Notables categorization, just because of a Wikipedia page, needs review

Question

Hi all,

I have just been having a discussion in regards to having someone adding a Notables sticker to a profile just because the person in the profile has a Wikipedia page.  The profile in question which brought this up is Adrienne Duvivier, whose Wikipedia page can be found HERE.  

In my view, this does NOT make her Notable, per dictionary definition: Worthy of note, remarkable, striking, eminent; as a noun: eminent person. (Oxford Concise).  She is no more noteworthy than most of the other early migrants to Montréal.  (and for kibbitzing on the article, it has errors, and 2 of its ''sources'' are family trees, not considered reliable sources by us pre-1700).

One of the reasons given to me for classing her profile as ''notable'' (outside of Wikipedia page existence) was so the ''CC7 Notables'' would show up at the top.  While I personally don't have much use for that, I know others like to see this sort of numbers.  But if we want to get real numbers for her, we should not stop at CC7, it should be at least 12 generations.  She is my own 9th great-grandmother, but my generation, my parents' generation etc don't get counted in there.

This plaque naming Adrienne in Montréal is in honour of those considered to have founded Montréal.  Of those named on there, a quick search of Wikipedia brings up very few of those names.  But they all have fairly equal claim to fame (outside of Jeanne Mance and Paul de Chomedey de Maisonneuve). (J.B. Le Gardeur de Repentigny is on there, erroneously, he was only 10 or so in 1642, and Adrienne did not arrive before 1646).

So, with all that said, my request for review of categorization is twofold:

1) not to categorize someone as ''notable'' just because they have a Wikipedia article, since those articles are user contributed, following somebody's personal interest mainly for this type.

2) If numbers are desired to show at the top of a profile, then possibly our tech people can figure out something other than categorization stickers to make it happen.  Notables category is already unwieldy as it is.  And change the display to read something other than ''CC7'', which a carual viewer will not know the meaning of.

Comments

If the person truly did nothing noteworthy, then it seems it is more a Wikipedia issue, than a WikiTree one.  Have you taken this matter up with Wikipedia?

---

As co-leader of the Notables Project I appreciate your feedback. This is an ongoing debate that impacts many projects. Be assured that it is an issue that the leadership team is very well aware of. The problem is that we don't have haven't yet come up with an alternative that is practical to both implement and monitor. Do you have any suggestions?

---

I suggest that the Notables Project use wikipedia's Notability guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability . There should be a rebuttal presumption that if a person has a wikipedia page, they are a Notable. But allow people to challenge that based a claim that they don't meet the Notability guidelines. Maybe the Notables project could have a 3-person panel to review any such challenges. No need to go through the intermediate hurdle of having to get wikipedia to remove the article.

---

What Wikipedia is NOT:Genealogy is a link on What Wikipedia is not page.  Which says: Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.

If you look at the sources on Adrienne's Wikipedia page, 2 of them are online tree-sites (not considered reliable sources pre-1700 by WikiTree), another is a short blurb on her first husband, the 4th is an hommage article from her place of origin by France-Québec Association, and the last is the obelisk photo.  The English version isn't any better. 

As a note, I don't do Wikipedia, wouldn't know where to go to have this withdrawn, and don't feel it's really pertinent to our discussion.

---

Chase, that exactly what Notables Project does.  It states it quite clearly on the Project page.

Standards for Notability

The WikiTree Notables Project uses Wikipedia's standards for notability. Note, though, that many qualified notables do not yet have a page on Wikipedia. Feel free to ask Project Leaders about whether someone meets the guidelines, or read through them yourself and use your best judgment. Many, many important people are not on WikiTree yet!

Answer 1

OK - while I appreciate all the discussion, here's the bottom line. Notables has a standard. That standard follows Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability. At this time, we have no intention of changing that standard. So if a profile has a Wikipedia page, they are Notable. Period. We do have discussions related to "inclusion" (i.e., if a person does not have a Wikipedia page, we can discuss whether or not they would qualify for a page), however, we do not and likely never will have any intention of creation an exclusion rule. It would simply be unmanageable. We are already discussing how we need to manage any that we would "include" which is a complex enough process, but to exclude a profile is simply not a tenable solution. We are essentially inserting ourselves into the process, refusing to agree with Wikipedia's standards, and trying to take over the process. I repeat, we have No Intention of setting ourselves up to take over Wikipedia to create our own standards, nor do we intend to second-guess Wikipedia on who they do and do not include. We can discuss who we believe should have a Wikipedia page and typically this leads to a profile that would essentially represent the Wikipedia page, but it takes hard work and is nearly as difficult to do as the actual Wikipedia process.

So I get it that we might feel that so-and-so is not Notable, but to a large extent, we're using our judgment and inserting our own personal bias into the equation, and I personally don't feel we should discriminate against anyone as this will lead to "I don't like that person, so they won't be Notable in MY eyes" and we will have bad feelings about "why did you do that to MY ancestor" going on around here. It would be best if we could all simply accept that this standard was selected as the best approach we could to both remove WikiTree from the equation and to offer an independent body the control to choose these Notables primarily without our decisions getting in the way.

Comments

Scott, so does somebody keep track of such being removed from Wikipedia?

---

Excellent question! The answer is yes and no. We try to monitor, but rely fairly heavily on users who would note the removal and remove the sticker or template appropriately. On the WikiTree side, the project account is like any other account, so we would only notice changes to those the project manages or is on the trusted list. However, we do run WikiData reports periodically which identify profiles of those who should have the sticker/template and review those profiles to determine if they truly should have it. Wikipedia (the English version) alone has well over 6 million articles and we have over 60,000 Notables identified, so the numbers are fairly staggering as it relates to what might seem as simple maintenance, so unfortunately, we don't have an easy mechanism for doing things like this type of maintenance. It does get done - just over time.

---

hmm, maybe data doctors or Ales could figure out something that would apply, like for other URLs that have gone bad, if an article in Wikipedia gets removed, then obviously the specific URL will go also.

Answer 2

It seems to me that someone who is memorialized on a plaque is notable.

This plaque naming Adrienne in Montréal is in honour of those considered to have founded Montréal.  Of those named on there, a quick search of Wikipedia brings up very few of those names.  But they all have fairly equal claim to fame (outside of Jeanne Mance and Paul de Chomedey de Maisonneuve). (J.B. Le Gardeur de Repentigny is on there, erroneously, he was only 10 or so in 1642, and Adrienne did not arrive before 1646).

This is an argument not for removing her but for adding the others.

Comments

good grief Paul, if we were to go by that plaque we would be in trouble.  It is supposedly for the colonists who first came here in 1642.  Adrienne's husband Augustin was here, she wasn't.  Antoine Damien and his wife married in Québec city and did not have a presence in Montréal at all, they went back to France.  Jean Baptiste Legardeur was 10 years old and living in Québec city.  It's a very old plaque, and I don't know who did the research for it.  Just the above shows you there are errors in it.

---

correction: Antoine Damien and his wife did come, but didn't stay, see my answer to Russell below.

---

I've linked every profile I could find that is named on the image to that image, so the memorial plaque now shows on them also.

---

Ironically, because the main criterion for "notability" of person in WikiTree is that the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, there are more than a few people who have articles in Wikipedia because (1) they are the person identified in the title of a book titled with the pattern "The Descendants of [Person]" and (2) they are documented in other books about the family. These often are inherently undistinguished farmers who were the first immigrant settler in some American family that was documented in a published family genealogy, the contents of which got republished in other places over the years.

WikiTree should not call somebody "Notable" just because they are the starting person in a published family genealogy. That "distinction" is akin to having a name on a plaque.

---

and yet Wikipedia has this:

What Wikipedia is NOT:Genealogy is a link on What Wikipedia is not page.  Which says: Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.

sigh

---

Wikipedia's concern about "notability" is a desire not to have articles on trivial topics. Being the subject of multiple published works written by someone other than the subject is one indicator that the person is not trivial. Wikipedia does also look for other indications of significance. The individuals named in the titles of "The Descendants of [Person]" books are almost always described in glowing terms in the first chapter, perhaps as the "founder of the Such-and-Such family in America" or maybe as "a pioneer settler of the village of ____." Wikipedia contributors who don't do genealogy are not likely to try judge whether these statements are indicators of significance (i.e., notability) or just puffery by descendants (or people selling books to descendants). But because many of these people have Wikipedia articles, WikiTree compounds the error by allowing them to be called "Notable" -- or event putting them in categories like "Famous People of the 17th Century" -- although many of our contributors know better.

Answer 3

I respectfully disagree with you on both issues. 1) To exclude someone if the only reason is they have a Wikipedia page. 2) That Adrienne Du Vivier is not notable.

Her Wiki page starts with "was a French pioneer and one of the first white woman to settle in the colony of Montreal, Quebec, Canada". She and her husband are often referred to as "Montreal's First Citizens"." That is certainly notable to be first in something, to be an early pioneer or settler in an area.

As for the others not having a Wiki page, it may be that they are lost to time. Other than their names, maybe no one has found enough to write an article. Wikipedia has similar requirements that you source your material, so it is just a question of someone doing the research.

Notable to some may not be notable to others, and I believe regional categories are helpful. Someone notable in Arkansas, where I'm from, may be of no interest to other people with no connection to the state. Nevertheless, they are to the people in the state.

It would be difficult to have a standard criteria for when someone should be classified as notable, as it depends on individual experiences and regions.

Comments

Madeleine de Chauvigny de la Peltrie was here in  1642, and is considered the secular founder of the Ursulines convent before that in Québec city.  She is notable without a doubt.  And has a Wikipedia page.

Adrienne didn't found anything other than a family, which countless others did.

Gilbert Barbier was here in August 1642.  No Wikipedia.  He was a carpenter / builder by trade.  I could go on and on.  

Adrienne is certainly not the first woman of French origin here, she only came in 1647.  The Godé family are also here, several of them. 

Answer 4

1) While articles are user-contributed, they are pretty strict on requirements, so she isn't notable enough her article will eventually be deleted.

2) Only logged-in WikiTree members see the connection number for notables, and since they have their own connection number at the top of their profile (plus various links that lead to the help page), they will figure it out pretty quickly I think. Where are you seeing "CC7" for notables? I only see it if I use the button to make a G2G post.

Comments

Every profile with a Notables Sticker now has their "connected status" at the top of their page. Below that is their number of connections. That is their CC7.

Also, the policy for Notability is that a person must meet Wikipedia's standards for Notability - not have a Wikipedia page. Thus, some people may be eligible without a Wikipedia page, while others with a Wikipedia page may actually not be eligible. And, you are also correct that Wikipedia does eventually remove those pages.

---

David, it does not say "CC7".  It says:

Notable Connection
XXX connections

Not a mention of CC7.

---

Correct. It does not say CC7, but that is what it is.

---

But part of Danielle's complaint was that it says CC7, and that the "casual viewer" will not understand what that is.

And change the display to read something other than ''CC7'', which a carual viewer will not know the meaning of. 

asked

 by Danielle Liard 

---

Ok, I missed that in Daniels original post.

---

I have previously posted that the fact that the "Notable Connection" title is NOT identified as to what it means is a flaw. 

For instance, Adrienne Duvivier has "Notable Connection" of 59,552, BUT since she is connected to the one global wikitree, she is actually connected to over 30 million profiles. 

So then I think wikitree SHOULD more clearly identify what those 59,552 connections are. And I don't think the term "CC7" is a CLEAR identification. 

I am a very active wikitree member and I am not even sure what CC7 means. Some suggestions for a clear id of what I "think" it means ...

:- 7 Degree Connection Count 

:- Population of Earliest 7 Generations 

:- Profile's Oldest Known Ancestor Population

:- Number of Ancestors in Earliest 7 Known Generations

---

If you click on the (?) link or the "Notable Connections" link it will take you to a help page that explains what "CC7" is. The wording "connection count" mirrors the wording on user profiles.

---

I think I have clicked on it before, but the definition never sticks in my mind. At any rate, I am not motivated to keep on clicking on it to remind me of what the definition is. Maybe because I haven't been able to make any use of that info. So I am always wondering if I really know what CC7 means. That is why I would like to see it more easily & visibly clarified without having to take extra clicks ... which I am not apt to do when I am busy with other research.

Because I see many wikitree newbies who aren't confident in a lot of wikitree basics such as even adjusting relationships, then I tend to think there are also many other wikitree members who are also not sure what more complicated expressions like "CC7" or "Notable Connections" means. Even a wikitree member like me who is quite competent at wikitree basics, isn't confident I have a correct understanding of what those terms mean, so I wish it could be clearly stated. It is unfortunate that others  appear to disagree :(

Answer 5

I would just do away this notables sticker business. There is no clear international definition and that leads to personal interpretaties.

Use categories instead. No more sticker pollution!

Answer 6

Like Danielle, Adrienne is my 9th great-grandmother. Respectfuly, I disagree with Danielle that Adrienne is not a notable individual. If as it indicates on her Wikipedia page is true that she is considered a co-founder of Montreal with her compatriot Jeanne Mance, she is notable. Notability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Reasons that Wikitree uses Wikipedia pages to automatically define someone as being notable may include the various privacy laws that Wikitree has to comply with around the world. It is a very good defense against privacy lawsuits that Wikitree is not violating anyone's privacy when the information is generally available on Wikipedia. 

Wikitree's elimination of the current bright line rule that everyone who has a Wikipedia page is per se notable would undercut Wikitree's privacy defense to rely on the determinations made in Wikipedia. A consequence of eliminating the bright line rule would be opening WikiTree to additional litigation and more potential liability. 

So if someone wants to challenge a Wikipedia determination of notability as they can, they should request a Wikipedia review. My understanding is that Wikipedia will review pages and remove the pages of any individuals that upon reconsideration are determined not to be notable under their standards.

I would add that having a Wikipedia page is not the only mechanism in Wikitree for having an individual to be considered notable for WikiTree purposes.  Just yesterday, I asked a project leader to review Henry Shepherd. After review, the project leader found that Henry established the Wikipedia standards of notability despite not having a Wikipedia page.

An additional advantage of the Wikipedia bright line rule is that it removes the subjective test of notability between the various eyes of the respective beholders to an objective test of whether the individual has a Wikipedia page. 

  

Comments

Wikipedia page on her actually has errors or unsourced affirmations.  She is NOT here in 1642, contrary to the plaque linked above.  Augustin Hébert was here, but he traveled to France in 1646-7 and married her in Paris, their first child is born in France in 1647.  The article also states she was among those who laid the first stone for the Notre-Dame church in 1672.  Unsourced totally, Histoire de Montréal is referenced in the English version (they omit giving author, who was Camille Bertrand (link to source)) says nothing whatsoever about this.  And Adrienne had 7 children with her second husband, not just 4.

I've been doing some digging into the various names listed on that plaque.  2 names on there are Antoine Damien and his wife Marie Joly.  Who were servants of Pierre Puiseaux sieur de Montrénault, (no WikiTree profile), and had married in Québec city in 1641, leaving with Pierre Puiseaux in 1644.  They certainly don't qualify as notable, although Pierre does.

Jean Baptiste Le Gardeur was here at the time, he is 10 years old, found in church records in 1643 as godfather of some native people.  He is notable for other reasons.  Not for having been here then.

Jean Gory and his wife Marie Panie are also a couple who married in Québec city, in 1639.  They also join the expedition in 1642 to found Montréal, but did not remain.

Nicolas Godé, his wife and children are on the plaque.  They are here then and quite prominent in the colony.  No Wikipedia page for any of them. (another of my ancestors)

Jean Robelin, not sure where the given name Jean comes from, I only find reference to him under the name François.  Jean Caillot, Pierre Laimery.  All of these were here, didn't remain.

Catherine Barre is found being godmother of native people in religious records as early as 1643, she was definitely here in 1642.  Listed as Charlotte Barre though.  She was in Sillery as early as 1641 doing the same.  She arrived with Madeleine de la Peltrie, and became an Ursuline nun later in Québec city.

Many of these have their presence attested only by an inquest done in Québec city on 2 February 1642 (before they all came to Montréal).

So, with all that said, if you insist on qualifying her as notable, then I will insist on the proper sticker being applied.  Which is {{Notables Sticker|Notables de Nouvelle-France}}.  Categorize by lowest applicable.  Although Notables categories are strange in that they also get stuck in the overall category Notables.

And if Notables project could get multiple languages versions made for these stickers, this would actually be much more appropriate.  Having an English language sticker on a French bio looks strange.

---

Danielle,

I have no problem, in this case, using the sticker with the parameter you suggested.  I will add it to the profile.

I also fully agree with your suggestion regarding multiple language versions of the stickers.