SURVEY CLOSES TOMORROW

+7 votes
356 views
Hi All,

A reminder if you have not already submitted your survey answers, please take few seconds to answer a few simple questions ( 3 ) . The survey will close tomorrow at 5:00PM ( EST)Thanks Again.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QPHVFP3

Original Post:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1699921/proposal-of-change-survey?show=1701987#a1701987
in WikiTree Help by Matthew Ryckman G2G3 (3.9k points)

2 Answers

+4 votes
Done.  Though I am unclear about the meaning of the first question. I think I understood, but I may have misunderstood it.
by Lynnette Hettrick G2G6 Mach 5 (56.6k points)
Update:

I really wished I read the fine print when signing up with surveymonkey. Apparently, they only give the first 25 responses free of charge under their free plan. Needless to say, there is no other option to get the data from the survey ( outside the 25 free responses, amd there were '''48''' Responses to the survey) They dont offer a reasonable monthly subscription the lowest offer to retrieve the results is at a cost of $99.00 which is far more than what im willing to pay.

What I have done is set up a survey in Google Forms and its 100% free 100% of the responses are available no extra fees.

The link to the survey is below. I would be grateful of a few further moments of your time to complete the new survey. Again, my apologies for the oversight on my end. Ive spent 3 days arguing with surveymonkey but they will not budge.

** its my recommendation to steer clear of them for your survey needs as they are not customer service oriented and are sort of extortionists ( im my view ).

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ZboBp0RBSOMeaaJ9SkmF0dETIu_5IyZ1BqV0Lv_GR8w/edit

The survey will remain open until Friday February 16, 2024.

Thanks Again !!!

commented 1 minute ago by Matthew Ryckman G2G3
Hi Lynnette,

Basically the proposed changes would segregate the privacy and marriage policy surrounding living noteables and living non members to allow the "private" information to be unrestricted for highly visible living noteables and attached relationships. The theory is its not private if its abundantly public domain.
+3 votes
you only had 48 responses, and they were not even all in support, is that not answer enough that there is not adequate interest?
by Jonathan Crawford G2G6 Pilot (281k points)
It sounds as if Matthew doesn't know what the 26th through 48th responses were, so assessing the votes from the original survey would not have been possible.

In any case there is no requirement for unanimity in a straw poll.
Unanimity was a side note. The fact that only 48 respondents exist is my point. I dont think we should modify policy on such a small pool of interest.
I imagine there would be more votes if the proposal were actually made.  It seems like a lot of thought has gone into it already.  Why not just make the proposal rather than using 3rd party polling things?
Proposals aren't easy. Matthew was castigated (not least by me) for not making one. Now he is working towards doing so, I think we should let him choose his own approach.
I appreciate the responses everyone. As far as members being in support of it, there were 48 responses. For the first 25 responses it was actually in favour of a change. As far as Im concerned 48 people took the time out of their day to answer the survey questions, and to me thats amazing and not something to discount.

 As far as the survey is concerned it a was put in place as a baseline measurement tool on the subject before a final official vote to the proposed change is submitted for review.

I'm not sure why there is so much shade being thrown at a policy change that ( as far as Im concerned ) is long overdue. The  currrent restrictiveness of the policies arent being observed and followed  anyhow, so thats why this change is important. The current policies and processes need evaluation and a more wholistic approach for living noteables and attached relationships that are PUBLIC information needs to be adopted or at the very least considered. It's like building a castle around a castle to protect a Kingdom that everyone knows is there.

The current policies in place  are a  misnomer which makes extra work for Profile and Project Managers to add links to the profile for attached spouses etc... This "workaround" in its very sense,  undermines the policies and is actually a breach of WikiTree Policy in and of itself.

 Im still having a hard time understanding the logic on how some of you feel this is a garbage idea.....
Here is the current discrepancies and "potentially problematic areas of the current WikiTrees Policies surrounding Living Noteables and other related and relevant policies:

Reviewing the privacy, marriage policy, and living notable policies of WikiTree as described, several areas could potentially lead to discrepancies, ambiguities, or challenges in the fair application of policies:

1. **Consent and Privacy for Living Individuals**: The overarching principle requires explicit consent for publicizing information on living individuals, yet exceptions for public figures are made based on assumptions of implicit consent. This distinction could create ambiguity in determining the threshold for "highly-visible public figures" and what constitutes as "safe to assume" consent.

2. **Management and Protection of Living Notable Profiles**: While it is stated that profiles of living notables are to be tightly managed with privacy protections exceeding those of other websites, the criteria for determining who qualifies as a notable figure rely heavily on external factors like Wikipedia articles. This reliance may not always align with WikiTree's mission or privacy standards, especially when Wikipedia's notability and privacy standards evolve.

3. **Eligibility Requirements for Living Notables**: The specific criteria (age, Wikipedia article in three languages, inclusion of nuclear family members) could be seen as arbitrary and may not comprehensively cover all individuals who should qualify as notables under WikiTree's mission. Additionally, the requirement for information on nuclear family members could potentially conflict with privacy standards, especially if those family members have not consented to their information being publicized.

4. **Privacy Settings and Personal Content**: The policy suggests certain privacy settings for living notable profiles but also allows for detailed personal information to be included in biographies if it meets specific content requirements. This could lead to inconsistencies in privacy protection, especially in the interpretation of what information is considered acceptable to share.

5. **Marriage Privacy and Public Family Tree Proposals**: The proposed changes to the "Private with Public Family Tree" setting, and the handling of marriage visibility, introduce complexity that may not align seamlessly with existing privacy practices. For instance, the automatic application of "Do not display" flags to marriages, with the option for manual adjustment, could complicate the consistent application of privacy settings across profiles.

6. **Implementation and Oversight**: The policies place significant responsibility on WikiTree Projects and their members to manage notable profiles and enforce privacy protections. This decentralized approach could lead to variability in how policies are implemented, potentially resulting in inconsistencies or gaps in privacy protection.

7. **Removal of Living Notables and Privacy Requests**: The process for notables or their representatives to request changes or removals seems straightforward, but the criteria for third-party requests and the handling of disputes over privacy could be clearer. The balance between assuming consent for public figures and respecting individual privacy requests could lead to challenges in policy application.

In summary, while WikiTree's policies demonstrate a strong commitment to privacy and responsible management of notable profiles, the interplay between consent, privacy settings, the criteria for notability, and the management of personal and family information may result in areas of ambiguity or inconsistency. Addressing these potential discrepancies could involve clarifying the criteria for notability and consent, ensuring consistent application of privacy settings across all profiles, and possibly streamlining the processes for managing privacy requests and notable profile oversight.

Here is s draft rough copy of the change Im suggesting we submit. Let me know if there is anything that was missed or issues you would like to have addressed that were overlooked or requires further clarification.**Policy Change Proposal: Display of Highly Public Living Notables and Their Spouses**

**Introduction**

The current WikiTree policies on privacy and the display of information for living notables and their spouses aim to balance the respect for individual privacy with the public interest in genealogical data. However, there is a recognition that for certain highly public figures, the information restricted by WikiTree is already widely available to the public through reputable and easily accessible sources. This proposal seeks to adjust the existing policies to more pragmatically reflect the public availability of information on these individuals, while still upholding WikiTree’s commitment to privacy and consent.

**Proposal Overview**

1. **Clarification of Highly Public Living Notables**: Define "Highly Public Living Notables" as individuals who have a significant public profile due to their professional achievements, public service, or notable activities, and whose personal and familial information is extensively documented in public, reputable sources outside of WikiTree.

2. **Consent Assumption for Highly Public Information**: For these individuals, WikiTree will assume implicit consent for the display of personal information that is widely available in the public domain (e.g., information commonly found in public media, official documents available to the public, or information the individual has personally shared in public forums).

3. **Attached Spouses**: The policy adjustment will extend to the spouses of highly public living notables, where their marriage and basic personal information are widely known and reported in the public domain. This will allow the display of their relationship and basic, non-sensitive information on WikiTree.

4. **Safeguards and Limitations**:

   - The display of information will be limited to basic personal details (names, professional achievements, public roles, and notable activities) and the fact of their marriage, excluding sensitive personal data (exact birthdates, addresses, etc.).

   - Any information displayed must have been reported by at least three independent, reputable sources in the public domain.

   - WikiTree members must provide citations for all publicly available information displayed on these profiles.

5. **Review and Removal Process**:

   - A dedicated review process will be established for profiles under this policy to ensure compliance with the updated guidelines.

   - Living notables and their spouses, or their authorized representatives, can request the review or removal of their information from WikiTree at any time, with WikiTree committing to promptly address such requests.

6. **Implementation and Oversight**:

   - A special committee or designated project team within WikiTree will oversee the implementation of this policy, including the initial application of the policy to existing profiles and the review of new profiles created under this policy.

   - This team will also handle disputes, appeals, and requests related to the display of information under this policy.

**Conclusion**

This proposal seeks to update WikiTree’s privacy and information display policies to more accurately reflect the realities of information availability for highly public living notables and their spouses. By acknowledging the widespread availability of certain information, WikiTree can provide a more comprehensive and useful genealogical resource without compromising on its core values of privacy and respect for individuals. This policy change will enable WikiTree to adapt to the evolving landscape of information sharing, while maintaining robust mechanisms for privacy protection and consent.
I fear that a single proposal with many disparate parts would run the risk of people not voting for it unless they agreed with every individual item. Separate proposals on the different components, presented sequentially with the most important ones first, might offer more chance that at least some would receive majority support.
Jim, fair point. I have outlined a list of the more important characteristics that i felt were of importance. Im not sure exactly how to go about this but I have drafted a proposed timeline and a draft communication to propose to WikiTree as a potential framework for the formal proposal. Let me know if there is anything anyone would like to add.

### Proposal for Change: Display of Highly Public Living Notables and Their Spouses on WikiTree

**Objective:** To revise the existing privacy and information display policies to pragmatically reflect the public availability of information for highly public living notables and their spouses, while maintaining WikiTree’s commitment to privacy, consent, and community collaboration.

**Rationale:** The proposal recognizes the balance between individual privacy rights and the public interest in accessible, accurate genealogical information, especially for figures whose personal data is already widely publicized.

### Proposed Changes:

1. **Policy Clarification:** Define criteria for "Highly Public Living Notables" and the scope of information considered "publicly available."

2. **Implicit Consent Assumption:** Implement guidelines for assuming implicit consent for displaying basic, non-sensitive information.

3. **Attached Spouses:** Extend policy adjustments to include the spouses of highly public living notables under similar criteria.

4. **Safeguards and Limitations:** Establish clear limits to protect sensitive information and outline the process for objections and removals by the individuals concerned.

5. **Community Engagement and Feedback:** Encourage active participation from the WikiTree community to refine and support the implementation of these changes.

### Implementation Timeline:

- **Week 1-2:** Drafting of the initial proposal and informal review with select community members for early feedback.

- **Week 3-4:** Publication of the proposal on the G2G forum for wider community discussion, feedback, and suggestions.

- **Week 5-6:** Review of community feedback, revision of the proposal as needed, and potential publication of a revised proposal if significant changes are made.

- **Week 7-8:** Continued discussion and consensus building. Begin drafting the final version of the proposal incorporating community input.

- **Week 9-10:** Submission of the final proposal to the WikiTree Team for review, ensuring no contradictions with existing rules, technical feasibility, and alignment with WikiTree's mission.

- **Week 11-12:** Follow-up on the proposal's status, responding to any additional queries from the WikiTree Team or the community.

- **Week 13-14:** Official documentation and categorization of the new rule in the Help namespace, assuming approval.

- **Week 15-16:** Implementation of necessary technical support, announcement of the policy change to the community, and monitoring for feedback.

### Community Input Requirements:

- **Open Forum Discussion:** The G2G forum will serve as the primary platform for presenting the proposal, facilitating discussion, and gathering community feedback.

- **Feedback Incorporation:** Community suggestions, concerns, and feedback will be crucial in refining the proposal to ensure it meets the collective needs and values of the WikiTree community.

- **Consensus Building:** Efforts will be made to address major objections and find compromises where possible, aiming for a consensus-driven approach to policy changes.

- **Final Review and Input:** Before submission for final approval, the community will have the opportunity to review the revised proposal, ensuring it reflects the community consensus and input received throughout the discussion process.

**Conclusion:**

This structured approach ensures that the proposed policy changes undergo a thorough review process, incorporating valuable community input and adhering to WikiTree’s collaborative and inclusive decision-making framework. The timeline provides clear milestones for progress tracking, while the emphasis on community engagement ensures that the changes reflect the collective wisdom and needs of the WikiTree community.

To integrate Jim Richardson's feedback effectively and ensure the community has a clear voice in prioritizing the proposal components, a structured approach to gather and rank community preferences is essential. Here's how to include a prompt for community members, offering them a choice of prepopulated components that require ranking:

### Community Engagement Prompt for Ranking Proposal Components:

**Introduction to the Community:**

"Dear WikiTree Community,

As part of our commitment to enhancing our policies on the display of information for highly public living notables and their spouses, we are considering several key components for potential policy changes. Your input is invaluable in shaping the future of these policies to better serve our community and align with our mission.

Below are the main components we've identified as critical to the proposed policy changes. We invite you to participate in ranking these components based on what you believe should be prioritized for discussion and implementation. Your rankings will guide us in presenting these components sequentially on the G2G forum, ensuring that the most impactful changes are addressed first.

### Components for Ranking:

1. **Defining 'Highly Public Living Notables'**: Clarification of criteria to identify which individuals qualify under this category.

2. **Assumptions of Implicit Consent**: Guidelines for when and how we can assume consent for the display of non-sensitive information.

3. **Inclusion of Spouses**: Policies regarding the inclusion of spouses of highly public living notables and the criteria for their information display.

4. **Safeguards and Limitations**: Establishment of safeguards to protect sensitive information and outline the process for objections and removal requests.

5. **Community Engagement and Feedback**: Processes for engaging the community and incorporating feedback throughout the policy change process.

### How to Rank:

Please rank the components from 1 (most important) to 5 (least important) based on your perspective on their priority for WikiTree's policy enhancements. You can submit your rankings by replying directly to this post or via a dedicated survey link [insert survey link here].

Your feedback is crucial not only in determining the sequence of discussions but also in ensuring that the policy changes we consider are in the best interest of the entire WikiTree community. We're committed to a transparent and collaborative process and look forward to your valuable input.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in shaping the future of WikiTree."

**Conclusion:**

Incorporating this ranking process enables the community to have a direct impact on the prioritization and sequencing of policy change discussions. It ensures that the community's voice is heard clearly, fostering a more engaged, democratic, and effective policy development process. This approach aligns with WikiTree's values of collaboration and consensus-building, setting a positive precedent for future policy changes.
I have set up a bare bones Free Space Page to keep everything together in one spot.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Open_Branches_Initiative

Related questions

+13 votes
5 answers
+45 votes
18 answers
2.4k views asked Apr 27, 2021 in The Tree House by Chris Whitten G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
+63 votes
10 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
+19 votes
5 answers
+6 votes
2 answers
178 views asked Jun 28, 2017 in WikiTree Tech by Bill Elmer G2G6 Mach 1 (10.9k points)
+9 votes
2 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...