Can non-biological setting display on profile? [closed]

+10 votes
271 views

I've just had my first encounter with a non-biological child-parent relationship, and I was surprised at the display result.

When a parent is marked "uncertain," the word "uncertain" appears on the profile page of the child.

But when a parent is marked non-biological, nothing appears on the child's profile. In fact, it's "plain" and conveys normal status.

How difficult would it be to add "non-biological" in small letters to the resulting profile display, similar to the way the "uncertain" appears?

I'm going to close this thread because Chris has a new proposal that would meet the needs behind my request:

in WikiTree Tech by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (923k points)
closed by Jillaine Smith

2 Answers

+20 votes
Vote up (please don't use down votes) if you support this proposal.
by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (923k points)
Especially given recent G2G discussions about templating various forms of non-biological relationships, this proposal makes perfect sense to me.
+5 votes
Vote up (please don't use downvotes) if you do not support this proposal; please also add a comment and explain your objection. Thanks.
by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (923k points)

I am voting no because I am concerned that this would draw attention to what in many cases has historically been a way of stigmatising people. It is not something to emphasise publicly by marking it on the profile. If a profile manager does think it should be visible, it can be explained sensitively in the biography.

Edited to add: If the display was only visible to people on the Trusted List, that would be less problematic.

Jim, so what would you do in a case like this one:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sizemore-871

Alter the software to remove the disrespectful "non-biological" marker. Explanation in the profile is more than sufficient.

Someone from the 18th century may well not have relished the idea that their parentage, for which they were not responsible, would be flagged hundreds of years later as different from what seems to have been acknowledged on all sides during their lifetime.
Well, that's a different proposal, Jim (removal of non-biological sticker entirely); please feel free to start a separate thread about that.

I'm working with the current environment where non-biological is an option, but when chosen, results in a display that conveys inaccurate information (and from other g2g threads I've since seen, also displays inaccurate information in the form of pedigree charts).
Jillaine, the fact the fact that you posted an answer asking for "no" votes suggested that you were prepared for them. I am voting no on your idea and have given my reason—as you requested. An absence of information is not inaccurate: some parents are "non-biological" but that doesn't make them any the less parents. And existing similar cases do not justify making the cold unkindness involved in the marking even worse by widening its application.
Jim, not all non-biological parentage markings would be "unkind" - and it could be helpful to see such at a glance.
Jim, following the thread of the logic, wouldn't the existing "uncertain" option be similarly as insensitive as "non-biological"?
Melanie: one unkindness would be enough to avoid this. Convenience is a poor excuse for humiliating someone at the top of their profile.

Edison: That is not as bald or as bad. "Uncertain" is an indication that there are inadequate sources to be definite. There could be many reasons for that. It is different from an outright denial of paternity.
I have a cousin whose family trees elsewhere include a father - the man who was married to her mother, and who was the only male parent she knew her entire life.
Here on WT she has no father.  Would it be a kindness, or an unkindness to give her that father and mark him as non-biological, or is it a kindness or unkindness to leave her fatherless?
It sounds as if he acted as her father and the relationship was recognised as a parental one on both sides, similar to adoption. Therefore it would be a kindness to acknowledge it without showing a cold clinical "non-biological" at the top of the profile. It's possible to give a sensitive description in the biography. If you're not up for that, omit it. (I'm not saying the status can't be marked as non-biological on the edit tab, just that it shouldn't tactlessly be trumpeted on the display tab.)

I'm not sure why my vote is so heavily challenged here. People voting "yes" weren't even asked to give reasons, and only Edison has done so. That doesn't seem very symmetrical. Anyhow, I've made my point.
I'm ready for responses, Jim. I just felt that your response was suggesting something outside of the scope of my proposal. And the subsequent responses generated were then focused on your alternate proposal (get rid of non-biological entirely) and not on my initial proposal (change display of what happens when one selects an existing function).
I'm not making a proposal, or a request for technical change, Jillaine. I'm just voting no here.

If you read back you'll see that I merely answered a question you explicitly put to me, "what would I do" in a situation which was already different from your idea. (I also wouldn't use non-biological status on a profile I managed.) Otherwise my responses were focused on avoiding making the existing gaucherie more widespread.
I don't know if we could start showing that information -- most of the profiles with the non-biological marker are living people/members and they may have only felt comfortable choosing that option because it wasn't highlighted on their profile.
So what all of this is indicating to me is that non-biological is not an appropriate setting for long-ago or long-deceased ancestors / profiles. That in those cases, it is more appropriate to leave the non-biological parent disconnected so as to prevent inaccurate relationships and pedigrees from being displayed. And then explain it all in the biography.
If it is not appropriate to show it, why does it exist?
why does it exist?

Mostly to stop the DNA stuff from going on incorrect profiles. If the script sees a "non-biological" marker, it doesn't continue adding DNA info to the profiles in that line.

Related questions

+118 votes
43 answers
+2 votes
0 answers
207 views asked Aug 21, 2022 in WikiTree Help by Sandi Wiggins G2G6 Mach 7 (71.2k points)
+9 votes
2 answers
745 views asked Feb 12, 2022 in The Tree House by Antonia Reuvers G2G6 Mach 5 (58.7k points)
+5 votes
1 answer
+7 votes
3 answers
+8 votes
4 answers
+6 votes
1 answer

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...