Proposal for Pre-1700 Certification and source-related help page changes [closed]

Question

Hello WikiTreers,

Many of us have been working on improvements to our Pre-1700 Certification system and source-related help pages. We are ready to propose a round of changes.

Pages for you to consider:

1. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Draft_Pre-1700_Questions
2. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Reliable_Sources
3. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Draft_Sources

The most important change we are proposing is that the pre-1700 quiz be replaced with this questionnaire. The form would send the member's answers to a group of pre-1700 Project Leaders and Rangers. It would not be like pre-1500 certification where the member waits for the group to vote. The member would be able to begin creating profiles and editing right away, as it is under the current system. But since Leaders and Rangers would be alerted immediately, they could review the member's early contributions and intervene if they are not consistent with the answers the member gave on the form. This approach would also open up new opportunities for project collaboration.

To support this, we drafted a new help page (expanding on work started by Kay Knight some months ago): Help:Reliable_Sources

We also made some draft changes to Help:Sources. See Help:Draft_Sources. As you may notice, there is an explanation of what makes a complete source citation, along with more examples of source citations and explanations of them.

What do you think? Please note that we have limited objectives here. Improvements have been suggested and discussed for years. It is difficult to reach agreement on ambitious proposals. We are seeking to improve the current situation, not perfect it.

To facilitate moving this discussion forward, we have posted three answers and invite you to vote up your choice and comment beneath it. Please don't vote down other answers. You are welcome to post your own answer. Please don't post a comment at the top if you want others to see it; these will be hidden once read.

Onward and upward, for our shared family tree,

Chris Whitten and Ian Speed

Comments

Update 27 Sep 2023: We are moving forward with this.

1. Help:Reliable_Sources is now an official help page.
2. Help:Draft_Sources has become the new Help:Sources
3. We will work on the technical side of implementing Help:Draft_Pre-1700_Questions to replace the current Pre-1700 Self-Certification Quiz.

---

Update 11 Jan 2024: This is now live. See https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1688516/have-you-seen-the-new-pre-1700-self-certification and https://www.wikitree.com/form/pre_1700

Answer 1

Yes, I agree that these would be positive improvements. At most, I would suggest minor changes. [Detail your suggested changes in a comment here.]

Comments

A comment on the Reliable Sources page.  I'm not sure about calling "Passenger Lists" a reliable source.  Passenger Lists are often reconstructed and not necessarily original records.  I also think there could be confusion with the Ancestry.com database Passenger and Immigration Lists, 1500s-1900s, which is information indexed from mostly secondary sources, some reliable, some not.

Is there a better term?  Ship manifests, immigration records (such as Oath of Allegiance?)

---

Detail warning.

@Michel re: Draft Help Page Help:Reliable Sources (wikitree.com)

There is one critical improvement to this draft page which should be considered: at no point in the draft are the key terms "source" or "reliable" defined. 

The word "Source" is linked to Help:Sources (wikitree.com), where one finds: "A source is the identification of where you obtained information." This G2G discussion indicates a much more nuanced approach and a fundmentally different definition. Rather than "the identification of where you obtained" something, most posts here suggest that the "source" is actually the person originally supplying the original data (regardless of where a genealogist may have found it later). There is a second usage which is almost as prevalent, in which the term "source" refers to the first (written or other) record made based on the data provided by the (source) person. Then there are numerous other "sources" in which that initial record was preserved, copied, collected, compiled, transcribed, translated and/or interpreted by one or more individuals to create some meaningful information or narrative. The definition of "source" found on the (linked) page seems to focus entirely on what happens next: some genealogist "finds" information and "identifies" the location, so that another genealogist might also find it. That definition would probably fit the concept of "citation" better than "source".

As for "reliable": A common understanding of this essential term is simply taken for granted in the draft Help: page. We learn that "reliable sources" are required and ask "how do you know if a source is reliable?" There are guidelines for "judging reliability" and even a sweeping statement that "primary sources are the most reliable" because they are recorded "at or near the time of the event by or with someone who has first-hand knowledge". But at no point is the most basic question even adressed: What do we mean by "reliable"?

One "dictionary definition" of reliable is: "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted"  That definition works well enough for our purposes - if others agree, there should AT LEAST be some mention of this in the draft page. 

Once "reliable" has been defined, it can be very usefully applied in a discussion of which people, records, and other things referred to as "sources" are (recommended, approved, accepted - take your pick) by the WikiTree leadership to support the entry of information on pre-1700 profiles. 

a) we can't rule out that the PERSON who originally supply the data made a mistake - either intentionally or unintentionally. But parents and relatives reporting birth and death dates, as well as city clerks, priests and immigration officials may generally be considered "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted".

b) we similarly can't rule out that some time-honored genealogical works included errors of commission or omission - for whatever political and/or pecuniary reasons one cares to imagine. But certain works - especially those which show evidence of "scholarship", can also be considered "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted".

c) At the end of the day, putting ANY resource, repository or volume on a list of "reliable sources" is a decision (in our case, by a dedicated group of experienced volunteers who have accepted responsibility to help the WikiTree community by becoming "project leaders") to recommend, approve or accept the items on that list as "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted". 

IMHO, a carefully constructed, well-defined statement of what WikiTree means by "source" and by "reliable" would go a long way toward ending the endless discussion about "reliable sources". We could still use the term as a shorthand, but it would be clear that:

1) the lists include "sources" which, in the opinion of the relevant project leader, are recommended/approved/accepted as "consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted" - and therefore "reliable". MUCH more important is the converse: anything NOT on the list has simply proven to fail this test! What we are REALLY trying to avoid is for new, enthusiastic WikiTreers to more-or-less "blindly" copy data which can only be found in places which are constently poor in quality and performance and therefore not able to be trusted.

2) Each bit of data ("My name is "Friedrich Müller"), each transcription (port official writes "Miller"), transcription (handwriting is unclear, so typed list reads "Mills"), and interpretation (biographer claim Fred Mills arrived, based on typed list) is only as reliable as the individuals involved. Each genealogist must decide whether or not it is "able to be trusted" - especially if conflicting indications exist. None of that diminishes in ANY way the invaluable help which WikiTree project leaders provide by creating and maintaining lists of "reliable sources" - or the important quality-assurance factor involved in ensuring that anyone working on pre-1700 profiles is aware of and willing to abide by the corresponding safeguards.

---

Ithink what we are haggling over is the difference between academically acceptable and general populace acceptable sources.  a family can be a source just one we do not allow  I can create a 100% reliable one for my immediate family but that does not make it acceptable here.   But WT should not be making up its own terms.  We should be consistent if we point to accredidited references why are we rewriting them?  Seems counter productive.  Just point to the relevant passages in the reference.

---

Hi Laura,

I apologize in advance if my posts give the impression that I am "haggling" over anything. Whether we like it or not, the word "source" can be used in many different ways. WikiTree does not need to (and should not) "make up its own" - just be clear about which one we are using!

You point out one example of such differences (which you call "academic" vs "general populace"). The Help page on "sources", referenced above, defines "source" as the "identification" of where you found something. You write that a "family" can be a source, and that you could "create" a source. Already, the word "source" is being used to mean at least three different things: (a) The person(s) who provided the data (family as source), (b) the record of that data (you could create) and (c) the identification of where someone like me found that information (the "source" as defined on the WikiTree Help:Sources page).

The ONLY thing I am suggesting is that these different meanings of the word "source" are acknowledged and the one being used at a given moment clearly identified,  - especially when combined with the term "reliable". I believe that would help reduce any need for "haggling".

---

I agree.

My Philosophy_

READ. REVIEW. EDIT. REVIEW

My favorite question_

Do you use a map of the time period?

---

Source Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster   why redefine what is already defined?   note1.3 and 3 are pertinent to our needs  yes a person can be a source as noted in 1.3  What WT defines as acceptable source is defined in 3.

---

Hi Laura! Thanks for bringing in the dictionary!

It is certainly not my intention (or recommendation) to  "redefine what is already defined". There is an important difference between the (noun) definition 1.b.3, the (noun) definition 3, and the (verb) definitions 1+2. 

I was trying to suggest that the various Help pages could be improved by being clear and consistant in their use of language - identifying when which of the "dictionary" definitions you supplied is being used, and when (if) they are creating an idiosyncratic "WikiTree" definition. 

When it comes to "What WT defines as an acceptable source" (BTW: I would welcome the use of that term rather than "reliable"), you seem to have found a much clearer statement of "What WT defines" than I have. As a "newt", it seems to me that "WT" (in various Help pages and G2G discussions, and in the case of some project-approved "reliable sources") uses the term "source" much more broadly than indicated by Merriam Webster's (noun) definitions 1.b.3 or 3.  The focus of many guidelines and rules seems to be more on the definitions of the verb "to source".  

Once again, I apologize if this seems to be "haggling". I promise that this will be my final G2G post on the topic for at least 30 days. My comments were intended to be helpful - giving feedback to "the Team" about how confusing I found the labyrinth of WikiTree terms, guidelines and rules regarding "reliable sources" as they consider this proposal to change the pre-1700 certification procedure. If, after review, "the Team" decides that no changes of wording or terminology are necessary, then so be it.

---

The one thing that I think really needs to be changed about the "requirements" for Pre-1700 Certification is that the "Contributions" count is way too low. Anyone new (or just recently active, even if their account has existed for longer) can do 50 contributions pretty quickly. Anytime they hit the SAVE button on a profile, it's a contribution. I would much prefer at least a one-month-old membership/account and at least 150 contributions.

If one assumes that the member is living and at least 18 years old, they should be able to do their immediate ancestors back to the 1700s using the nominal WT standards for "modern" profiles. If they edit and save each profile at least twice (once upon creation and once to edit after creation), they'll have those 150 contributions pretty quickly. That will give whoever goes over the application at least some clue as to whether or not they can find and cite a primary, acceptable source.

Most of our new accounts, if I'm not mistaken, are not actually people "new" to genealogy. They've done (or at least looked at) family trees on other sites (FamilySearch, Ancestry, MyHeritage, etc.) The trees on those sites are VERY different from WikiTree standards so far as the creation of profiles, the addition of sources, and the oversight/monitoring of the site and individual profiles. (And let's not even mention the import of GEDCOMs.)

---

I agree with Carole's suggestion and have long felt that the 50 contributions were too low and being a member for at least one week is not enough!

---

Update 27 Sep 2027: We are moving forward with only minor changes.

Some of the ideas mentioned above were implemented, but only those that were minor and specific. Anything that would have required deliberation, a new proposal, and further discussion would have introduced significant delays. Since there is overwhelming agreement that the proposed changes represent an improvement over the current system, we are moving forward.

Remember, you can always make a new proposal: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Developing_New_Rules

Onward and upward, for our shared family tree,

Chris and the WikiTree Team

Answer 2

I agree with some of this proposal but would not support it without major changes. [Detail your suggested changes in a comment here or post a new answer.]

Comments

First point: the present quiz has a major flaw concerning Ancestry. As a non-user I could not see through the available options. Had to guess what was meant. The proposed questionaire is way more transparent

Second point, a flaw in the proposed procedure: Not all edits are about use of sources. Fixing typo's, fixing DataDoctor suggestions (eg refs), adding location categories for existing locations, to name some. These are put on hold until you do something where the sources do play a part. An option to refer to a recent change could solve this. I believe this is more than a minor change.

Third point. I wish for a way to indicate a source link contains (a link to) an image of a reliable source. eg FS films.

Fourth point. The FS image citation refers to a certain image on the film. I suggest making a point of adding something that aids the reader in finding the right information in the image.

---

I would echo the comments by Andrew Turvey regarding concerns about creating "barriers to entry to new people" and by GM Garrettson regarding "helping new WikiTreers gain the necessary awareness, competence and CONFIDENCE for them to actively help grow the common tree". Those comments were posted under the "do not approve" answer.

The proposed sources pages are an improvement, but the proposed questionnaire is way too bureaucratic. Why not stick to the "wiki way"? After being informed of the expectations regarding sourcing, coordination with projects, and other pre-1700 expectations, simply allow them to edit.
The same project leaders and Rangers who would be informed of a newly completed questionnaire could be informed of edits by uncertified members and have an opportunity to correct, or completely back out, whatever was posted. At worse, unsourced "folklore" should only be shown on WikiTree for a day or two until corrected. Since, under the proposal, the person seeking certification would be able to go ahead and edit immediately following submission of the questionnaire, the same risk of inaccurate or incomplete edits showing up on WikiTree exists under the proposal in question.

I would be strongly deterred if I had to go to the effort of writing up a report of the work I intend to do, only to have to repeat the same process of authorship, but in a different form, when actually editing the profile. Would I also be expected to similarly write up yet another narrative of what I intend to do and run it by projects that might be associated with the profile as part of the "coordination" expectation before I could actually make the contribution I want to make and move on to other findings of my research? Again, I would encourage "the wiki way": go ahead and add or edit the profile with the knowledge that others will be looking (especially with pre-1700 profiles) and can make corrections or even back out bad contributions.

Ideally, when first making a pre-1700 contribution, a member would be greeted by a mentor with an interest in the time, place and circumstances involved. Maybe even by a cousin with whom they share that ancestor! The mentor might be able to point out other sources to examine or give some formatting suggestions. That seems like a much friendlier and encouraging approach than the current notion that someone who is trying to contribute a research finding (which may be one of many) has to pause, figure out which project, if any, covers the time and place in question and then try to figure out how to contact the project when the project page does not even provide contact information, meanwhile trying to digest the project's sourcing and formatting expectations and teasing them out of the other spurious expectations, such as "to be a member of this project to need to add two profiles per year".

---

I agree in principle, Randy. But in practice the available resources of Rangers, Leaders and Mentors are quite insufficient to monitor all or even a reasonable fraction of pre-1700 edits systematically. That is why a higher bar, and a semi-automated way of identifying new people wanting to carry out such edits, is being proposed.

I do agree (as others have also said) that the requirement to communicate with the relevant project should be replaced by a statement confirming that the member has read the appropriate project pages and noted the guidelines and standards there.

---

I don't think there should be any difference in the demands upon the workload of Rangers, Leaders, and Mentors. As proposed, they are given a completed questionnaire to review. What I would propose is that they review the actual edited profile. A quick look at the change history will show exactly what edits were made. A reviewer could see exactly what sources were cited and, significantly, if they were cited correctly.

I would, indeed, suggest that going the "wiki way" would actually make life just a little bit easier for a reviewer. Rather than trying to interpret how someone describes proposed edits in a questionnaire, and possibly bounce back and forth between the questionnaire and the profile in question, the exact edits could be viewed directly.

Actually, reviewing the questionnaire, only a couple of changes would suffice.

I would suggest changing question #3 to "which profile did you add or edit?"

Question #5 would be unnecessary as the citation(s) will be evident in the profile.

---

Questions 6 to 8 become meaningless and lose their educational value if question 5 is omitted.

Specifying the intended source in question 5 isn't an additional burden for the pre-1700 novice. Under the rules, they'd have to enter it on the profile anyway, and they're just preparing for that. Having it explicit in the questionnaire emphasises and draws their attention to the requirement.

---

Question #4 pertains to contacting a project. I would suggest more guidance is needed. It's something I've always struggled with. I've concluded that if the profile is tagged with the project name, the project will be notified when changes are made. The project can then review changes if they are interested.

I've never been able to find a way to just "contact the project". I've never seen a "contact the project" button. At best, the project page might include a list of project leadership. Are we really supposed to pick one of these people and PM them? Is that "communicating with the project"?

If we are concerned about workload demands upon volunteers, isn't the expectation that a PM dialog is opened every time you want to make a pre-1700 edit would seem to be a huge and burdensome demand.

More work is needed on clarifying what kind of communication should take place and how it is to be initiated.

---

Mary's suggestion for replacing question 4 at this link is good.

---

Oneof the most eggregious issues comes from gedcom uploads   I think no pre-1700 profile should be allowed via gedcom upload

Answer 3

No, I do not support these changes. It would be better to keep the status quo. [You may wish to propose something different. If you do, post a link to it from a comment here.]

Comments

My preference would be for an on line learning module which ends with an assessment and I would call the module something like - "Identifying, evaluating and documenting genealogical evidence for Wikitree". It seems to me that you teach people first (or check/refresh their knowledge).

Regarding the sentence in the draft reliable sources help page:

"we have a strict requirement to only use reliable sources"

I query the use of "only". As good genealogists we look at all the evidence and critically evaluate it. Part of that critical evaluation is assessing the reliability of each piece of evidence.

As a general observation there is no use of the word evidence in the draft pre-1700 questions nor in the draft reliable sources help page. There is a reason why Elizabeth Shown Mills called her book "Evidence Explained".

---

I suggest you keep a close eye on the impact of this change on the number of new people becoming pre-1700 editors and the number of new pre-1700 articles being produced.

The danger is that changes like this, whilst understandable in themselves, accumulate to create both a barrier to entry to new people - stultifying the project - and make inconsistencies between the few new people who pass the stricter tests and the more numerous existing people who became pre-1700 when the standards were lower.

---

Andrew, I share your concern about whether this will be offputting to some good potential contributors.  When I think back to when I originally became pre-1700 qualified, I'm not sure that I would have completed a questionnaire like this.  I need to give a little more thought to why.

As far as the discrepancy between those certified under the old v new system, those who are having difficulty complying with pre-1700 requirements can have their certification removed and go through the new process.

I'm not sure I would say I oppose the approach, but it would be interesting to check numbers or ask for feedback from users.

---

I strongly support Steve Hunt's preference stated above. In my opinion, the emphasis shouldn't be so much on enforcing (self taught) rules and restrictions, but on helping new WikiTreers gain the necessary awareness, competence and CONFIDENCE for them to actively help grow the common tree as soon as possible after joining the community. Those of you who have been around a while may not realize just how labyrinthine the path can be for us "newts". I still think the proposal has merit - but the concerns expressed above should be carefully considered. The goal should be to INCREASE the pool of active, competent pre-1700 contributors. It will be interesting to see if the proposal, when implemented, actually contributes to reaching that goal - or merely allows an ever-smaller group of certified individuals to feel better about the quality of their collective work.

---

I think this is a very helpful chain of responses. I honestly think that Wikitree does a very good job with the task it is presented with and that it is a positive in the world of genealogy. I think that it should continue to be as inclusive as possible as it is a volunteer project and not to set up any roadblocks unnecessarily. Knowledge and instructions go a long way because members are interested and motivated.

---

I think an online learning module would be great, but insisting people sit through it before doing the assessment might be a mistake.

That sequence makes sense for anyone that it is new to genealogy. However, for someone that could use their existing work as a thesis for the PhD in History referred to earlier it would be insulting. Perhaps the trigger for the learning module would be any answer that results in "Can't Proceed".

---

I like getting up as many profiles as I can and I am not very good with getting everything right, so I always appreciate someone better at it can come along and correct my work. I would love it if I had a person elected to checking my profiles.

Answer 4

The pre 1700 quiz is such a valuable asset to WikiTree. If this proposal is implemented, could the quiz be renamed and adapted as a pre1800 quiz?

Comments

Please take a look at this....https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1138829/should-this-become-official-wikitree-policy-change-1700-badge?show=1138829#q1138829   If you want to repropose, it should be a different question.

---

That proposal was totally different in that everything pre 1700 on WT pages would have had to be replaced. In this instance just the quiz is being applied to pre 1800. I am not making a proposal, but would like to know what is going to happen to the pre 1700 quiz if it is replaced.  I have always considered the quiz as a good lead as to how members should approach research in general as such I see this as an opportunity to not just delete it but apply it in a positive way. This current proposal implies that it should be deleted.

---

The main issue with the pre-1700 quiz is that it is only useful if you work on US profiles and work with US based sources.

---

Here is the quiz https://www.wikitree.com/quiz/pre_1700

Maybe you have not read it or read it long ago. Please enlighten us and tell us which of the 14 questions relate only to US profiles.

---

Louis,

Q 2 to 4. And probably 5 for a lot of countries.

Not US, but what have 8 to 13 got to do with a time period? Those are honor code/code of conduct, valid for anyone.

---

Agree that the current pre-1700 quiz is a valuable educational tool that should remain on Wikitree for users who would like to take it, even if it's no longer the route to pre-1700 certification.  I don't support making it a required prerequisite to working on pre-1800 profiles, however.

---

Michel, Why do you say that Q2 - 4, and maybe 5, are only US profiles?  Ancestry, FS, and Find a Grave have sources for many countries, other than US. I look for sources for England and Scotland on Ancestry, as an example.

The later questions don't have anything to do with any time period, but they are good reminders of other parts of Wikitree that members should be aware of, since there was no other place to make sure that members knew that information.

With the new test, those questions have been removed, which will also mean that members will not be informed about those areas probably.

---

Linda, one should look at good sources and link to the primary source. And users should not be told in the quiz that for every profile here you should go to a US company or religious organization for information. Members should look at the help pages of the respective projects/countries instead.

A quiz should be about what you want people to learn, not something else.

---

You are reading that quiz differently that I am reading it.  It does not state that you have to go to those sites to get information.  The answers to those questions being asked are on the wikitree site in Help pages, such as Help Page for Sources and US and International Marriage Space page.  I found them by using Google with wikitree in the search.  Those pages answer the question if the 'exact wording' as stated in the quiz is reliable or not.

Ancestry and Family Search are repositories for family trees, as well as Reliable Sources. Many of the sources found on both sites, that are considered reliable by projects, are not found online anywhere else or with the same detail or images as found on those sites, but that is not what the questions were asking. 

If a source is entered as familysearch.org with nothing else, is that considered reliable?  No, because it gives no information about where you found the information on the site.  That is all that the question is asking. 

Answer 5

Wikidata needs to be added as an unreliable source.

Ann

Comments

I point to this, Ann: Help: Wikidata - Wikidata is not a source.

---

Problem is because it comes up in your suggestions people assume it is a source..

Ann

---

I agree Ann - the Suggestions (Errors) list make it seem that if your WT data point does not match the WikiData version, it is the WT one which is at fault. There is so much rubbish which has been scraped into WikiData (The Peerage for instance) that it makes it virtually useless.

Answer 6

The enhancements are both significant and urgently required. Immediate implementation is strongly recommended.

Answer 7

How do GEDCOMs fit into the pre-1700 and pre-1500 certifications? That is, can someone that is not certified still able to upload their pre-1700 profiles? Is there is something in the GEDCOMpare tool that alerts a person that they must be certified first?

Comments

Hi Nikki, this proposal doesn't involve changes to GEDCOMpare. There's a summary of how Gedcoms work for pre-1700 profiles on G2G here: Pre1700 gedcoms. My experience using GEDCOMpare is limited, but I believe the usual alerts are triggered if an uncertified member seeks to use it to add or edit a pre-1700 or pre-1500 profile.

---

Thank you, Ian.

Answer 8

Question: the pre-1700 Questions sound as if members who already have the pre-1700 badge need to do the questions too?

I'm asking, because of my ancestors I only added one pre-1700 generation (sourced death after 1700, pre-1700 birth estimated from the sources). So I don't have information to add other pre-1700 profiles. I'm working on Italian location categories and also add them to pre-1700 profiles. But for those profiles, I don't have sources that I could add in the pre-1700 Questions.

Edit: typo

Comments

Thanks for asking this, I. Your question could indeed benefit from clarification in the introductory material.

However, I don't think re-qualification will actually be required. The implication of question number 2 is that people who already have the pre-1700 badge from the old quiz cannot take the new questionnaire:

2.) Have you had WikiTree's Pre-1700 certification in the past?

• Yes [can't proceed; Say,"Please email [pre-1700 group] about recovering your certification."]
• No.

---

What needs to be clarified, I think, is if that question only applies only to those who have, at some time, lost their pre-1700 badge - or if it also applies to those who currently have the pre-1700 badge.

---

Not quite. The real issue is whether the whole new questionnaire applies to people who currently have the pre-1700 badge. I don't think it does, but if I'm wrong then the implication from what Melanie says is that question 2 needs to be reworded.

---

If you already have your Pre-1700 badge, you will not need to requalify. Only if your badge has been removed, will you need to answer the Pre-1700 Questions to regain it.

---

Thank you for the answer to the main issue I. Caruso raised.

But if you have had the badge and lost it, the new questionnaire does not seem to be the way forward. Question 2 of it explicitly says you cannot proceed with the questionnaire in that case, but instead have to engage in an email discussion.

---

Question 2 directs you to the next step. I think it's pretty clear.

---

Just to explain things a little more ... yes, question 2 focuses on members who have had their pre-1700 badge removed.

Currently, under Help:Pre-1700 Badge Removal, a member whose badge has been removed needs to email the Project Leader who removed it when re-certifying for a pre-1700 badge. Under this proposal, the member will be asked to email the pre-1700 group, instead, to regain their pre-1700 badge. This will only affect a very small percentage of members.

---

Thank you all for your answers and for the clarification!

Answer 9

I think this is great. Many thanks to all those who worked on this project.--GeneJ

Answer 10

Many thanks to those who contributed to these new pages. The "Reliable Sources" page is excellent and should be very helpful.

Answer 11

Great ideas!

Answer 12

I do like Wikitree and I appreciate the issues that the pre-1700s (and pre-1500s) certifications try to resolve. May I suggest a way of enabling the use of the pre-1700s entries, beyond establishing that the individual isn't already in the tree, is to incorporate a kind of source value to all sources when applied.

The fact is though, that most sources of information that relate to the pre-1700s are rarely of primary origin and the secondary sources have a very wide range of quality to establish whether a fact or event is true and more importantly whether that fact or event applies to a specific individual or even a specific family. I personally take sourcing a piece of information very seriously and while I might include a source to justify an event, even if the association might be flawed, I will still include it with two types of quality of source measurement. The first to judge the quality of the source, 1°, 2°, derived, another tree etc and the second to judge the applicability of the source to the individual concerned, ie does the baptism register include both parents' names or just one.

By systemising the sourcing with a user-judged quality estimation, others can evaluate the information offered and if the information seems flawed, offer alternatives with sources to justify a change.

Comments

Hi Martin,

while I applaud your attention to the quality of the information you find in the records you cite in your work, I am not comfortable with the idea that any "source" (nebulously defined, often quite extensive) could be given a meaningful "quality estimation". In much of the work I have been doing recently, it may come down to whether a certain word in a pre-1700 manuscript can be "reliably" interpreted. The collection of church records in which that particular entry is found would presumably be considered "reliable" - but that does not automatically apply to everything in that "source".

So I would caution against any system which tries to identify entire "sources" as "reliable". At the end of the day, each genealogist needs to carefully consider whatever information they find (in one or more, often contradictory sources). The conclusions drawn may or may not be correct, whether the source(s) used are evaluated as being "reliable", or not.

Answer 13

In sourcing, I find page, film, and other such information about a source I cannot get to, UNuseful to me. What I would really like to know is what did the the source show about the person?

I have an ancestor which lists Connecticut birth, marriage and death sources at the bottom. But does not indicate who or when the sources are for. And the bio only gives born about.., married about...died about, suggesting that they are not for him.

Answer 14

As a recent self certifier, under the current process, I'll say that I am in favor of a more rigorous process including formal review of a a quiz.

I think that it will provide an extra level of seriousness to the process, not that I have seen any issues in the month that I have been working on the 'one' tree.

Answer 15

As a recent regular, but not prolific, user of Wikitree I support the proposals. They clearly and concisely describe the expectations, and I think improve on what was there before. I was a bit confused on areas using the existing quiz as a guide. Think it's a good job done by all involved!

I agree with some of the comments on the 'reliability' terminology. However, I think it's the best fit for what we are trying to do - we need something. But agree with the points re conflation of terminology. 

As someone put it to me the other day we are using single event data to create connections between individuals. I.e. generally the reason for why the data was collected or record was made is not what we are using it for now, and that's irreconcilable to me. I have put more thoughts on this here. 

Answer 16

A couple of suggestions:

I'm assuming that this would be added on to the current pre-1700 profile page.  If that's the case, I think it might be helpful to be more direct about expectations.  One can infer the expectations from the questions, and the topics are covered or at least touched on in the pre-1700 page, but I think that will be frustrating for some people.

I sometimes think that the WikiTree help pages, while always well-written, can be a little indirect.  For example, the pre-1700 page references complete citations, with a link to a help page elegantly linked in the text.  But nowhere does it say you are expected to use complete citations. And I know some people will argue that it's obvious, but to many people it's not.

I'd suggest adding something more direct like a checklist for preparing to edit pre-1700 profiles that will basically be a guideline for completing the questionnaire. (Look for an associated project, check last name guidelines)  I'd also include some reminders about collaboration such as communication before making significant edits, such as adding or removing connections. (My pet peeve is people adding parents to PGM project-managed profiles without as much as word). And a reminder to make sure to not create duplicates.

I feel like much of the discussion has revolved around more advanced genealogical principles, when what I've observed is that the problem is at a much more basic level.