I'd rather spend my time adding the sources, and perhaps the managers will learn by example.

---

Jamie,

I try to write 'nice bios' but having to add a source at creation doesn't really cause a problem. I simply put the first source in the box ready for use. When the profile is created it's  absolutely no trouble to copy it into the text or if I've written the whole  bio offline, simply deleting it.

 Of course it would be a problem if I had no  valid source. Nonsense in the box might well flag up a problem to rangers.Nevertheless,  as we also allow people to create profiles with the vague statement of  unsourced tree handed down, I suspect we'd get even more of those. ( off topic but perhaps there could also be some consideration about  automatically adding the unsourced category to such profiles)

---

Jamie, I make this post with some regret, not the least because I have already been flagged so many times on this now-long thread.  But I am here to be honest, and if I can't be honest, there is no point in being here at all.

It has seemed to me that incremental change is the most likely to occur on WikiTree, if any change occurs at all.  I envisioned my proposal as part of a process that might gradually move us towards achieving better sourcing on new profiles.  Other things might be done including perhaps better up-front information to people when they first join, and perhaps other changes to the profile creation process, but as I think I've already said elsewhere on this thread, one step at a time.

I will try to say this carefully, and not put words into your mouth.  I wonder what you mean to suggest when you say people "would just type nonsense"?  I could be mis-understanding, but it seems that is a concession that (some) people will avoid sourcing however they can, including by ignoring the Honor Code they presumably just signed.

For the long run, I think it is an unanswered question--maybe unanswerable due to the diversity of opinion--as to whether WT is better off with or without all the unsourced profiles.

Edited for minor change in punctuation.

---

I can't answer for Jamie, but I do recall this discussion being held previously, so I'll offer my 2 cents for what it's worth.

I think we all agree that having sourced profiles is better than unsourced. No argument there at all. However, when it comes to finding a way to encourage sourcing, ultimately, there is no perfect solution. I'll lay out what I see as the challenges and perhaps can find a better way, but none of them will prevent unsourced profiles.

1) Someone comes in with the best intentions and plans to source it later - so they fill in the profile, they don't put anything in the source box, they know it will ask if they plan to source it later, they agree, it marks it unsourced, and it's flagged for someone to follow up later. IF they choose to check their unsourced profile, it will come up in a report and it will also show up in the Suggestions on WikiTree+, but both only can be seen if they go out and look for them. So if their intentions are good, and they are diligent about their follow-up, there's some hope that it will be sourced at a later time. OR, since Source-A-Thons go out looking for these profiles, we often will see these get sourced through that process.

2) The person comes in with the best intentions to source later, BUT does not like that "unsourced" tag on their profiles, as it makes them feel badly about having a huge label at the top of a profile with their name on it. So they defeat the box by typing in nonsense. Something like, "Sources to be provided at a later date". The unsourced tag never gets applied, it never shows up on any reports, and it is up to the profile manager and anyone else who stumbles across it to identify it as a profile in need of sources. Upon rare occasion, it is encountered by someone who does not have time to source it, but recognizes it as being unsourced and applies the unsourced template. These become the hidden unsourced - and it takes a relatively large effort to hunt down and locate them, but once their located, often applying at least a single source to them is relatively easy.

3) Someone doesn't care to source their profiles, and just wants to be left alone to build their tree their own way, and so they type in nonsense like, "I will add sources at a later date" or "family history" into the source box, and the unsourced tag is never applied. As above, the profile goes hidden for awhile or even a long while before it is hunted down. The profile manager never intended to source it - OR - the profile manager really doesn't understand the sourcing concept and simply avoids it because they can't do it or it's too challenging to do it. Sometimes this can be fixed through mentoring or gentle assistance, but sometimes it's a "I won't do it" principle and once these individuals are identified, decisions have to be made as to whether their contributions are helping or hurting the tree. We have numerous processes in place to address this, so I won't go into that one. - and a variant on this one is where they accept the Unsourced tag and don't care, but at least when that happens, it allows the profiles to be identified as in need of sources and hopefully during a future Source-A-Thon someone can go back and fix them.

So it's quite easy to type nonsense. I've seen (and don't get me wrong - some of these could be perfectly valid, but there's no way to verify) things like: My sources, Family History, Family Bible, To Be Sourced Later, Sources, Passed Down From My Grandma, Personal Knowledge, etc. etc. I do get that some of those could be true, but most of them could be sourced with something that can be verified instead of hearsay or nonsense. Can we mentor or even discipline those who appear to do it with bad intentions (or even those with good intentions that forget)? Sure! Once we identify them. But it's stumbling across someone with this pattern of behavior that's the challenge.

I don't know what the right answer is to help make it so that profiles can be sourced with more consistency, but I will agree that whatever process is put into place will have loopholes and someone will exploit them - both with good and bad intentions behind them.

---

Scott, I think you summarized the issues quite clearly.  Also clear is that WikiTree must take some positive steps toward reducing the influx of new Unsourced profiles.  We currently have 1,055,033 profiles with the Unsourced template.  Some of those do have sources, but it's likely that far more have no sources and no template.  We don't know the true number.  Using the figure above as an estimate, WikiTree has accumulated unsourced profiles at an average rate of about 1,500 per week over its 13-year history.  Last week we added 300.  Creation of unsourced profiles outpaces our capacity to source them, so the problem will only grow worse without action.

The best solution would be for the software to refuse to save a new profile without a source, just as it now refuses to save one without dates.  That is not possible as long as the software can't distinguish a real source from random text.

The (distant) next best solution is to add the Unsourced template on profile creation.  Because the system requires human eyes to detect the presence of sources, the template is the best way to attract eyes to deficient profiles.  I think it would be a big improvement to add the template automatically whenever the input page presents any doubt about lack of sources.  No click-through boxes or other user-driven dodges.  Either enter enough of something to convince the system it's a source, or get the template.  Such a system would address your scenarios #2 and #3; scenario #1 is not of much concern in my opinion.  Once the basics are in place, perhaps the criteria for automatic template application can improve over time to apply the template more reliably and accurately.

Beyond that, maybe we can add disincentives, such as not allowing the profile creator to remove the template, or cutting off members' ability to create new profiles if they exceed some threshold of Unsourced ones.

Any solution that allows creating unsourced profiles, with or without the template, amounts to closing the barn door late.  It puts WikiTree and the rest of us behind the curve for improving our tree.  Unfortunately, as long as we have to rely on human source detectors, the template is the best tool available.  We need to develop ways to use it more effectively.

Answer 3

Trying to think outside the box then. When I started in 2017, the Gedcom left me with a sense of urgency to get my tree in. I believed that this was changed. So over time, I have worked my way back through most of my tree, trying to get everything sourced properly. But then I keep going back to the start, because I learn better ways to present profiles, and I want them all looking perfect. It starts to get overwhelming. So that aside.

I think that it is important that new people realise that it is more important on Wikitree, to have a well sourced accurate tree, than a fully filled out tree, that stretches back as far as possible. So I think the best solutions, will involve slowing new members, while they come to terms with how we are different to other sites.

Perhaps part of the becoming a Wikitree Volunteer, should be demonstrating that you were able to properly source your great great grandparents. (I say that, because generally anyone closer than that to you, may have been known personally, or may not have details released to public domain yet.) Up until becoming a Wikitree Volunteer, perhaps you should be restricted to working on ancestors upto your great great grandparents, and any descendants of  those g g grandparents. Or perhaps this is too much. Perhaps it should be included in a pre-1700 certification, that the profiles you have been adding are considered properly sourced. (of course, we will end up needing to define "properly sourced")

Perhaps another option, is that the creation of all profiles, is done on a temporary basis, if you check the "source later box", and that if sources are created within a set time, the profile is uncreated / removed / not finalized. e.g. Like when, in Windows, you highlight file names, and select "cut", you still see the file name, until you take the further step to "paste" somewhere else. So you can create a profile without sources, but until you have finalised it with sources, it isn't added to the tree or made permanent. If it is ignored, it automatically disappears again.

Of course, both of these options potentially create other issues as well. "I created a profile and it disappeared" may become a very popular G2G question. Anyway, just trying to think outside the box on the root of the above problem.

Comments

That is a very good idea, and one I haven't heard before!

And by the way, there is some sourcing information here.

---

I even just read back over my own comment above, and see that I left words out and could have been better worded. Unfortunately my brain isn't firing on all cylinders at the moment.

---

Ben, about the {{Unsourced}} template opening a G2G-thread...

Did you know there are *at least* one million profiles on the Tree that are unsourced? In spring I used the Unsourced lists and calculated all numbers of profiles that have the template. Already this was around one million.

If now every {{Unsourced}} would create a G2G-thread, G2G would be not usable. Maybe there is a possibility to show a user who created an {{Unsourced}} profile that s/he could use the "Research"-button to look for sources. I remember I only learned about that button about 3 days before my first Source-A-Thon, which was about 1 1/2 years after I joined. Since then it's my beloved button when I walk around in Unsourced lists.

---

Jelena, I'm guessing Ben was only referring to new profile creation, not the existing million unsourced profiles.  Surely that number is more manageable?

---

Agreed. Don't want to clog G2G up.

Yes, Julie, I was. Still, I wonder how much increased load it might cause.

Actually, I think my last suggestion was an option to move it to G2G, but not automatic. Although I might have suggested automatic previously. Can't remember.

---

As of the new Data Doctors report (11 Jul 2021), we have 1,053,033 profiles tagged {{Unsourced}}.  That's 301 more than one week ago, or 43 new ones per day.  Actually, that's 43 more new ones than old ones that were fixed.  That would, I think, generate a crippling amount of G2G traffic.

---

Yep. Too much for G2G.

And by not tagging them Unsourced, we'd be just letting them into the system. Education is probably the best answer, and perhaps automatic reminders.

---

I haven't read through all the comments above, so I apologize for repeating what surely has been said. The main problem with this proposal, as I see it, is that it's a proposal to force members to add a source at the time before they create the profile. This would be a fairly large change.

---

Thank you Chris. It was really just trying to offer a way to brainstorm a better alternative to the question being posed. It wasn't necessarily better, but hopefully provided a way to think about the issue from different perspectives.

---

Thank you, Chris.  I’m sorry, but it’s not altogether clear to me whether your comment is meant for Ben or me.  I’ll reply assuming the latter.

Is there really very much difference between providing a source at the time of profile creation, or the next day, as the “source will be added later” option obligates people to do?  If their source is simply their own unsourced family tree, that option would still be available.  I’m not sure why it would be a large change to require that to be stated when a profile is created.

For people who are adding profiles other than their first few generations of ancestors based on their own unsourced trees, shouldn’t they have already found at least one source before deciding to add a new profile?

Answer 4

Completely agree.

Answer 5

After following this thread, I've come around to the view so well stated by Stu, that an Unsourced profile with the {{Unsourced}} tag beats by far an unmarked profile with a non-source.  Since WikiTree software is not capable of distinguishing real sources from anything else, at least the template serves to alert those that care to remedy the defect.

At the same time, I don't think it's appropriate for WikiTree to spoon feed members an easy way out of providing a source.  Doing so sends the message that we don't take the Point VIII sourcing requirement seriously.  For that reason, I'm not changing my Yes vote.

I'd like to offer a simple alternative to the 'Get Out of Sourcing' card.  At profile creation time, if a profile is saved with fewer than 120 characters (or some reasonable number) in the Sources box, automatically add the {{Unsourced}} template.  I figure someone who wouldn't drop in at least a FindAGrave memorial also wouldn't make the effort to write 120 characters to beat the system.  If the user managed to squeeze a genuine source into 120 characters, no harm done.  Some enterprising member will soon remove the template, at the cost of a few seconds of time, and probably add a few more sources while there.  Otherwise, we're no worse off than we are now, and we haven't tempted anyone to make a false promise.

Comments

Good idea, Herbert.  Thank you!

---

Hi, Herbert,

I often encountered before I actually came to understand the site that I would often delete Unsourced templates for no apparent reason. It's just something to think about.

I think the biggest remedy for a newbie who needs help is a Mentor.

---

Francis, anything can be fixed on WikiTree.  If you think you made some wrong edits, why not go back and fix them?

---

Hi, Julie,

I'm currently mapping out a sourced tree for the Connect-a-Thon and to fix profiles. The only problem, I'm helping with another concerning someone who wants to know more about her X-linked Adrenolukodystrophy. Unfortunately, there is a brick wall concerning a death notice that states "Unknown Christian Name" in brackets or her father. So finding the mother's parents with no father and an uncomfirmed maiden name. I'm also helping an adoptee. She gave me the information, definitely correct on the mother's side, I have expanded there quite a bit, but her father with no confirmed parents and now I'm told the school he went says nobody had that name, add that up with her mother who is her only source of information on her father has been on lithium carbonate ever since the adoptee's birth. I really can't even confirm his name let alone find information on him. (Weekly updates to both I must add, but, I really do love helping out even if only with two people at the old age home. )

Time is precious and little. I'm just hoping I can do some work when the Connect-a-Thon "comes to town".

Francis

Answer 6

Definitely agree with this proposal.

Answer 7

Julie, this is only to comment on some suggestions about Greeters duties to help resolve the situation you are addressing, and I might add that this is only my perspective. 

First off, greeters are greeters, not mentors, not rangers. We greet people and provide links to help them get started. And often, at least in my case, I hear directly from new members who have questions about something, and I know my fellow greeters also handle questions like these, including helping with how to source.

One thing we do not do is to monitor new members work. Greeters' shifts are rarely slow (I would venture that nighttime in the US would be the slowest). So, we are busy posting messages/links and helping when we get direct questions. I would also add that we do not have near enough greeters to cover all of the shifts. Several of our greeters take on HOURS of extra shifts to make sure we are covered 'round the clock as best we can. (One greeter recently did an eight hour shift, and I personally have a three hours shift this morning, and another tonight.) And many of our greeters are involved in other functional projects like data doctors, mentors, and mediators, sourcerers, etc., not to mention geographic projects and their own personal genealogy.

For a while there, greeters were doing all sorts of different kinds of feeds, Honor Code, pre-1700, etc., and at least these two are still monitored while we greet,. We have recently simplified the process, which the greeters have appreciated. Some new members were put off by the number of messages they were getting from greeters, considering it even to be spam. 

What we cannot do is to add another layer of work, checking up on people who are not sourcing (or not sourcing properly). That would mean that our work would bleed into other projects (mentoring, rangering). 

The solution to the problem we are trying to solve in this thread is not to add more to the greeters' workloads. Though we love what we do, and my fellow greeters should be commended for the work they do, we are already over-extended.

Thanks, Julie, for starting this important thread!

Answer 8

In reviewing all the contributions to this discussion, I think quite a few are verging a little off topic. It's so easy to get distracted over the importance of sources, and several comments seem to argue for or against that fundamental tenet alone. It's crucial to remember that point is already resolved in the Honor Code. If an individual user does not agree with VIII (the source requirement), they have the option to simply not sign the honor code, or submit a proposal to change it. Arguing against source requirements, as some have done, feels like an attempt to subvert a discussion on improving the enforcement of a rule that's already in place. It's counterproductive, as is assuming that new users are all bad actors who will intentionally flout the system.

My interpretation of Julie's proposal as written (Julie, jump in here and correct me if I'm off base), is that the current form for adding profiles makes it appear that it is acceptable to add a profile without following the Honor Code. And the discussions seem to make it clear that there is no easy way, nor manpower, to enforce it after the fact. The only key disadvantage mentioned so far is the loss of ability to track unsourced profiles through automatic template attachment. As mentioned in other comments, that concern might be addressed in other ways than the current button display.

In thinking over what seems to be a significant problem, I reviewed the help pages on adding profiles. Julie, if your fundamental goal is to see new users add profiles according to accepted community standards, have you considered authoring a change proposal for these:

Help:Adding Family

Help:Creating a New Person

Help:Person Profile

None of these have any mention of sources being required as part of profile creation, and all three could be improved to include a reiteration/link to VIII of the Honor Code, as well as introductory text similar to that found here:

Help:Sources

Comments

Thank you, Mel.  You make some very good points.

At this point, I think I will leave it to someone else to take a turn at making proposals.  (And of course, should they care to, WT leadership can clarify those policies at any time.)

---

I agree with what you’re saying, Mel. Right from the beginning of a new WikiTreer’s journey, regardless of signing the Honor Code, newbies are encouraged to make unsourced profiles. How to Start Climbing Our Tree is the link often sent by greeters. (And I’m not being critical of the greeters here at all.) I am concerned about the second task 

Add a Source Citation 

When creating a profile, you will have noticed the box for entering a source. Sources are required on WikiTree.

Try adding an additional source for one of the profiles you created. If you don't have one handy, select "Research" from the pull-down menu in the upper-right corner of the profile that starts with the profile's WikiTree ID, e.g. Franklin-1. Login to the RootsSearch tool and use it to search FamilySearch.org or a dozen other sites.

See Sources for how to add the citation.

I’m an experienced profile creator. I can’t find the drop down menu item called Research under my WikiTree ID. Following this route feels extremely complicated and cumbersome. If I were a newbie, I wouldn’t bother with sources if I could add them later or just say it was from a family tree or Ancestry. Maybe it is time for the revision of what goes out to newbies as well as removing the “Source will be added..” option.

---

I can't find it ("Research" option) either, Fiona!  

It might be helpful if the page Help:How to Get Started with Genealogy was linked to the profile creation pages that Mel mentioned above.

---

Julie, I looked under a profile I created yesterday and on a living person. Actually, it does appear. Maybe it doesn’t work on one’s own profile. However, it’s still cumbersome and complicated and is unlikely to offer many sources for living people.

Edit: Julie, I can’t see it on your profile, so maybe it’s not on members’ profiles.

---

I see now.  It is an option on the ancestor profile, under their WikiTree ID.  Not exactly obvious.

And, yes, that is exactly what the instructions say.  But if you and I have such a hard time, what chance does the inexperienced new person have?  I'd never even noticed that before.

---

That 'Research' link is the same as the one in the right-hand column of the profile page under the Research heading.  Would it be better to direct people to that link?

Or maybe there needs to be a new help page to explain how to do research?

(Please don't flag me.)

---

How to research is covered very well elsewhere. The Family Search wiki, for example, is an excellent resource.

---

@Fiona et al: The Research-button is in the column of the Profile's ID, not under your own ID. 

The text in the Greeter's message is correctly written, it says: 

select "Research" from the pull-down menu in the upper-right corner of the profile that starts with the profile's WikiTree ID,

it does not say that it is in your own ID's column.

---

I’ve worked that out, thank you, Jelena. However, the order the instructions are written suggests the research and sources should be added AFTER the profile is created. The order which would improve the health and accuracy of the tree would be research, sources, profile creation.

Answer 9

I'm coming back to this after 4 days away without internet. 

This morning I have been thinking about how and when I got started on family history research. I inherited 2 well researched family trees for 2 branches on my dad's side of the family, early 1800s to the present. 

I also belong to several groups of first, second and third cousins who have been actively researching our shared family history for 20 + years. A maternal family history also existed but not with same degree of detail as the paternal side. It also helped that my personal family history is all in England where the range of records is extensive. 

It has always been like a mini WikiTree, we share research and double check each others newly found sources and sometimes disagree. 

Then I thought how different my experience would have been if all I knew was my grandparents names, approximate dates and locations of birth. I now realise how different my experience has been.

I also knew how to research and source before I started the family history journey and why it was important. Writing a thesis, submitting it for approval and defending it requires the ability to find 'good sources' and using them to justify the information that you present and the results and interpretation of any original research you have done on the topic. 

Now I'm beginning to feel that I haven't fully appreciated some of the roadblocks others experience. Many of us know where to look for the information required but I'm guessing here; is that there is a huge number of people who have no idea where to look, and how to judge the quality of veracity of what they may find. 

The prevalence of unsourced, badly sourced or copied trees on many sites, the availability of unverified hints or unverifiable hints leads new family historians to believe that some other unknown person has already checked out the veracity of the information, so it's okay to copy it. 

Leandra commented 'How to research is covered very well elsewhere. The Family Search wiki, for example, is an excellent resource' she is correct but if a person knows nothing about where to find that information or that it even exists we may be misjudging the people who have no sources. 

We have lots of info about how to add sources,and  the technical side of creating a profile, but perhaps not enough information about where to find appropriate and hopefully accurate sources. 

Comments

My comment about the FS wiki was to say we don't need to reinvent the wheel with help pages explaining how to research. We can link to the wiki instead.

We all have to start somewhere. But we all sign an honour code agreeing to source our work and care about accuracy. If people need help they can ask here or join a project, yet many do neither. On every Rangers shift I see someone creating and editing pre-1700 profiles with no sources and they're not working with a project. These profiles carry a large message that is right in their face and being blatantly ignored.

Just today I have seen someone with over 10,000 contributions creating profiles saying he is going to source them by the next day. Then he edits the profile to remove that comment and picks up another contribution point.

---

When you see that happening do you use the Problems with Members process to get them some help?

---

Yes I do. For the vast majority I give rather than get the help. I also recommend joining a project that I know can help and I don't recall seeing any of them actually join.

---

Hi Leandra, I didn't mean we should completely 'reinvent the wheel' FS does have information about sourcing. As do many other websites.

I have spent most of the afternoon researching why sources should be used, there are of course many scholarly reasons. I was primarily looking for simple explanations why and descriptions of sources.

There are quite a lot of basics and uncomplicated explanations on sites that provide lesson plans for Grade 2-8 students. Perhaps simpler explanations of why sources are required would be helpful for PMs that are either brand new or have no experience of researching facts in general. We all know that 'fake' news or misleading information is becoming increasingly common and genealogy is not immune to that trend.

I don't know if this sounds silly, if we provided some examples of how family stories are not always true, some explanation of why some sorts of stories should send up a red flag. Why some records for someone with the right last name are probably not correct for the profiled person.

Or examples of why the first records or sources that popup on Ancestry or FS could easily be incorrect. It does make research simpler if the profiles are for people with unusual names in unique locations but that is far from the norm.

Guidelines for why, how and where to research might make it more likely that new members aren't just going to put the whole topic ' in the too hard pile'.

---

When people bother to respond to requests to source their work, almost all of the responses are consistent with this theme: My tree is accurate. Adding sources takes too long. I have to upload this tree right now.

It's an extremely difficult mindset to change. It's also pointless when the unsourced family tree handed down to x is considered to be a source.

Answer 10

I am in the process of adding 6000 persons to Wikitree and would like to get that finished in the next three years.  I have approximately one thousand pages of substantiation which I cannot easily transfer to Wikitree profiles--approximately 60 000 source records. I have to digitize the information on those pages using manual OCR, not a trivial process for one page let alone thousands.

I personally substantiate every "verified" record I use from Wikitree because the records can just barely be called records, more like wishes IMHO.

I wonder why you don't do what I automatically do?

My answer to your proposal is use a fish bowl technique When people are building--leave them alone and just make everything provisional.  On the generated profile, put "use at your own risk"  That might clear up a lot of misconceptions users are dealing with currently. It might also get rid of the multiple profiles issue.

I know everything I do flows out to Ancestry the next day--but is that really a vital function of Wikitree ?

Comments

Thank you for your answer, Roger.  I do sympathize with how much more difficult it is to add records to WT than, for example, Ancestry.

Regarding your idea for making things "provisional"--in a way, that is what the "Unsourced" banner does.

I'm confused by your comment that everything flows out to Ancestry the next day.  I am an Ancestry user and I don't see anything flowing in from WT (if that's what you mean).

---

Do I understand correctly that during this provisional building period, only the profile manager could make changes?  Who would decide when construction is complete and a profile is ready for collaboration?  How would you handle cases where a profile manager keeps a profile 'provisional' for months or years?

---

My gosh, how to regulate traffic?.  How do we know others will always obey traffic laws? You could go to great links and put ordnance in each profile that went after a period of 60 days would blow it up, just like we do with secret equipment on downed aircraft..

There is an inordinate amount of work placed on users of Wikitree, to merge these almost useless profiles, which can require tremendous research effort to do correctly, and to feed Find a Grave with information they should develop themselves.

---

I work from my trees on Ancestry.com to detail my profiles. That information that I put in from my non-public, user blocked tree appears on ancesty the next day.  Try it for yourself if you have a non-public tree.

---

To clarify, do you mean that Ancestry has no suggestions for one of your profiles, but if you add a profile to WT and source it, those records are being suggested by Ancestry next day?

---

Roger, why do you put information on-line that you don't want to share?

---

Leandra, that was the impression I got at first, but now I think Roger must mean information he puts on a private tree on Ancestry still goes into the hint pool.

---

Exactement. The information pops up in one the little hint leaves.

Answer 11

Just one more thought about profile creation and the unsourced template.

In working the Sourcerers challenge this month I have noticed that after selecting a profile from the unsourced category and sourcing it, instead of returning to the list for another profile, it is much faster and more productive to just click through the links of profiles attached to that person. Many times they have been added by the same user and are all equally unsourced. However, not all of them have unsourced templates - sometimes less than half. I'd guess that the PM copied and pasted the "source will be added later" or "unsourced family tree" statement to speed up their adding process by skipping the additional click for the button. From my experience, any calculation of unsourced profiles in the system could easily be doubled and still fall far short of the actual number.

I only say that as background info for the following suggestion. The only two legitimate concerns I see in the "no"-vote discussion are interference with workflow and inability to track unsourced profiles. And, while I don't want to speculate on what new users may or may not do, I can see that if the buttons in question were removed and the user were left only with a blank box that required some input in order to proceed, they might well just type anything at all in it.

So, here's a compromise that seems feasible to me. What if a couple of sentences were added after the first two sentences of step 3 on the profile addition form. That currently reads as "Third, add any additional information you have available. All this is optional except including the source of the information." Add to that something along the lines of: "If you are working from an unsourced family tree or do not have a source at hand, you may be able to easily find, copy and paste a source using [the Rootsearch link]. If you are unfamiliar with this process, please consider postponing your profile creation and review these [x,y,z help pages]."

Then remove the click-thru option with the current buttons from the source box and add a button on the main page beside the source box which says something along the lines of: "WikiTree requires profiles to be sourced. If you do not have a source for profile creation, you may add the unsourced template (by clicking this button). Please do not remove it from the profile until sources have been added."

The advantages to something like this: a) It's extremely simple and wouldn't take more than 15 minutes (if that much) of anyone's time to accomplish. Like Julie said, the aim here is for incremental change. b)It does nothing to change the workflow of responsible researchers who simply don't like pasting or typing in a source on the profile creation page - it even simplifies it a little by making one less click. c)It removes the oxymoronic statement of "we require sources BUT you really don't need one" that's currently there, and eliminates these meaningless statements from profiles. d)It makes clear to new users what the community standards are and that we expect them to be followed. e)It points new users in the direction of help if they need it, and f)Referring back to my introductory paragraph, it might actually improve unsourced profile tracking going forward.

Comments

I like your suggestion, Mel, except for the part leaving it to the member to apply the Unsourced template.  WikiTree should do that automatically when the Source box is empty or nearly so, and change the text of your final message ("WikiTree requires profiles to be sourced....") accordingly.  If we can auto-add the template when the user chooses the "I'll source it tomorrow" option (which would no longer exist), we can do it when the Source box fails some simple test for content.

---

Sure, Herbert, whatever mechanics work best will do. I guess my main thinking here is to be sure to indicate to the user that the unsourced template is being applied, and that they should not remove it (since some earlier comments indicated that some folks have done that, not understanding it's importance).

---

I've run about 500 profiles in and I usually type data from census or family records. But the machine doesn't alway accept what I say.  Still, it is gullible.

I have to wonder if you guys really think this stuff through.  There is huge opportunity to get all kinds of walls knocked down when a new user walks in the door, but that person will know 3% what we know and they'll likely walk out with all the precious wisdom.  In fact that is exactly what I did on my first trip here.

In my opinion the one thing here that is terrible is the user interface.  I putting information is like being in an Iron Maiden. It would be so easy to build automatic jumps to record record boxes--that stuff was develop 40 years ago.

Second, even when you input the profile number in when you start a profile, the system saves and puts a new number on what you were working on.

The profile search mechanism seldom works properly unless you go into the folder and guide it.  I know it has powerful capabilities but huge capability is of little value if basic features are missing.

And why can't the jump from the entry screen to the page display screen close the file you were working instead of making us go through the file closed every time we want to jump of that screen.  There is no magic there at all to make this happen.

---

Roger, you've asked several different questions and I can't really answer them without specific details, which seem beyond the scope of this thread.  I'd be happy to try and help you with some of them if you send me a WT private message, which can begin a private correspondence.  I can also put you in touch with other knowledgeable people.

I think some of your frustration may be due to unfamiliarity with WT.  I don't deny that it is hard to get used to.  Regarding some of your issues about jumping from screen to screen etc., I have the same frustrations on Ancestry and usually just open two windows.

---

This discussion amounts to: how do we do corrupted data better, or how do we make garbage more effective.

I've always said I can fix anything except undocumented software.  Although the comments on this question are lucid, the primary issues are skirted.

What is absolutely needed on a profile to make it valid?  What is the minimum requirement?  It is a correct name and birthday.  That is all.

A substitute is correct name & correct id of spouse.  Does name and one child suffice? No, it cannot.

I suggest we write a white paper on issues like this because although forums are good, they are unfocused and peer consensus is evoked.

A white paper is the product of one person who addresses a single issue and not a thesis.  The white paper is circulated to stakeholders and everyone marks up the paper with comments. The first cut is integrated with viable comments and recirculated until it looks "good." Then it goes to an outside group for acceptance or rejection. Yes, this is a vital project management tool.

I admit that in the Acadians there are a plethora of people with identical names and birthdays, but think that can be ignored temporarily.

---

Roger, this thread has been closed (not by me) so you probably need to make your comments elsewhere.

If you want to write a white paper, perhaps you can set up a free-space page and do so.  I'll be happy to read it and provide comments.

---

I respectfully but vehemently disagree.  A correct name and birth date is not sufficient for a valid profile.  No fact can carry an assertion of correctness without a means of verifying it.  On WikiTree, sources provide the means of verification.  Otherwise, no one but the person writing the profile has confidence its facts are correct.  An unsourced profile amounts to 'undocumented software.'  Given at least one contemporary source (census record, birth certificate, marriage license, etc, even a bona fide family bible) a profile can have a demonstrably correct name and at least one documented date and/or location.  A reliable verifiable source is a vital component of the minimum requirements for a valid profile.

---

And I certainly agree with you.  There are inferences in what I wrote that might be stealth.  Having the correct name and the correct birthday imply that they are sourced. How else would correctness be ascertained.

People use baptism to learn correct names, but they are not a certified source, only a birth certificate proves name and birthday.  But birth certificates are seldom found before 1900, but if it is found, then it is all that is needed.

Answer 12

On behalf of the team:

The team has reviewed this proposal, and while it might seem like "simply a technical change," it would be pretty significant for a lot of members. They would need to add one of their sources at the time the profile is being created, which actually means *before* the profile is created.

In the past, when the Team has proposed something similar, a number of members objected because they like to create the profile and then edit it to add their sources. Some are afraid they will lose their work if they do too much editing before saving.

On my own behalf:

Please keep in mind that while our Honor Code does require that sources are added to profiles, our site is also intended for the development of a family's genealogy over time.

We also need to remember that many members come from working on their genealogy in isolation and haven't yet learned the importance of collecting and preserving sources to explain their reasoning to other people. This will become more apparent to them as they work through their family genealogy and get connected to the big tree. Once connected, they are more likely to encounter the need for collaboration, and at that time, they will begin to recognize the need to verify and document the information they've entered.

We need to be patient with people as they learn to use WikiTree while documenting the earlier generations of their family.

Comments

Thank you, Julie, for conveying the team’s response. Naturally, I’m a bit disappointed as will be the other 80 members who upvoted this proposal. As someone who regularly and easily sources other members’ profiles created using this script, I wonder if the team has any new initiatives in the pipeline to encourage sourcing either at profile creation or soon after by the profile manager/creator rather than by other members? There are ideas mentioned in this thread that might help.

---

Julie, I think it would be interesting to review the previous Team proposal in light of this discussion.  Could you provide a link to it?  Thanks!

---

Here's one. - https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/391719/what-do-you-think-this-plan-for-making-source-required-field

---

Thanks Eowyn!  Would I be mistaken thinking this proposal resulted in the current implementation, or an earlier version of it?  It does contain a statement (by Chris) that "many members prefer to add sources after a profile is created."  I feel obliged to add that WikiTree data shows that many members never do add sources after a profile is created.

---

Julie R., the more I think about this, the more I see two completely different issues, as you have alluded to in your answer.

There are some WT members, experienced family genealogists (I consider myself one), who find it inconvenient to add their sources, either at profile creation or later, yet they do have sources.

There is a whole different group of WTers who are very inexperienced.  Even if they do use other websites, paying for Ancestry, as one example, they have little or no understanding of the importance of documentation (or even the importance of evaluating conflicting evidence).

Better new member education has been discussed many times.  Do you think that might be the route forward to reducing the number of unsourced profiles on WT, which surely we all want to do?

Edited to clarify.

---

Herbert, this is the post which announced this policy. https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/423109/did-you-see-the-new-source-requirement-when-creating-profiles It sounded like a positive move at the time. I suppose Julie K’s proposal was really an opportunity to review it.

---

There are actually several ideas in various stages of coming to fruition that are focused on education.  If you are interested I can start a new post, as it's off topic from here.

---

Please do, Eowyn!  I think many people will be interested.