Issue with unsourced trees being added

Question

Hello Folks.  There is a huge and bad problem with unsourced and terribly sourced genealogy trees on Ancestry specific to my direct Archuleta ancestry.  In the bad Archuleta Trees spreading across Ancestry, entire family generations are wrong as to parents and children.  Marriages to the wrong people.  Mystery people aren't even in the genealogy line. Birth, residence, and death records in the wrong years and in the wrong places.  MANY People on Ancestry are copying and pasting all of this bad genealogy into their unsourced trees.  It can make you sick... if it is your heritage/history, or if you care about good genealogy.

I am really worried that three times in the last month, I have encountered new profiles on WKT that state "from an unsourced Ancestry tree." in the Archuleta Genealogy Tree of my family here on WikiTree.  I am very scared that the terrible Ancestry tress on Ancestry are migrating to WKT.  I don't understand why new profiles are being created with no sourcing,.. that feels like a violation of protocol and policy for WTK.  Just my opinion but if a person tries to add profiles, and openly admits...'from an unsourced tree on Ancestry' then Data Doctors or mentors need to contact that person asap and tell them that new profiles have to have valid sources to be created.  I believe that new profile that comes from and unsourced Tree on Ancestry, or any other website, needs to be held in statis, blocked, until the profile manager provides sourcing that meets WikiTree standards. "from an unsourced tree' does not meet WikiTree standards,it brings unsourced profiles onto our website. I know for a fact that if it is an unsourced Archuleta in my genealogy line, it is probabbly a cut and paste tree, that there is a good chance that the Tree is screwed up with bad info, wrong people in wrong generations, and even has profiles of mystery people who are not even in our family line.

I am worried that bad & unsourced trees are migrating to WikiTree. it feels scary and wrong to be encountering these unsourced profiles when I am working on my Archuleta family genealogy tree on WikiTree.  I think anyone would be worried about this, not just me.

I am worried that other people might be encountering profiles in their WTK genealogy Tree that state 'from an unsourced Ancestry tree'.  That other bad unsourced Trees could be migrating to WikiTree.

I don't believe new profiles can be created without appropriate/legitimate sourcing on WikiTree. (?)

I would like to find out why new profiles-- when the profile manager openly admits that they from an unsourced Ancestry Tree-- are being allowed on WikiTree?

Comments

I feel your frustration. For the last 16 months out of 17 I have sourced more than 500 Unsourced profiles. Many of those only have "Family information" or unspecified Ancestry trees as sources. You might want to read https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_FAQ#Why_are_unreliable_sources_allowed_for_post-1700_profiles.3F

---

You know what Steve?.  You are so right and it just so wrong to allow unsourced information or junk Gedcoms with error filled profiles taken from other sites and  imported into Wikitree. Just wrong!     I appreciate your comments.

---

Just thought I'd let you know that you are not alone in your frustration about the state of some of the new profiles added.  I just avoid them as much as possible.  I always check to see if there is already a profile or if I can confirm and connect my new person to someone who is already here.  I often find there is not enough information to confirm a connection.  When I come across one that I can connect to I may add one or two sources, but I don't usually spend the time that I put into my own profiles.  I will leave it to the person who added it or the hardworking biobuilders and sourcers whose work will never be done.

Answer 1

It's where they got the information, and as long as the tree is identified, it meets WikiTree's requirement for post-1700 profiles, as I understand it. I don't agree that it should be so, but it is what it is.

Comments

Wow... even when the person openly admits that comes from an unsourced/unverified Tree?  What if the unsourced tree is messed up with bad genealogy?  

I believe there is a BIG difference when Sourced Tree migrates to WKT -versus- and UNsourced Tree.  

Since WKT discourages new profiles with no sourcing, it seems to me that it would discourage one from (admitted) 'an unsourced Ancestry Tree'.  This makes no sense to me.

---

What Stu says is correct. (I don't think he is alone in disagreeing with it.) See Why are unreliable sources allowed for post-1700 profiles? The answer given is

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

---

A low bar or an 'open-house'? It seems that WKT just does not want to admit that it allows unsourced profiles to be created.  When a person openly admits, 'This is unsourced' and it is accepted, then it is an open house.  People creating profiles on WTK are being taught that no source is required to create a WTK profile.

What if the new unsourced profile already has bad info in it.?  The unsourced Archuleta trees on Ancestry have mystery people in families that don't exist (!), or are in a different family.  I have seen where a person with the same last name has been shoved into our family tree.... and he was actually from a completely different branch, not even our genealogy line.  Wives married to the wrong husbands. People who lived in Taos their entire lives have 2-4 residences-- including Mexico.  So when this unsources tree information migrates to WKT-- it gets accepted. I can't see how this will not damage the website Community Tree. If bad info flows in, bad info flows into the Community Tree.

I am sure other people besides me on WKT are experiencing this right now, and others will have to deal with it sometime in the future. Many of us will encounter "this profile comes from an unsourced Ancestry tree"... when we are working on WikiTree.  Cut and paste unverified/unsourced Trees are spreading like wildfire across Ancestry.  I was hoping that they wouldn't migrate to WKT, or if they did... tthat they would be held and stopped. Especially the ones that the profile's creator openly admitted they were unsourced.  I had hope, now I realize there is really no hope because these unsourced trees are already here, and acceptable under policy,... which means there will be many more to come.

---

"As long as they also share where their information came from.. we have a starting point for collaboration."  

So that means if the person writes.. "from an unsourced Ancestry Tree" that passes (it has).? Sharing that tree comes from Ancestry.. meets that low bar criteria... but what about if the profile creator also immediately shares that the tree is unsourced?  How can that be ignored? I don't think it can becaie 1 part meets the rules and 1 part does not. And the end result is that an unsourced profile, and possibly an entire unsourced Tree will be added to WKT... and the website Community Tree. If this same profile creator wanted to add 15 more profiles, all unsourced from the Ancestry Tree... is that ok to the WTK Admin as to both protocol and practice??

---

This is a long-standing discussion, Steve. For one example from 2020, see this link. Your arguments are valiant, but I fear they are doomed.

---

Ok.  I came across three brand new profiles in my specific family genealogy tree, that all said "from an unsourced Ancestry tree".  It was a new issue for me--- especially when I have been forced to already deal with the terrible unsourced cut-and-paste trees that have hit our family tree on that website. I really do 'fear' the migration of those really bad trees to WikiTree. The ripple effect they could have on Wikitree.. scares me,

No discussion is a waste of time--I guess. But this is a frustrating one that just seems to go around and around. Multiple people have brought this up before and each and every time they get nowhere. To me, it seems obvious that there is a no-source required policy in practice for new profiles. That concerns me, but it is obvious that others do not share that concern, and I have to respect their opinions as well. There are reasons people are ok with adding new profiles where the creator openly admits their info is unsourced... and I can't just dismiss what I don't understand. I think that this will be my last comment.

When a person openly admits that his/her new profile is unsourced-- and it is accepted, then the 'practice' of adding unsourced profiles to WikiTree has been approved. I personally believe that is contradictory to the other rules/policies that WikiTree has about maintaining good sourcing in all profiles. Unsourced profiles with bad information have the potential to cause ripple effect problems. Just my opinion, folks are free to agree or disagree.

Thanks to everyone who read, or read &responded... .  I have presented my concerns, and tried to present a couple of options. I think I might just follow the discussion and read the threads people have sent me. Maybe I can learn something about an argument that seems to come up repeatedly, by listening instead of 'talking'.  I started it this time around, so I have an obligation to follow the discussion, and learn what I can. and I will do this.  With respect to all....

---

Steve, you are not alone. But the post 1700 rule will not change, and a group here thinks that is for the better (attracting enough new members is one of the biggest arguments here, next to lack of people helping newbies).

---

Don't assume that things will never change. The post-1700 rule hasn't always existed, and periodically there is discussion of refining it -- particularly to extend the cutoff date to 1750 or 1800.

---

Yes, and on every one of those discussions that I recall, the overwhelming sentiment expressed by the community has been to extend the cutoff, yet 1700 it remains. And, for that matter, I have not seen a lot of effort to enforce the tighter standards on 1500-1700 work.

---

Steve, you're singing to the choir. We have all tried and FAILED miserably to get this problem corrected! Good Luck!

Answer 2

This is why I opted not to just import my existing tree. While I have been doing my genealogy since 1998 and do a good job of sourcing, I can't say whether I have a few profiles with limited information. So I am adding my tree person by person manually - yes, it is more work, but I would rather it be right!

Comments

Similar experience here. I'm sort of glad that when I started using WikiTree, I was unaware that GEDCOM imports were allowed. I have a database with about 21,000 people in my desktop software program and had uploaded that to Ancestry. When I started on WikiTree, I started adding people manually, and as I did so started questioning the adequacy of my sources and the specificity with which I had cited them. I thus started improving them. In doing so, I discovered one major error, where I had connected an ancestor to a father who was actually his uncle, which invalidated the whole maternal line from that point back. In addition, in re-examining sources I found enough minor errors, questionable connections, and situations where the evidence was not sufficient to support the conclusion that I deleted the whole thing from Ancestry and have never restored it.

---

Same here. When I started here at WT I chose not to import a GEDcom but I did each and every profile individually. My tree had over 2000 names at that time., It is now a lot bigger - over 3000 connections.

My part of the tree is now pretty much complete which is why I am no longer hanging around as much as I used to, but I still pop in at least once every day!!

Answer 3

Question for more knowledgeable people here:

Should we add the {{Unsourced}} Research Box or [[Category:Unsourced Profiles]] when encountering such profiles?

Comments

I think either is fine but a location is better. For example: {{Unsourced|Canada}}

If a location is included, it's more likely to get worked on.

---

If it meets the WikiTree guidelines, whether we agree with it or not, the Unsourced banner is not appropriate.

---

Just my opinion, but if the profile creator openly admits there is no sourcing,, then we need to do something SHORT of accepting the profile. So YES, I think unsourced profiles should be moved into a separate & different category that is disconnected from the Community Tree.  I understand that creates a bigger bulkier website with more categories, but doing this protects the website and its Community Tree. When a profile creator brings an unsourced profile to WKT it needs to go in a category that separates it from the tree. Send them reminder bumps once a week. Give them a certain amount of time to source the 'hold profile.  If they do, Great.  If they don't, then it's a loss.  I think it is important that openly unsourced/unverified profiles are separated and not allowed into the WikiTree Community Tree.  It is not exclusionary to have a commitment to a good genealogy in our Community Tree. I would think that everyone would want that. Just my opinion.

---

What about a new catagory for only NEW  profiles where the creator openly admits that it is unsourced.  I could be wrong, but isnt the policy contradictory when WKT has a policy that strongly advocates for good, appropriate sourcing--starting with the new profile?  Admitting WTK doesn't care about a NEW profile being openly created without any sourcing to me creates a contradictory policy.  Just saying the Tree is from Ancestry might meet criteria in one way, but openly admitting it is unsourced, goes against other WikTree policy.  Maybe a tweak for consistency would be best.

---

I have been told off more than once for adding the unsourced box to any profile with a source stating 'unsourced tree'. Just so you know.

---

Being “told off” is not appropriate either.

---

Replying to your question, Joe, the Unsourced template should be used, as it will add the category in addition to the research box.

Answer 4

This is from the Help pages:

When should the Unsourced Research Note Box be used?

We use the {{Unsourced}} Research Note Box to identify profiles with no clear identification of where any information on the profile came from.

It should be used on any profile with no source citations, or no source citations that clearly identify the source.

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.

Help:Sources FAQ (wikitree.com)

Answer 5

While it is clear that the policy is that what many of us consider to be inadequately sourced profiles are allowed by the standard set by the owners of the site, and perhaps even encouraged, I can actually argue either side of the "should it be this way" question.

The "yea" side is that even crummy sourcing does provide a starting point. There have been times when I have been largely at sea trying to connect someone, and an Ancestry or FamilySearch or Geni tree, or a reference to a confusingly identified published work, has provided a clue as to where to start looking.

The "nay" side is that the Internet is awash in crummy "genealogy," and the WikiTree policy simply adds to it.

When I started using WikiTree, I would get upset when I encountered a poorly sourced profile. I've gotten over that. Now when I find one with wholly inadequate sourcing, I either take a little time and try to fix it, or i just sigh and move on.

Comments

Now when I find one with wholly inadequate sourcing, I either take a little time and try to fix it, or i just sigh and move on.

This.  I try to find a source for the profile, and if I can't find it, I close the profile and look for the next one.

Answer 6

In a situation like this, it may be productive to start an email communication with the other member(s) by sending a private message.

Your message could advise the other member(s) of known problems with the genealogy they are importing from Ancestry (if there are such). And whether or not there are known problems, it doesn't hurt to (1) point out that their approach to "sourcing" is at best only minimally compliant with our standards and (2) exhort them to provide more solid sourcing. The Lorine McGinnis Schulze essay at http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/articles/myth.shtml (cited on the Help:Sources page) might be a good tool for getting started at communicating that message.

Comments

All new profiles should have BioCheck run on them to point out the errors of their way. Maybe that should be incorporated into building a new profile. That one little app will check everything in a profile, from formatting to adequate sources. Try it, you'll like!  :)