PROPOSED CHANGE to Privacy settings

Question

When WikiTree was created, there were OPEN and PUBLIC privacy settings. The latter allowed members of the TRUSTED LIST to make changes.

In 2017, WikitTee made a change to the privacy settings, forcing all profiles of people born over 150 years ago or who died over 100 years ago to be OPEN.

There are some profiles, typically under co-,management of the PGM project team, which have seen a great deal of time and research invested in them. Changes to these profiles are supposed to be collaborative - unfortunately this is more often that not ignored.

Arbitrary changes have been made to WOOD-114, for example, which are not factual. The work required to keep this profile accurate - despite such public changes - is too much.

PROPOSAL:

The 2017 change, to require all profiles of people born over 150 years ago or who died over 100 years ago to be OPEN, should be CHANGED to allow any profile co-managed by the PGM team to be set to PUBLIC.

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/tag/proposals

Comments

What does "PGM" refer to?

---

See

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Puritan_Great_Migration

and more generally

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

Answer 1

What makes the PGM project so special that it can do an anti-collaborative step like locking profiles that are well dead and have no privacy concerns? The linked profile Wood-114has Project protection on it at the moment. Why is that not enough? 

When I started on WikiTree the limit on having a profile open privacy was 300 years and you could have as Green public, Yellow private or red private (and the other settings) privacy a profile less than 300 years old. That was in 2012 and that was not very helpful at all. This proposal would be even more restrictive than what we had then. 

If someone is adding incorrect information to a profile there are steps that can be taken to rectify it like Reverting profiles, Contacting the member, Problems with Members process, Getting pre-1700 or pre-1500 badges removed etc. Looking at the change log for Wood-114 I don't see any real arbitrary changes just people adding sources and mentioning that there were multiple people around that time with similar names.

Comments

Thanks for your feedback.

In fact, a few years ago the entire profile had to be redone due to misinformation being added by the public. Over the last week, Bobbie Hall of the PGM project and I have again been correcting accumulated errors. There are so many pre-1650 people with the name JOHN WOOD that this profile receives a number of problem changes.

The question is, rather than chasing the problems after they occur, why not make a change that PGM project managed profiles can be set to PUBLIC (trusted list changes only).

Since the PGM is known for the good work, why should this proposed change be of concern?

---

This proposed change is of concern as it is of an anti-collaborative nature and is more about control of profiles and subverting WikiTree's goals and the Honor Code rather than improving WikiTree. It also would open the gates for other projects to lock down their profiles as well as every project could claim that they only do good work too and deserve the same restrictive actions this proposal requests. And all it would take is one project leader deciding that the project managed profiles are not to have other people on the trusted list and people could get locked out of their direct family. (This has happened before).

 But the thing is that every project has likely made mistakes just the same as every Leader has made mistakes. Those mistakes would have been unintentional just the same as the changes to Wood-114 were unintentially applied to the wrong profile. The only thing locking the profiles down to Public privacy will do is be anti-collaborative in nature.

It could easily be considered that this proposal is breaching 4 points on the Honor Code, namely points 1, 3, 4 and 9.

---

Sorry, Mike, in general I agree with Darren. I don't think the proposal, hypothetical as it is, is itself in breach of the Honor Code. But if the proposal were implemented, the effect would be to diminish the aspects of the Code that Darren has mentioned.

We all see other people editing profiles we manage. Usually the changes are constructive, with new sources added. Sometimes after this we need to reformat. Occasionally an incorrect change is made: we fix it up if redeemable, or revert it if not. All this is part of collaboration and the wiki philosophy.

The PGM project, and other projects, face the same challenges on this as ordinary members. Projects can already deploy Project Protection to guard against drastic changes. They should not have further privileges unavailable to the rest of us.

Answer 2

The link to Wood-114 generates error-404, not found.

Comments

Fixed, thanks Gary.

Answer 3

A change proposal is supposed to set out the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed change and would be expected to have provision for voting in favour or against.
 The big issue is how to balance the collaborative nature of Wikitree with poor quality edits, and your proposal does not address those issues.
 It looks like all possible warnings to avoid confusion or bad edits are on this impressively written profile. I understand the frustration with poor quality edits, a profile I manage was edited a few days ago with autobio and now has two bio and source sections.

Comments

Yes, we included all possible warnings/requests... but they are ignored.

The benefit of the change is to ensure accurate information is available to members - while using the Trusted List feature to ensure ongoing collaboration.

Sorry, I was not aware ofvthe voting feature... any advice greatly appreciated.

---

Mike, the guidance on policy proposals is at

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

Answer 4

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

"It's important to understand that WikiTree's privacy controls are for privacy, not control."

I feel like this is an important principle of Wikitree, and I would not want it changed. I appreciate you're trying to solve a problem, but I think this is the wrong solution -- it would cause bad precedents and problems in many ways.

Answer 5

Hello Mike, I appreciate your dedication to maintaining accurate profiles. However, I align with the sentiments of many who feel that the current approach may not be suitable.

It's not uncommon to come across discussions about unwarranted changes to profiles and the subsequent need for corrections. While it can be frustrating at times, I believe Wikitree's emphasis on education and collaboration offers a more effective path.

As a profile manager, if you receive the newsletter, you'll find a section listing changes made to profiles, complete with links to view the modifications and express gratitude to the contributors. Managing numerous profiles myself, I have not encountered the issues you raised, but I actively review and acknowledge changes made by others. This collaborative process is not only a way to express gratitude but also an opportunity for education if necessary.

To me, being a profile manager involves overseeing profile activities and engaging in collaborative efforts with others. The newsletter is part of that process and a good aid to accomplish your goals you mentioned.

Answer 6

While I understand the wish to retain accuracy, this is certainly against the collaborative nature of WikiTree. Project Protection already exists to protect against the most drastic changes.

I would also highlight that the idea of this only applying to the PGM project seems highly elitist! All projects are faced with sub-quality edits; it is the responsibility of profile managers and projects to oversee their managed profiles and ensure these edits are reverted or corrected.