Profiles that now represent a different person.

Question

When a profile has been changed to represent a different person, is it best to leave it be, or to change it back to the person it was originally meant for?  In either case, a new profile for the other person may need to be created.

This is mostly an issue when a profile is created without enough information to let people know who it is supposed to represent.

Comments

My simplified understanding/interpretation of WikiTree guidelines is that if a profile represented an identifiable person at its creation, the profile should not be changed to represent a different person.

For the situation you describe, I would restore the original identity to the profile. I would create a new profile for the other person.

Only if the profile had no more information than names and had no connections to other profiles would I consider "recycling" the profile to represent an identifiable person.

Answer 1

Do you have an example in mind? Cases such as these are fixed by the Unknowns Project. See this page for info on what you've described ...    https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Recycling_WikiTree_IDs

Answer 2

Often, what I find is that the “original person” was a conflation of multiple people, or that the new person is, or that both are. So my answer to your question depends on which situation applies, and you need some deep research to be sure first.

But if the original profile was not conflated, and it has been modified to become so, then I think reverting to the original (retaining modifications that added relevant sources) is appropriate.

Comments

I agree. Exactly my answer. Exactly my problem with 8 different DNA Randolphs and overlapping names.

I find it helpful to work with several open tabs to do a comparative analysis. I also on occasion have one tab open on my tablet to make it easier to read documents.

Answer 3

An example is Neff-761.  It was created in 2014 for Rev. Jacob Neff, b. 16 Feb. 1727, Germantown, PA, d. 16 Feb. 1814, Lancaster Co., PA.  There wasn't much other information in the profile, but eventually the correct wife, Anna Brackbill, was added.  In 2017, the parents of a different Jacob Neff (not a Rev.), with similar dates, were added, and then a detailed biography of this new Jacob (cut and pasted from FindAGrave) was included.  A couple of years later, a new profile for the Rev. Jacob Neff was created (Neff-1756).  

The easiest solution at this point, would have been to just leave the two profiles for the two Jacobs, modifying them as needed.  Instead, I chose to

1. Revert the information in Neff-761 back to Rev. Jacob Neff.

2. Propose a merge of Neff-761 and Neff-1756.

3. Create a new profile for the second Jacob Neff (Neff-3764).

It was more work that way, but it seemed to be what the Wikitree rules require.

Comments

By rules, I assume you mean the page that says you are not to recycle IDs?

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Recycling_WikiTree_IDs

In the situation you describe, the IDs have already been recycled (although I would say a gradual morphing is not the same meaning as the way "recycle" is used on that page). I don't see in the policy that profiles that were recycled in the past need to be reverted to the original state — just that they were not to be recycled in the first place. The rationale for the policy, for instance that it screws up Google and other search algorithms, would seem to suggest maybe not doing the three steps you mention and leaving the profiles alone. If the first Neff profile spent most of its life as the not-Rev. Jacob Neff, then bringing it back to be the Rev. Jacob Neff would screw with search. Maybe I'm wrong about how I interpret it, but I would have left the two profiles in their current identities, and as you say, that's much less work.

I think it would be good to have a little more clarity on that recycle page.

---

I agree that more clarity on the "Recycling WikiTree IDs" page would be helpful, since it doesn't address this issue of a profile that has changed over time to reflect a new person.

---

Hi William - what you did is just right. Thank you! And I think y'all are right that the Recycling page could be improved, I'll take a look.