How can WikiTree curtail the use of Find a Grave to build complete family trees?

Question

A line on a branch of WikiTree I watchover has been violated by a member using only Find a Grave as a source. This individual has added parents, removed parents, added siblings on down the line. No primary sources have been cited on any of these changes. Short of me having to chase down all of the changes this individual has made, is there a way to stop this individual short of filing an MIR?

I have left messages, as have many others for the same problem. 

This just crazy! The absolute easiest profiles to source are from 1850 to current and yet WikiTree allows this to happen... Last night I believe I correct 6 profiles before my eyes gave out. This evening I will start correcting more profiles damaged by this individual. I started to make a list of profiles all across WikiTree that were violated but I need to use my time more effectively. By the way only 2 profiles showed up on my feed because the others are not on my watchlist.

Comments

Mentor Intervention Request.  It is done through the Problems with Members process.

---

I think it’s fine to start with FindAGrave if that’s all you have and it checks out.  Because I work a lot in the same area I get to know what FAG mangers are trust worthy. But one should NEVER change anything based only on FindAgrave. I have several profiles where the birth record contradicts what’s carved in the headstone.

---

I just got a strong sense of deja vu.  Every G2G discussion of FindAGrave's strengths and weaknesses as a source brings up the same points.  I thought to myself, wouldn't it be terrific if we could link to a Help file with this info so we didn't have to repeat it every time?  And hey presto, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Find_A_Grave

---

Thank you Herbert!

---

If Find a Grave "checks out" that would imply that some checking has been done. Why aren't the sources used for the checking on the profile?

---

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question Leandra.

---

I was responding to Joelle's comment "I think it’s fine to start with FindAGrave if that’s all you have and it checks out."
If it has been checked then the sources used for checking should be added to the profile. 

---

Yes, I agree with that but don't wait 5 years to check it out. lol

---

Obviously. But as I said if you have nothing else “checks out” means “makes sense”. Fits with what else you know.

---

Yes, now I understand. One does get to know the Find a Grave contributors pretty good. Like you said some are trustworthy and really do a good job and the others, well one has to go in with an open mind.

My situation is a little different. Entire family lines are being built with only Find a Grave Memorials as sources. Dates and places are being changed on established profiles, relationships are being added where none exists. It is really bazar.

Answer 1

How can Wikitree curtail it ? Simply by stating in the official guidelines that the Grave site is not an acceptable source. Then the Rangers could take action and nip it in the bud.

Comments

As it happens, a great many of the family profiles I manage, are only based on Find A Grave profiles.  I regard these as invitations for family members to add pertinent information.

---

In the index concerning unsourced profiles, 

“ Here are examples of source citations that don't meet the minimum specificity needed to identify a particular source:

• "Find-A-Grave"
• "FamilySearch"
• "Personal records"
• "Family Bible"

Here are examples of source citations that would be sufficiently specific:

• "Find-A-Grave Memorial #1234"
• "FamilySearch profile ABCD-123"
• "Unsourced family tree handed down to X"
• "Family Bible owned by X currently in the possession of Y"

These are not intended as examples of reliable sources or perfect source citations. If one of these were the only source for a profile we would want to do more research. However, they are sufficiently specific for removal of the Unsourced Research Note Box.

Our purpose for the Research Note Box is very limited. We want all profiles to identify at least one source so that we have a starting point for collaboration.”

---

Thanks Kitty. The question addressed in this thread is " 

How can WikiTree curtail the use of Find a Grave to build complete family trees?

Rather than punish people with MIRs which can sometimes be escalated , would it not be better to state officially that the Grave site is not an acceptable source ?  Ever since joining Wikitree I have been told that it is not an acceptable source. You would not graduate from any of the various official Wikitree training "Trails" if that's all you used.

---

The issue is not whether a particular site (or source) is an acceptable source, but whether the source is VALID.

---

Thank you Tommy for pointing out the difference between an acceptable source and the validity of said source.

Copied from Kitty Smith's comment above:

Here are examples of source citations that would be sufficiently specific:

• "Find-A-Grave Memorial #1234"
• "FamilySearch profile ABCD-123"
• "Unsourced family tree handed down to X"
• "Family Bible owned by X currently in the possession of Y"

The only way one can make sure the above source citations are valid, is to do more research. It is not difficult. 

We must not allow Our Tree become infected with invalid sources. We cannot allow relationship changes without valid cited sources.

I urge everyone to check your Family Activity Feed if not daily, at least weekly to catch changes made to profiles one manages. Don't allow your hard work to go down the drain and become a conflated profile. Be firm but nice about it. We all strive for accuracy.

Edited to give proper credit to Kitty Smith's comment.

---

Validity is invariably someone else's job to determine.