Sources: WikiTree user research

+5 votes
414 views

This is just my personal research which goal is to possibly improve creation and usage of Sources (probably via browser extension - that's in my power - I'm not member of WikiTree team, so I cannot touch WikiTree web itself, but this shouldn't limit this research - even guys from WT team could read this. ;-) ).

  • How do you use Sources? To confirm validity of person data? To find relatives? Any other usage?
  • Do you create Sources? 
  • What is your most frequent kind of Source? Link to external site? Photo of the physical record? Something else?
  • Do you prefer to source only "hard" data (origin of source, date of the event that is sourced, etc) or do you also include some personal data related to the sourced profile? 
  • Would you invite the possibility to share Sources between profiles? Let's say birth of the child is the event that is mainly relevant for the child, but the source also refers to parents and / or grandparents. Similarly census record refers to entire family living in the house in the point in time. Current solution solution doesn't allow to create (or later edit) 1 source and share it between profiles - each profile has it stored separately - if the mistake happens, each instance of the source must be fixed separately. 
  • Are there any issues with current Sources?
  • Would you suggest any changes about the sources?

If I missed anything about the Sources, feel free to write it down.

Thanks, Michal

in WikiTree Tech by Michal Vašut G2G6 (7.4k points)

5 Answers

+5 votes

Why: to both confirm validity of data and to find additional family members. Also to "put flesh on the bones" of a family unit-- to understand the context in which they lived their lives, to be able to tell a richer story.

Not sure what you mean by "do you create sources?".  I suppose I have. I researched and had published in a peer-reviewed journal, an article about colonial-era families; I suppose others may cite that as a source.

Most frequent type of source is wholly dependent on the person, the era, the geography. The closer to the original the better. Prior to digitization, I'd sit for hours reading microfilms of old German church records. Now many of these same records are online.  I've also visited town clerks offices and poured over 18th and 19th century ledgers containing handwritten records of families and land deeds and probate records.  Many of these are also now online.

I regularly paste citations for a given source on multiple profiles. It's easy to do. There *are* source pages on WikiTree and many people link to them as part of their citation, but because a citation should include details specific to the person and event, one would still need to include those details on the profile page.

I wish more people would include in their source citations (especially those NOT available freely online) sufficient text quoted from the source that supports the data.  It's an extra step-- and I admit I don't follow it 100%-- but it's an important step.

by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (916k points)
I agree Jillaine, a source should always provide enough information so that someone else can find the record for themselves. Whether it is online or as an actual document available through a library.  If we really want to be sure that the record belongs to the profile, we need to check what the record says.

Having multiple sources for someone does not actually mean that those sources are correct for that person.
+1 vote

1. How do you use Sources? To confirm validity of person data? To find relatives? Any other usage?

A source especially census, birth/ baptism, marriage, death and burial records, can also often provide place of residence, occupation, often names of relatives, plus others like witnesses to events, such as weddings, godparents who may or may not be immediate family members or relatives, but usually have some connection to the family. Evidence of where the family lived over a period of time. Which can provide clues to their financial situation, if on the first census on which they are found, they are living on A street, the next census on B street, if the census includes a description of the home and the house on B street is smaller than the house on A street, it might indicate that they had less money to spend on housing. If the head of household is listed as a lodger or boarder, at a different address to his spouse, is this an indication that they are separated, or is he living somewhere else temporarily for work related reasons. 

2. Do you create Sources?  Depends on what you mean by create: 

If I find a record or information about a person or an event that is not found in the many commonly used source collections. For example; I have a 1970’s social studies textbook for kids about age 10, it includes an entire chapter on the 1830 founding and subsequent development of a small town in Ontario, it also includes information about the founders of the village and some of their descendants. 

I can create a citation for it: Book Title, when and where published, pages within the book that I have used as a source of information for a particular person. Where I found the book (in my bookcase, is not useful) in a local library, or in this case it is also on Archive.org, but unless I provide a description of what type of information is included in the book, the fact that the book exists is not very useful. I didn’t write the book so I didn’t create it, but I can provide enough information that others who are interested in the same town or the people who lived there, can find the resource for themselves. 

3. What is your most frequent kind of Source? Link to external site? Photo of the physical record? Something else?

A description of the source, such as 1871 Census of Canada, location X, page whatever, most of the time a link to the census page on a website, sometimes not if I have multiple census entries for the same person/family in the same place. Very seldom a photo or digital copy of the record. Occasionally I create a small table title it Baptism Record or other as required, and include in it the relevant information, the names, dates etc on the record and the actual source name as well, then take a screen shot of the document so it can be included on the profile as a photo. It works well if the original document is difficult to read, and also if the information on the record has been misinterpreted several times. 

4. Do you prefer to source only "hard" data (origin of source, date of the event that is sourced, etc) or do you also include some personal data related to the sourced profile? 

The story of the person is important, otherwise it just becomes a list of dates and places. Of course; it does depend on the date of the record, personal knowledge of events from many years ago is unlikely, but you can create a story about events that happened to someone. I have a family where 4 children died within 3 years from cholera, the 2 older children survived, the youngest child survived, it presents an opportunity to explain why the mother spent several months staying at a convent and the surviving children stayed with other relatives for the same time period. 

5. Would you invite the possibility to share Sources between profiles? Let's say birth of the child is the event that is mainly relevant for the child, but the source also refers to parents and / or grandparents. Similarly census record refers to entire family living in the house in the point in time. Current solution doesn't allow to create (or later edit) 1 source and share it between profiles - each profile has it stored separately - if the mistake happens, each instance of the source must be fixed separately. 

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. You can share sources between profiles, that is use the same source for more than one person, a baptism record that includes the name of the parents can be used as a source for both the child, the parents and the godparents, it could also be used as a source for the priest or minister who performed the baptism, and a source for where the various people lived and when. If the source is found not to belong to a person, or event it has to be removed from all people included in the event described. 

6. Are there any issues with current Sources?

Sources are what they are, and they vary widely depending on the information given and the reliability of the original documents. As has been discussed many times, personal knowledge of events that happened before the profile manager was born or could possibly remember is not reliable. Unsourced family trees are not sources, even sourced family trees are not sources, it is the records attached to those trees that are the sources. 

7. Would you suggest any changes about the sources? 

Once again I’m not sure what you mean, what records are used? Whether the records actually belong to the profile, whether the source is accurate or reliable? 

Edit to clarify which parts are my responses

by M Ross G2G6 Pilot (750k points)
edited by M Ross
Hello M. Ross,

first of all, thanks for valuable info you've provided.

No to clarify some of my vague questions:

1. - 4. - those were generic questions about sourcing.

5. - 7. These are rather about implementation ay WikiTree.

5. "possibility to share source" - here I'm talking about possibility to create source only once (mainly those "hard data) and create link to it from different profiles with option to add some additional personal info (per profile) - the benefit of this mainly easier maintenance - you make one change and it will immediately reflect on all linked profiles.

6. & 7. are also mainly about implementation and current state how it works at WikiTree.
+2 votes
I like your questions, but...I think usage of sources for "hard" info versus adding personal context depends on the user working that profile, and the available information. We need to keep wikitree maintainable for the future and we need the data in the profiles t come out on gedcom export. If you were to somehow store centralized sources on a different server, what is your contingency plan for when that server goes under? How do you support costs of upkeep and administration? Who maintains that? If you have a pointer via external ink template or similar, does the template come out on the gedcom, or the source citation? If you use cookies in the browser extension to store that, then what about when browsers upgrade or hardware fails or is replaced?

Current system, although it incurs duplicate data entry, preserves that data in the gedcom and needs no external support. The wikitree BEE has functionality to easily copy sources on family members' profiles, which I assume Ian moved to the Wikitree Browser Extension (havent checked).
by Jonathan Crawford G2G6 Pilot (282k points)
Well, this is exactly the limitation I wrote about, when I mentioned browser extension - this is undesirable state, to store data outside of the WikiTree - as you correctly described.

But I wouldn't like to limit this research by technological constraints. (or at least leave it for later), but rather listen more to user needs and opinions.

But thanks for your input.
What exactly are you proposing as a solution for shared sources? I dont see any ideas more specific than "what if we could reuse a source" either here or in the Apps Google Group
+2 votes

See M Ross's response; I concur. In addition,

- see Honor Code item 8

- see Sources Help which says "The ideal citation format on WikiTree is Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS), generally following Elizabeth Shown Mills' Evidence Explained"

- see Sources FAQ for more info

- see Pre-1700 Profiles particularly the sources section

- see Sources for some other sources used on WikiTree

- see Links to reliable sources

- see Pre-1700 Quiz

- see WikiTree Statistics

- see Profile Improvement Project, particularly the Goal and Steps toward Improved profiles. All facts presented in the profile should be accompanied by reliable sources.

- see Example Profiles and their sources

- see Bio Check app for a tool to look at sources for a collection of profiles

- see WikiTree Sourcer browser extension for sources

- experiment with the Bio Check feature enabled in the WikiTree Browser extension

As for sharing of sources across profiles, I believe that the 'common' sources actually differ. For example, in a census, the persons in the household have different ages and relationships. Perhaps a better example is a marriage where you might cite the source for each spouse separately because the transcription data includes the parents, but only for that one person. When I was using RootsMagic, I had issues with the sharing of sources across individuals. Here's an example profile that illustrates the use of various sources to investigate a research question for an individual. His daughter Ottilia has similar examples.

by Kay Knight G2G6 Pilot (606k points)
edited by Kay Knight
Of course, you are right about that, every single person has his / her unique story and this should be definitely included in this.

My intent was to limit any technicalities to minimum here, but I'll go further into the detail here (I know you are not average user, I can be more technical with you :-)).

First of all, this thing about Source sharing is rather theoretical, because of my limited options (see Jonathan Crawford post and my answer above).

Now to the promised detail. The only shared part are those "hard data" I've mentioned in my original post. This includes (event date, optionally place, the source itself - link / image / citation /..., optionally some generic note).

This is the same for everybody.

Now when you create link between profile and source, you also can add some further personal detail, event type,...  - this is unique part of the source.

Of course, at the profile page, it will be merged into the single thing (both generic & personal part of the source). But at the same time, it'll open some new possibilities.

Btw, thanks for the great point about the GEDCOM, I've totally forgotten about this ansd it'll have to be carefully considered and explored.

Also thanks for those links, those will help me to obtain deeper knowledge and better insight into the topic.
I agree Kay, the common sources do differ depending on which person in the record is chosen.

If there is a source that applies to more than person, it is easy on Ancestry, FS or FMP and other sites to click on another person from the collection of people on the record which then provides a source specific to that person.

There is no reason to search again for each person on the record, which would be horribly time consuming.

If I am sourcing many people from one record I can copy the specific source for each of the people, I can have several windows open, one for each of the family and copy it directly into each profile.

Or if I am collecting many sources per person I can put them into a word doc, that has all the family names on it and then add them to each person as I complete their profile. Not a high tech way to do it, but it works well, and either way lots of windows or a simple word doc lets me easily see what records I still need to find.

We do need to think about all the WT members who are not comfortable or competent with the complicated ways that some tasks can be done, and I include myself in that group. What we really want are sourced profiles regardless of the method of adding those sources.
Yes, it works - definitely, without doubt - physical mail or sending messages using pigeons also works, still, we are using the internet...

But jokes aside - what will happen (with the approach, you've described) when you make mistake or the link in source is changed by third party or broken? Do you remember where the source is used, is it fun to change / fix all those occurences of the source?

Other benefit of shared resource is the knowledge, where it's used (as a side effect).

When I make a mistake or the link in source is changed by third party or broken? 

As much as I understand it, if the source link is broken or changed by a third party, it will still be broken no matter where it is stored. 

Do I remember where the source is used, do you mean where I found the source? 

Yes ! I do know where I find/found sources. 

The broken link still describes  what the record is and if necessary I or someone else can find it somewhere else. 

If a whole source collection is changed somehow, i.e. a census is no longer available on FS, I have the description of the source which will enable me or someone else to find another online or not online source for the information. 

The accuracy or validity of the source is not defined by how it is presented. 

Ok, I must, put some effort into my communicate skill. My bad, I'll try to describe it better.

When I make a mistake or the link in source is changed by third party or broken?

This was meant, what you must do to fix the mistake or broken link and how much effort it takes to fix all occurences and don't forget any usage (the profile, where the "bad" source is used).

Do I remember where the source is used, do you mean where I found the source?

Usage = in what wikitree profile the source was used (single source can be used in more profiles). 

The accuracy or validity of the source is not defined by how it is presented.

 Definitely true! 

I see now what you mean, but when a link is broken, no matter where or by who, there is still descriptive information within the non functioning link.

For example: 

  • "Ontario Census, 1861," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQQ5-N8S : 9 March 2018), Margaret Lenox, Essa, Simcoe, Ontario, Canada; citing p. 56, line 34; Library and Archives Canada film number C-1072, Public Archives, Toronto; FHL microfilm 349,320.
If the link to Family Search is broken, I still have the date of the record, the person's name, where she lived, and where in the census her record is found page 56, line 34. I have almost all the information I need about Margaret that is in this record.
 If I have the broken link for her husband or her children, then I have the equivalent information for them. 
If I choose to look it up on a different website I could, or next time I'm in Ottawa I could go to Library and Archives Canada and look it up there. 
The information about Margaret doesn't change because it is no longer on FS. 
I do not need to look for another source. I don't need to correct the broken link. Someone else could look it up on another site if they wanted to see the original scan. 
If we don't have a link, it doesn't invalidate the information. 
That's why it's important to describe the information that is included on the record. So we don't spend hundreds' of hours looking for substitute records for information we already have.
Good point! Sadly, not everyone is so diligent and thoughtful as you.
Some things to consider....

It sounds like you are talking about a giant source repository and setting links to individual profiles. Something that would subsume many well known existing source repositories, as well as many others that are more obscure. Aside from the sheer volume of data there are technical issues on maintaining consistency in this type of architecture. (Techie side note. I am biased by my experience as one of the initial developers and users of a topological data structure for geospatial databases.)

What about the >32,000,000 existing profiles? Wouldn't we be better served to improve the estimated 65 to 85% of those that are not sourced?
Michal, I'm beginning to wonder if you are attempting to fix a problem that might not exist.
Oh i think the problem exists, its just that without significant architectural changes to the core wikitree database any solution has to create other ancillary problems.

As I already mentioned, this specific thing is rather theoretical. ​​

What about the >32,000,000 existing profiles? Wouldn't we be better served to improve the estimated 65 to 85% of those that are not sourced?

Definitely - improving thinks would help greatly, but this is not technical task and imho the place where technology could help is to point out what's wrong in that large amount of data and there already is tooling for that. 

Oh i think the problem exists, its just that without significant architectural changes to the core wikitree database any solution has to create other ancillary problems.

I don't know how the core looks (not public source code), but I don't believe that's the case. 

First, it doesn't make sense to force anybody into the changinging current data - it's better to let people touch it and consider if it's worth or not (have the possibility to convert data manually using some wizard) 

Second, it would be difficult (or even impossible) task to convert current data into the new format automatically and without any data loss or corruption - this is bad idea!

IF the change (switch to new way) would actually happen, it would be nice, ONLY FOR NEW RECORDS, to enforce

  • Separation (1 source per record) 
  • Source origin (link / Image /...) 
  • Sourced event date
Rest could be optional. 

IMHO, it wouldn't be such radical change into the core (as for backend), I would say rather addition - 2 additional tables, because it's many to many relation (1 profile could have more sources and 1 source could be used in more profiles). So in conclusion:

  • Profiles  table  - not sure about the name, but there probably already is something like that and this will stay as it is, no change here, just record ID will be used. 
  • NEW: Sources table - stores common "hard" data
  • NEW: ProfileSourceLink - stores - profile ID, source ID and personal info for the source
As I said this is theoretical - core is not public and maintained only by WikiTree team - what I'm trying to show here, that it is not that scary and one possible way. 
Due to the private nature of the code, I don't have knowledge what would this influence... 

As for GEDCOM - there shouldn't be issue here - relevant structures:

0 votes

I think, to be clear, we have to define what we mean by "sources" in this discussion? Do we mean "source citations" or something else? I'm going to assume that we are talking about source citations. 

The thing that you appear to be focusing on is when several profiles are all citing the same source record. But what do we mean by "source record"? If we mean for example a FamilySearch record, then multiple people do not actually share the same record since FamilySearch has a separate record page (transcription) for each person in a record.

Let's use a baptism as an example. Three people are mentioned in the record image - the child, the father and the mother.

This is a FamilySearch citation for the child's record:

"England, Middlesex Parish Registers, 1539-1988", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:682V-M5NN : 11 July 2022), George Thomas Littlemore, 1854.

This is the citation for the mother's record (same event):

"England, Middlesex Parish Registers, 1539-1988", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:682V-M5NV : 11 July 2022), Mary Littlemore in entry for George Thomas Littlemore, 1854.

Notice that they have different links.

These are examples of the citations generated by FS - which do not give all that much detail. Here some citations generated by the WikiTree Sourcer extension for the same records (there are many options for formatting this is just an example):

On the child's profile:

* '''Baptism''': "England, Middlesex Parish Registers, 1539-1988"<br/>{{FamilySearch Record|682V-M5NN}} (accessed 12 November 2022)<br/>{{FamilySearch Image|3Q9M-CSF7-TS3T-8}} Image number 00508<br/>George Thomas Littlemore baptism on 9 Jun 1854 (born 20 Apr 1854), child of John Littlemore & Mary Littlemore, in St Pancras, Middlesex, England, United Kingdom.

On the mother's profile:

* '''Baptism of child George Thomas Littlemore''': "England, Middlesex Parish Registers, 1539-1988"<br/>{{FamilySearch Record|682V-M5NV}} (accessed 12 November 2022)<br/>{{FamilySearch Image|3Q9M-CSF7-TS3T-8}} Image number 00508<br/>Mary Littlemore's child George Thomas Littlemore baptism on 9 Jun 1854 in St Pancras, Middlesex, England, United Kingdom.

So... I'm trying to figure out what you are proposing in the way of shared sources. Are you suggesting that we create some citation object on WikiTree that points to the child's baptism record and that all three profiles somehow include a reference to this shared citation object?

[edited to fix typos]

by Rob Pavey G2G6 Pilot (213k points)
edited by Rob Pavey

Additional note: In general I do not add source citations for a baptism on the parent's profiles if the child has a WikiTree profile and that profile includes the citation for the baptism. But that is an example that you mentioned in your post.

For census records I do include a source citation in each of the profiles of people in the household. So, for me, the census is the case where this crops up most. My practice is to generate a separate citation (using Sourcer) for each person, it is just a couple of clicks and a paste per person. But as you say, if there is a transcription error, this can mean manually fixing each citation, which would be nice to avoid if it were possible.

Notice that they have different links.

Are you sure? Those links looks identical, even the citation itself is almost the same (so all before and including "11 July 2022") - except the ending part with personal detail.

So... I'm trying to figure out what you are proposing in the way of shared sources. Are you suggesting that we create some citation object on WikiTree that points to the child's baptism record and that all three profiles somehow include a reference to this shared citation object?

Yes, something like that, check other my replies, where it's described more into the detail. 

You are familiar with FamilySearch, so the concept is similar to their SourceBox. 

In general I do not add source citations for a baptism on the parent's profiles... 

Generally speaking, yes you are right, the census is better example for this. But in some cases, there are also grandparents mentioned in baptism record and it's the only source for them for some time (till I find better proof of their existence) and my approach is to have at least some source, in order to link people to my family tree. 

But you are suggesting this take place in the core code?
Well, I've written that I cannot do this - not because I don't want, but because I cannot. The code is private.

I've also written (somewhere in replies) that this research should not be limited by technical things, but is rather intended to provide deeper understanding of user needs and real usage of the sources and citations.

I've been forced to provide more technical detail, but this wasn't planned here (for this research) - although I can provide some basic sketches / draft, I don't have the current core knowledge, therefore I'm rather guessing and making assumtions (I can say qualified assumtions - few years as backend developer).

It's research, not actual feature planning - I would say more like suggestion.

Recently, I've listened to some podcast with UX expert and he said great thing: Even the worst process (workflow) transforms into the great one after some time. (people will get used to it)

As the example he gave, was situation from administrative, when office workers used some software and were used to it, even though the workflow they used could be simplified, they refused it, because they were used to work with the software their way (had their mindmaps). Fortunately this wasn't their choice, so the change was made. After some time, even the loudest employees that were previously reluctant to try different approach agreed, that it really did simplify their daily life at office.

@Rob Pavey - I've just checked what WikiTree Sourcer can do and it doesn't really conflict. Those are 2 separate things

  • Sourcer provides data (search, transformation,...)
  • My suggestion is rather about how the data are stored internally. 
Btw, awesome tool! 

Michal, 

Notice that they have different links.

One citation has MSNN at the end of the URL, the other has M5NV.  That makes them different links. This citation wording is different for either of them.  They may have the same image, but the citation is different. 

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:682V-M5NN 

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:682V-M5NV 

Michal, you have to remember that the majority of people that use wikitree are not computer knowledgeable.  Some people could put a link on one profile and then use that same link on another profile, but most people would not understand what needs to be done to make them link together.

BEE has an option, as someone mentioned, to copy a citation / source from one linked profile to another, but again, it is the wording of the citation for the earlier person and should be then changed to the appropriate person.  It does make it easier to change once those 'common / re-used sources are on the 2nd profile.  At least from that original link, the new citation link can be found.
Right, i was just making sure I understood what you are asking. This seems much ado about nothing unless the core team is willing, and they have indicated previously that they do not have the bandwidth, hence the move toward the browser extension, as it does not add to their workload.

Accordingly, your proposal should be along the lines of "how can we apply to join the core team to increase bandwidth", or be lobbying them to spend their time to do this. Until then, we are just speaking out of turn.

This seems much ado about nothing unless the core team is willing, and they have indicated previously that they do not have the bandwidth, hence the move toward the browser extension, as it does not add to their workload.

I've probably found the way, how to do it locally with just extension - well it's not ideal solution at all - limited to one device and not possible from smartfone, but majority of work is done from one computer. But it's at least some way...

I can build the same as I described locally, using IndexedDB - https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IndexedDB_API/Using_IndexedDB. If the profile in local DB will exist, it'll inject the new approach to the profile page and before sending the changes, it will serialize the data to current textual way, to keep it consistent with WikiTree. 

Yes, Linda, you are right with the links - those at Family Seach are really different, because they contain additional info, but many archives do not contain that additional info, they provides only scans.

As for the technical part, you are right and I'm aware of it and my intention was to keep this at G2G as low tech as possible, because those things are mostly happening on background without people noticing them, but unfortunately some people wanted further detail to explain my idea and then I wasn't able to avoid technical things and that could scare less technical people.
ancestry links are also very different.

What you want to do is technical and would involve every user and how they created their profiles.  That cannot be made more difficult than it is, I don''t think.  The browser extension was done to bring together what has been done in multiple extensions into one browser extension to make it easier for the users.

would involve every user and how they created their pro files

Not at all, Linda. Totally optional, wait for my concept / preview in form of extensions. I've probably found a way to demonstrate it via extension in very limited way (limited by device, where the extension is installed & enabled ). 

If optional, then a source can be duplicated from one profile to another, depending on whether someone uses your extension format.

There is more involved than simply adding the same source to multiple related profiles.

Please remember that when profiles are merged, biographies are duplicated from both profiles, requiring someone to clean up the biography to remove duplicated text. If someone editing, adding sources, cleaning up a profile does not 'understand' what you are doing with sources, it will be very difficult to maintain.

When a profile has relationships added and deleted, the sources should be added and deleted for those changes which could cause sources to be added / removed from other profiles or from the wrong profiles.

Please remember that when profiles are merged, biographies are duplicated from both profiles, requiring someone to clean up the biography to remove duplicated text. If someone editing, adding sources, cleaning up a profile does not 'understand' what you are doing with sources, it will be very difficult to maintain.

Not at all... I think further discussion is useless, because either I'm not able to describe it better or you are not able to accept what I'm saying...

Anyway, there is workaround - extension & local storage - where I can test what I want without disturbing other users...

Thanks for your time. Bye.

Related questions

+11 votes
3 answers
+7 votes
3 answers
780 views asked Mar 28, 2022 in Policy and Style by Micheal McVey G2G Crew (340 points)
+7 votes
4 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
+33 votes
4 answers
+2 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...