What can we do to stop members copy-pasting unsourced trees with incorrect LNAB names? [closed]

Question

WikiTree is built around the Last Name At Birth. That name is used for the Identifier, in the link to the page and very important to find profiles.

No other websites have this dependency, so it is common for new members to not understand this.

Naming conventions in countries have changed over times and vary over countries. So it is common that members who live in other countries will use their own personal expectation for Last Names, which might be incorrect.
Some members do not verify data with real sources before entering profiles. They copy trees from other websites and thus can work very efficiently and created hundreds of profiles.

But... with the wrong LNAB.

Clear example: copying profiles from the pre-Napoleon times from websites like genealogieonline.nl or geneaweb or FS into WikiTree. The amount of work this generates in really large and some members just will not stop with this practice as it is a very efficient way for them to grow the tree. (I cannot post real life examples here, but you can check the LNAB categories).

My question: Can we come up with a simple method to prevent this from happening? I did suggest to build an automatic warning system, but I'm not sure this was picked up.I have tried posting polite messages, without much success.

Edit Note:

Thanks for all the responses. Some talk about the Thons as a source of badly sourced profiles. However, my question is more specific: how can we enhance the chance that members use the actual birth/baptism records instead of some family tree somewhere?

Edit Note 2.

Down voting... please add an answer why you think this question is wrong/bad/misleading; explain your downvote please.

Comments

You need to realize that WikiTree is open to anyone, and there is no real criteria to join since it open to all, as it should be. Thus there are members of varying abilities and interests. It will always be this way. Because of this profiles continue to be of varying quality.

When a profile is created the criteria are pretty minimal. There needs to be at least one date, but no location is required for that date. A source is required, but what is considered a source is really broad, even being so general as to be without real value, or a placeholder for adding a source at some future point in time (I’ve seen some profiles where that place holder’s date is a couple of years old).

Controls for pre-1700 profiles are pretty loose. Self-certification is not particular stringent.

Pre-1500 has much more control, so much of this discussion is not really applicable, although I have seen older pre-1500 profiles where somebody’s gedcom is the only source (a gedcom called “acrossthepond” comes to mind).

So what to do?

• You could peer-review every new profile. This would likely reduce new profiles to a trickle, and loose members.
  • To make this work you would need a temporary holding place until the review is completed and the approval criteria are met.
• Perhaps an algorithm could be developed to define what a minimum profile must have, and create the software to analyze it.
• You could save new profiles to some sort of a temporary file, and not write the information to the database until the minimum criteria is met.
  • How long would it take to create this?
  • I could see this temporary file continually growing as people forget or loose interest in a profile.
  • Who would monitor this, and ultimately  remove issues there. This could compound the sourcing issues.
• It is said that WikiTree has a large learning curve, these controls could exacerbate that.

The request above was for a simple method, I really don’t see one.

---

Thanks for the options.My quick thoughts:

- Peer review is labour intensive, I don't think we have enough people for that.

- I like to have a more intelligent algorithm. Maybe that could check for clues of low quality sources before the profile can be created. My main point is the creation of the LNAB and the trouble that brings when it is wrong.

- The minimum criteria could include a check for some dates in areas where naming conventions have changed over time, or more specifically: people did not use USA naming conventions.

I for sure don't want to make things more difficult or unfriendly to newcomers. But some 5-10 year plus members also still do it over and over again.

---

There are "place holder" for the creator to add source(s) at a later date that are over ten years old. Likely from a copy and dump and then never look at the profile again.

---

As far as the discussion of "Thons' & Sprints' etc...In general, I'm in agreement with many of the posts already made. Linda's post was quite illuminating.....

As far as  Michel's query "What can we do to stop members copy-pasting unsourced trees with incorrect names?"....with some trepidation, let me point out that perhaps we as wikitree'ers should set the in-house bar a little higher and lead by example...?  A look within the site itself shows a few exmples of what I mean. 

One example shows that Wikitree's location names are copy-pasted from another site without the ability for wikitree'ers to correct or make them more accurate in-house.

Another example (in direct regard to NAMES) is wikitree's copy-pasting from another site for "Related Names". Names are 'related' without sources or any attempt at accuracy.  I know there was mention of this being changes/fixed, but I haven't seen it yet.

On some families that I work on, I completely dismiss/ignore any matching wikitree offers because it is just too much junk. 

This is one in my ''ignore  all' category:

About 368 FRATTAs. Related surnames: PRATT (20255) FRITH (1562) FRIDAY (791) FRADY (569) FREETH (379) FRUTH (221) PRATTE (219) FRETT (201) FREETHY (187) FRADD (140) FRUIT (137) FRETHEY (126) FREETO (93) FREDA (69) FRETTE (86).

How about a Challenge to find ONE SINGLE, sourced connection/transition from the name Fratta to Friday? I've created the majority of FrattA's here and have one sourced connected variation to FrattO (FrattO is also an easily recognized regional variation for Italian researchers). That doesn't even show up on the list...........

Michel, if this goes to far off of topic, please have it deleted...I just wanted to point out that we as long-term wikitree'ers and wikitree itself should display our committment to sourcing and accuracy and not to simply copy-pasting if we want to have the expectation that others will follow towards that goal.

---

Nick, we can request FS to change a location, if it is wrong based on dates, spelling, etc.  They want some 'proof' source of what we are asking, but it can be done.  I have successfully done it a few times.  

Ales has a separate table where he keeps valid locations with dates that is used for suggestions.  That can also be updated with Ales.

---

Yes, on FS we can request a location be added or corrected, it is a long and tedious process.

There is no obligation to use the location drop down, you can ignore it and enter the location on the actual record.

The FS locations are poor at best, they include places that never existed.

---

I would love to know who put "District of Columbia Impound Lot" into the FS locations and whether they thought it would be genealogically important.

---

Nick, I was just thinking about you and surname variants! 

Another example (in direct regard to NAMES) is wikitree's copy-pasting from another site for "Related Names". Names are 'related' without sources or any attempt at accuracy.  I know there was mention of this being changes/fixed, but I haven't seen it yet.

This is finally in the process of being worked on now that the infrastructure upgrades are (mostly) done. The work on it started last week, so hopefully there will be something ready by the end of this month. 

---

Jamie,

If y'all need any help with some of those crazy Italian names that I've got some history with, I'd be happy to volunteer to establish a baseline/as accurate as possible starting point!

Answer 1

I feel that this is related to an overall bigger issue on WikiTree.

The inserting information into the profiles without verifying data is a real problem to the point where it seems like we are spending more time cleaning up and correcting suggestions than actually spending on researching and adding to WikiTree. 

For example, with the Connect-a-thon coming up, there is discussion over how to get quantity vs quality.  This is absolutly nothing personal against the person who created this as I completely understand the competition and take part.  This is just the most recent example at hand.  I was deeply disturbed to see a cheat sheet on how to add as many as quickly as possible by copying and using an app to do so.  Then on Step 10 where it shows that you can add over 30 plus profiles.  My heart sank.

Every Connect-a-Thon, every challenge, there are Newts that are joining in and this is what they read and see and think that this is the norm.  This is what they should do.  Is this the example that we should be setting?  And then have to come up with new suggestions, warnings and procedures to find all the errors so other members have to go and fix them.

The same goes for posting categories or links into profiles to achieve badges or competions.  Rather than creating complete citations, updating the profile facts, updating the biography and creating related additional profiles that can be derived or answered by the source.  Don't leave it for someone else to do.  If you add it, then you should complete it.

I joined WikiTree hoping that it was going to be a more accurate tree and that the WikiTree community's goal was to have the most accurate online tree.  I love a competition as much as the next person.  However, encouraging quantity over quality is degrading the quality of WikiTree.  Errors from other trees are just being copied into WikiTree. 

The second line of the Honor Code we all sign is "We are about accuracy".  What happened to us honoring the Honor Code?  We need to find a way to address this larger issue at hand that is causing all these other problems.

Comments

Well said, M.

---

The second line of the Honor Code we all sign is "We are about accuracy".

And that's what sold wikitree to me. I really can't see that there is any  purpose in  making it a clone of other sites.

 I too was dismayed to see the cheat sheet. Following the instructions which are presumably  intended to  rapidly  increase connections must inevitably result in  spending little  time engaging with the evidence. I think it's an excellent route to inserting an individual into the wrong family tree. I'm also a bit saddened that peoples lives are condensed into brief outines as they form a stepping stone to another person.

The FS tree for my family has lots of spurious additions or extension They informed me the other day that I was closely related to Helen Keller.  It's not true and that's been the same for every other such relationship that they've proclaimed. What seems to happen is that  people don't like  a brick wall  so they vault it. . They  find  a baptism of a John son of John and link without any regard for geography or social class. (They may not know  much either ) Sure there's a source with the right name at about the right date  but  that's about it. As an example,  I'm fed up with unlinking my Northamptonshire ag lab, formerly hand  weavers  named Gurney from the extremely  wealthy , Quaker banking family, the  Gurneys of Norfolk)

---

That is the crux of the matter. It;s becoming too much for us to clean up. We all sign the honor code about accuracy and sources, but few stick to that. Something needs to be done and fast IMO, otherwise it will end up being another dogs breakfast of unsourced, wrong families, conflations... etc. Which is what I came to Wikitree to get away from.

---

 I was wondering what the "cheat sheet" was that kept being mentioned in the earlier threads...I have to agree this is disheartening. Not to hurt whomever worked in the idea and I completely understand growing the connections but when we are replicating branches versus extending them or actually Connecting them; is it really a "Connect-a-Thon" ? 

Answer 2

Dear Michel and M. Gillies, you both speak from my heart! Above all, I am really concerned to hear about the cheat tricks. Of course it's fun for many people to collect points and take part in competitions, but if the consequence is that our big common tree doesn't really grow, but just looks that way, then the problem should be addressed in a really big way, especially with the organisers of the Connect-a-tons. It should not be about numbers, but about quality.

The problem is perhaps also that the focus seems to have increasingly shifted from quality to the absolute figures at the end of the competition, which are also extensively compared and celebrated. Perhaps there is also a technical possibility to monitor something like basic standards in connecting with the competition tracker? (And if people could free themselves from the "big scores" and insist on these quality standards, we would of course also have a figure at the end, even with "clean" profiles, except that it would not be so impressively large - but more significant and helpful). I very much hope that this discussion will attract a lot of attention here, because WikiTree is a unique project for me, because of the idea of the One-World-Tree and because, unlike other platforms, it does not consist of copy and paste, but carefully documents everything.

Comments

Heike, I agree it is not realistic to track quality during a competition.  I believe that people have to just be constantly reminded of the Honor Code and our goal of accuracy should come above quantity.  Stress it whenever and whereever possible. Help train Newts so they understand that this is what the goal of the collaborative tree is.

---

Maybe there should be NO points or badges or whatever, for quantity.  The reward should be completing the job correctly.

---

Or maybe points should be rewarded according to sourcing (I have no idea wether this is technically possible ...)

---

I'm sorry but especially with the FindaGrave connections because I see so many errors every day on there and they no longer have to provide ANY sourcing nor even an actual memorial nor burial ground to create a page. Adding people based solely on this leads to a "true source" but what is that definition if the site (FindaGrave) no longer requires a solid foundation?

---

Just wanted to make a comment on points here Heike. I work on profiles all day every day. My profiles and orphans. Sometimes I will adopt an orphan to correct a LNAB and then re-orphan it again after I have completely sourced it.

But I see that the people with the highest points aren't the members that are actually sourcing profiles, but the people that are asking questions or commenting in our g2g.

So for all of the work that we do sourcing and the points that we receive, we are not doing the work for the points because we will never come out ahead of the people that aren't sourcing all day, but rather spending their time on commentaries or thanking people for being Wonder WikiTreers and being awarded points for their best answers.

I think this may have gotten in the way of people working the Thons.

I would rather work at my own pace and have a great profile, than work in a Source-A-Thon and have a lot of one source profiles.

Answer 3

Many people that used to participate no longer participate in Thons, especially the constant Connect a Thons for exactly this reason.  We are tired of saying the same thing all the time that Quality not Quantity should matter, per the Honor Code. 

There are so many profiles that do not have the Unsourced template on them, but they are not sourced. The Sourcers Challenge gives credit for adding one source to a profile.  Most people would agree that one source alone is not sourcing a profile, but the Unsourced template is removed, if it was on the profile, so now the profile is still not complete and the one source may not even be accurate.  Same thing happens with the Connect a Thon.  I found some profiles that had the Unsourced template added 'when they created the profile during the last Thon'.  How many were added with just a family tree 'because it was a post 1700 profile?' Many, because that is valid for post 1700, per some captains.

If everyone that added profiles during the Connect a Thon would check the Suggestions that they created, that would help everyone else, but instead most of them orphan the profiles or just ignore the suggestions.  In Jan Connect a Thon,  96,726 profiles were created according to Ales Query.  There are still 16,119 suggestions for those profiles that have not been corrected and probably not looked at.  Many are easy to fix and should have been done when the profiles were created, like adding a comma to the location before the country, verifying spelling, adding a country, fixing abbreviated locations, etc.  But there are many that have errors because the parents are too young, too old, or dead, as well as profiles for possible duplicates in a family or duplicates using the same Find a Grave.

The Jul 2023 Connect a Thon created 92,577 profiles.  There are still 20,806 suggestions left from that one. After the last connect a thon, the DD Challenge was to work on the suggestions generated from that Thon, but they hadn't done it for the Jul 2023 Thon, so those suggestion remain. 

The number of 'New' Suggestions right after the Jan thon was double the number of 'new' suggestions in a normal week. Yes, more new profiles were created, but if they were being created correctly, there would not be suggestions. 

Comments

Mind boggling stats.

---

I used to participate in Thons, but no longer do so.  I have to protect my mental health, and researching genealogy plus formatting to suit WikiTree is perfect.  What is not perfect is pressure - and Thons seem to have evolved into pressure.  People even prepare for Thons by doing the research beforehand, then going all-out during the Thon.  I don't agree with that sort of preparation; it seems to remove part of the pleasure of a Thon, feels almost like 'breaking the rules'.  I think the research should take place *during* the Thon.  Yes, that would slow people down, but it would return Thons to researching instead of racing.

---

Maybe they could change the Connect-a-Thons to

Correct-a-thons, so instead of just adding willy-nilly, people will actually do the work.

---

Noting the issue of the Unsourced flag being removed after adding a single source, and how that buries problems... One source to back up one of the data points in a profile is clearly insufficient, yet that seems to be the standard for removal of the Unsourced flag.

... Perhaps we need an "Undersourced" (or Insufficiently Sourced) flag for profiles which bear *any* assertions as to vitals and relationships which are not backed up by strong evidence.

---

Brenda Milledge, that was what the Clean-a-thons used to be for.We no longer have those.

Daphne, the original reason for the unsourced sticker or category was to use for the source-a-thon. It was to find profiles with ZERO sources. Maybe we need an "undersourced" version?

---

Here's thought. I have worked in the GEDI Challenge since it's beginning and have realized the importance of the BioCheck app. Is there a way to Create a Bio-Thon? Requiring the participant to clear all BioCheck suggestions before one can click off the profile? I realize before you save any sources, formatting corrections etc. BioCheck posts a message below the Save button but many times these suggestions are ignored...but if one couldn't do a complete save and receive points or other accolades, until the BioCheck suggestions are cleared, this might just curb the number of Suggestions created, thus allowing Our Shared tree to flourish and have fewer Suggestions and hopefully create a more accurate tree.

---

I believe we already have a way to identify undersourced through the use of maintenance categories (needs birth record, needs marriage record, needs death record). I am not  sure if these are consistently defined or used across projects/places, but it seems that greater use of these could help others find undersourced profiles.

---

Yes, the use of Categories is very helpful, but unfortunately they are not consistently used by all wikitreer's. Maybe, just thinking out loud here, there could be a Category-thon, Leaders could pick one or a few categories, and then we all spend a weekend just sourcing those categories.

Answer 4

I understand the problem – and I saw many mistakes on different platforms – WikiTree, FamilySearch, MyHeritage, Geni, …

If there would be stricter rules for the quality, many new people would be lost before they are won. The frustration level for newcomers would be very high.

Maybe you can find more quality rules for mass-editing campaigns like the … thons. But the newcomer level should not be too high.

I think the German Wikipedia was the first or one of the first, which introduced a screening system. I don't know if the English Wikipedia has it already:

A new page or a new edit gets an unscreened status and should be reviewed by another person which has a screener status. Then the page gets a viewed status. So you get a four-eye editing, even though a person can start and edit alone. The screening is not needed at the same time, only afterwards.

But the thinking and doing at WikiTree has a very wide spectrum. Such a screening needs a huge technical change and also a huge organizational change …

Comments

What do you think of the idea to have the team captains being made responsible for the quality of their team members? That is a somewhat smaller group and a time framed job I guess.

Answer 5

In response to the stats that Linda posted.  (Thank you for that.  It is a real eye-opener),  

A possible suggestion is to eliminate Orphans.  If you create a profile, it is yours to Manage until someone asks for it to be transferred.  Something similar to Find-A-Grave.  If you have created a distance relation or a stranger, there could be a sticker that you assign to it that says this profile is available for adoption.  If someone wants to adopt it from you, you can transfer the Profile Management to them.

Then the Suggestion lists can be monitored and if ones become too large, a gentle reminder could be sent out to the Profile Manager asking them to clean up their suggestions, etc. etc. (This would have to be developed out.  Make it part of the Honor Code.)  That way every profile would belong to someone and is someone's responsibility until they become inactive.

At that time, the profiles would be put on the Orphan list and then an Adopt-a-Thon or a Challenge could be held to attempt to get these adopted.

This would make people more selective about what profiles they set up and help cut down on all these slapped together and then abandoned profiles.

Comments

This is a brilliant query, thank you. Will bookmark.

---

Thank you, Leif.  That's very helpful!

---

There would be no need to retain any credits under Acknowledgements after a Gedcom import if the Changes log tracked the relevant information upon import. Maybe it already does, and if it does, then adding additional cruft to the cruft that the Gedcom import creates seems unnecessary.

---

The gedcom information is in the changes log. However, you cannot search the changes log and for old problematic gedcoms and it is necessary to be able to search for the gedcom name. Using Acknowledgements in this fashion was the solution folks agreed to. I am not sure how necessary it is for a more recent (2018?+) load or even for an old one which has all the correct people attached. But I am a rule follower so I keep it, despite it grating to have an old terrible gedcom acknowledged.

---

Thanks for this, W. That helps me understand the situation.

---

I response to Natasha Houseman, you do realize you can edit the acknowledgement part like you can the rest of the biography? If you do most of the work or clean up and update the biography, you can add a line for yourself in there. LOL

---

M. I have a watchlist of over 10K... I need to trim down and thus generate orphans. There is only so much I can look after unfortunately.

---

I am not suggesting that you have to build out evey profile to completion.  You can sitll focus on your core list.  Possibly a second watchlist can be created to keep the two groups separate.  The ones you want to keep and the ones that are waiting for adoption.    

I am merely suggesting that the person who creates it remain the Profile Manager until someone (most likely someone related) wants to adopt it from them. If you set the profile up properly, there will be no suggestions for it and you will not have to do anything more to it and can forget about it.  However, it would be on that Secondary Suggestions List so if there is a technical error or warning, there would be a Profile Manager to fix it.

---

I do not want to discuss the general merits or not of orphaning profiles here as I believe it is off topic. However, the specific issue Michel mentioned with LNABs being incorrect when profiles are made for a country/time period by one who doesn't understand patronymics of the place is made much easier is profiles have been orphaned. In those cases, Michel can easily adopt, make the correction and orphan again. The problem is greater when people add a lot of profiles with an incorrect LNAB and then do not respond to message to please correct it.

---

Dear @W, that is exactly my point.. Thanks.

Answer 6

Hi all,

Knowing that it was likely my post around the Connect-a-Thon which caused the flurry of answers around quality in relation to this post, I just want to re-assure people that this really matters to me (and likely to others participating) too. When I started with wikitree properly about six months ago (i had a false start a couple of years ago so it looks like i've been around longer), I added a load of profiles (up to 3xG) to get connected in and was quickly appraised of the fact that they were not well done. I've spent the time since then focused on cleaning them all up and only orphan those I would consider to be solidly sourced, with brief bios (and suggestions addressed).

Although there's still a bunch on my watch list which I would say are about half done, I did feel that Connect-a-Thon would be a good opportunity to focus on adding another big group of profiles (mainly siblings and their families, for which I've already done detailed research) which I can then use as my focus for the next few months, fully populating from the research I have already done. It's a pattern I think could be useful to keeping up the momentum in transferring all my previous research onto wikitree (which in turn is helping me to reconsider and test the reseach I had done before).

That been said, my heart sinks too, when I come across profiles which have been added quickly and then abandoned. I think it's the more recent part finished ones or single sourced that make me particularly sad as they won't naturally get picked up through an unsourced or other category. Hopefully, eventually, some quiet person will pick them up and pay them proper attention, but it does feel like the lengthy work is then being put onto others. I try to adopt these where I feel I can add value, but probably don't give them quite the same attention as my closest relatives.

It does seem that carrot approaches are more wikitree than stick. It's already hard to get started, with a super steep learning curve.

Maybe the Connect-a-Thon is an opportunity to publicise some of the wonderful learning groups like the England team's Orphan Trail that help promote quality standards?

Maybe also adding a prize for best profile added during Connect-a-Thon? People could self-submit entries using a G2G post that we could all then vote on? It would be an opportunity to show case what quality looks like.

Comments

A prize for the best profile is a really nice idea!

---

I agree a prize for the best profile added is a great idea!

Answer 7

Re one of Michel's comment in the original post:

"Naming conventions in countries have changed over times and vary over countries."

While I'm working on the Macdonald Name Study, I regularly run into this exact same issue. By example, the same person may have started in Scotland as a "MacDonald", but after migration to somewhere in England, they appear in the 10-year census records with different names like Mackdonald, McDonald, MacDonnell and various other permutations. Also with the name changing from one survey to the next. All found in the original census records, and not necessarily a typo mistake by whoever transposed the paper original to a digital record. (But not denying that can happen as well).

Any suggestions on how to deal with these would be very welcome, as it drives me nuts!

As for the orphans, I know I'm guilty of creating some of these, because even with a good source, sometimes I cannot find any good match to join (with confidence) to any other existing profile. Which leaves me dithering. Should I create the orphan or not?

Comments

Birth spelling should be LNAB. Current spelling should be CLN. All other variations should go in Other Last Names, separated by commas, so they are used in Searches

---

@Linda - thanks, I hadn't thought of using Other Last Names, updating the "Mackdonald" names now.

Answer 8

I often just put Parish Registers or Family Knowledge when creating a profile. There is no way to attach an actual sourrce for the different bits of information entered at the setting up of a profile. This has to be done afterwards and, yes, it is not always done.

Comments

A profile shouldn't be created unless you have a good source to create it with. Parish register information is probably good. Creating a profile and continuing to edit it with additional sources is what should be done.

---

I'm not saying that I don't have good sources. However, the creation of a profile and the filling out of the biography are two different actions. In the creation of a profile you are often giving four different pieces of information but you can't attach sources to them. All you can do is give some sort of holding statement until you are able to attach the sources properly.

---

You can actually add sources at the time that profiles are created.  But too many people create the profile with no real sources and never return to the profile, especially during a Thon or Challenge.

---

You enter the data fields, then get a chance to fill in the text section with a biography and source list. That can be done when creating the profile. After it is created you get a display with the text section available for update.

If you do it later that works too.

---

Filling in the biography is a different action to creating the profile. You cannot 'attach' sources to the basic information you give when creating the profile until you come to fill out the biography. Therefore you have enter a 'holding' source in order to create the profile.

---

It's easy to include sources when creating a profile. You just include them in the biography that you are required to create. Have a look at this https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Nunn-3475&diff=187917898&oldid=0 to see where I included the sources when creating a profile. It is easy using the Sourcer app.

And please don't put just 'Parish Registers' as a source. There were 10,000 ancient parishes in England alone. The parish, county, and the event need to be specified to make this of any use.

---

I give up as I don't think people are listening. I do know there are many Parishes in England and I have said that it is a holding source.

---

Sorry you got so many responses. We are all just encouraging adding whatever sources exist when first creating the profile.  Of ours I have seen the other extreme too. They go to Family search and use the data sourcer app to pull in ten or more FamilySearch links all at once and still leave the bio blank…

---

Barbara, the method described by Curt and Andrew for entering both biography text and sources in one go at profile creation requires that you have an advanced setting turned on. It sounds as if you do not. It is at

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:Settings#Misc

and is called

Default to Advanced Option for Sources (text editing) when creating profiles.

---

You're right, I didn't know about that option. Such a relief not to have to put silly sources down anymore. Thank you.

---

You can add any real source on profile creation, such as Find a Grave citation, or a census, or a birth, marriage or death record.

It doesn't have to be a link to a source, it can be a  description of the source such as 1851 census of Canada, Year: 1851; Census Place: Markham, York County, Canada West (Ontario); Schedule: A; Roll: C_11759; Page: 5; Line: 6, enough detail that some else can find the source to verify the information provided on the profile.

You can add any number of other real sources after the profile is created. At the same time as you check off certainty levels for proper 1st name, LNAB, Current last name, birth date, birth place, death date, death location, sex at birth etc.

I recently ran across multiple profiles where under the Biography heading all it said was source, just the one word and under the Sources heading all it said was source again just the one word.

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

Here are examples of source citations that don't meet the minimum specificity needed to identify a particular source:

"Find-A-Grave" "FamilySearch" "Personal records" "Family Bible"

---

Barbara, thanks for bringing this up. If your idea how things work(ed) is shared by others, than solving that is part of the solution I think.

The profile creation process has changed a lot over time. The current version was created to make things a lot easier for new members, but if profiles are still created with only bad sources and without checking the LNAB it is no good really.

Answer 9

Hi Michel

So firstly, again, apologies, I think it was my post about Connect-A-Thon that caused this one to go off track.

I wondered if you'd engaged with the Surname Variant project? (Owned by WeRelated, but used by wikitree) https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Variant_Names_Project.

It doesn't stop people using variant last names, but might help prompt the duplicates better when they are added?

Comments

No it was not your post.  I also apologize Michel for causing this to go off track.  Your post in addition to the other involved post all appears to be how do we fix issues that are all caused by a larger issue so I thought it should be addressed.  In retrospect, it should have been a separate post.  I am sorry.

---

Note that WikiTree's reliance on WeRelate will soon be replaced. See Chris's announcement of a plan to "Allow for more direct editing of name variants."

---

Natasha, M, don't worry. It is great to see people involved in the discussion and for sure the Thons are a source of many new profiles.

I made a suggestion at Siegfried's answer. What do you think, would that work?

---

@jim thanks. I totally missed that sentence in the announcement. But.. I also don't understand what it is that you want to achieve there. Any user story formulated?

---

I don't think many details have been announced, Michel. The only other thing I recall is a comment by Jamie:

We are going to move away from the WeRelate db and manage the variants ourselves. I think the ability for users to edit is going to be controlled by a badge.

---

This started being worked on last week.

The current process for updating a variant is:

1. Sign up for an account at WeRelate
2. Go to https://www.werelate.org/wiki/WeRelate:Variant_names_project and update the name you want to change
3. WikiTree occasionally asks WeRelate for a dump of the name variant database
4. WikiTree replaces the old variant data with the newly obtained data

Now the plan is to do one last update from WeRelate, and then create an interface for select WikiTree users to update the variants. This way the updates will be immediate and users won't have to sign up for another website to do it.

---

Thank you Jamie, that process seems clear.

In my personal experience, we get offered too many variants. And some are really of no use. Will this new procedure also allow for removing name variants from the database?

---

Yep, people will be able to add new variants and remove ones that are incorrect.

Answer 10

What we can do is educate them.

By either leaving a note on the profile, or sending them a private message, giving them links to the appropriate help pages.

If you don't feel up to doing that, then drop me a note, and I will do it.

Further more if the LNAB needs to be changed, then add a Research Notes with why you think it needs to be changed, and leave a comment on the profile to get the PMs attention.  Also either use the Netherlands Sticker or add the category indicating that it needs the LNAB changed.
 

{{Netherlands Sticker

|jaar=

|provincie=

|needs=LNAB

}}

[[Category:Netherlands Project Needs LNAB]]

As to sourcing unsourced profiles, join the Sourcerers Challenge.  I source anywhere from 50 - 100 profiles a month.     If you don't want to or can't source a unsourced profile or partially sourced profile then please add the unsourced template {{unsourced|Netherlands}} or if it is missing some sources, either the Netherlands Sticker with the appropriate needs, or the needs category.

Comments

Hey Coen Jacob,

Thanks for your reply. The maintenance category for Netherlands LNAB alone now has 1884 profiles. Adding many of those got me thinking and was the reason for my question. What can we do beforehand to prevent this from happening.

I've seen members just entering the wrong LNAB for 10s of profiles in one family. They do this within minutes. Then I have seen members, old member, very long lasting members, doing exactly the same. They are not likely to learn anything, they think WikiTree is still 2012/2013/2014 where anything could go. I would love the Netherlands project to actively work on improving their skills.

My focus of my question is of the first group: new members and helping them the second they make a profile. Any ideas for that?

---

First of we need to identify new members who will or are creating Dutch profiles. One way would be to keep an eye on who adds to follow the Netherlands tag, or do a query on recently created Netherlands profiles and see that they are following standards.

Once those members have been identified, then post on their profile an introductory text explaining some of the key things they need to know, and especially a link to https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Dutch_Naming_Convention

So any volunteers to do this?  I'm kept busy enough with other Netherlands Projects stuff.

---

Another thing that would be helpful is for someone to review those profiles tagged with needing LNAB. As some of them are tagged with needing LNAB, but no notes if it is ready to be changed, or needs research to find the correct LNAB.

For example https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/UNKNOWN-149132 , should that be changed to Hinderks ?

This will give a list of 48 profiles that the Netherlands Project is PM for, which I'd would be able to action (one I've already done Van Wijngaarden-3)

https://wikitree.sdms.si/default.htm?report=srch1&Query=WikiTree-14+CategoryFull%3DNetherlands_Project_Needs_LNAB&MaxProfiles=500&Format=

---

It took over half an hour to sort that family. Off course nice to help, but I would rather prevent this work.

Maybe the Netherlands project could call for help in a short challenge?

---

Do you want a post Connect A Thon, Netherlands Clean A Thon? When would you like it?

---

Michel,

Sometimes although you point new members to the correct pages and the 'how' LNAB and Dutch Naming Convention is working, they just don't want to follow up the advice from other members. A lot of new active project members are needed to guide and help people creating correct Dutch Profiles.

---

Coen Jacob, that is a good idea. Maybe 2 or 3 weeks after? It would be a nice way to involve the members of the Netherlands project again.

I also really liked the idea of the Team Captains guiding the members of a Thon in improving the quality, and the idea of a prize for the best profile. Maybe you can discuss that with the Team / other Captains?

Answer 11

I think we are missing the bigger picture. The goal is not to complete this in your lifetime, but to continue to build on and improve into eternity.

People come to Wikitree at different levels of expertise, but I value all of them. From my perspective, any tidbit of information is better than none from a starting point to investigate. "Every contribution to Wikitree, no matter how small, is a seed of knowledge waiting to grow."

Yes, it would be preferable to have a complete accurate record, but the road there is a messy process, but a necessary one. "Though the path to a perfect record may be messy, it's the essential journey that paves the way for true accuracy."

Comments

I agree.  Even a profile completed as much as possible with one accurate source is better than not having that person on WikiTree.  Just complete it, facts, biography, category, stickers (optional), add or update profiles for other family members and most of all a source citation.

---

We all sign the honor code for accuracy and sources. People need to read the help pages but often don't, however they signed the honor code. Would you sign an agreement without reading it first?

---

This has nothing to do with the honor code, the people are compliant with it. The question relates to everyone has personal standards on what they find acceptable and unacceptable.  My point is not to discourage someone, because they may or may not be at the level you are.  Everyone has a starting point. I'm glad they are participating.

Answer 12

In reading all these comments (many I agree with) we lose sight of the idea that WikiTree encourages people to make post 1700 profiles with very little in the way of sourcing.  And a few years ago we had some G2G comments regarding NOT putting the Unsourced template on profiles because it offends people.  It would be great to encourage more sourcing but it would be a major change to WikiTree policy to *require* it.

Maybe one approach to thons is to use the project maintenance categories (needs research, needs more sources, needs baptism, etc) to add more or better sources to profiles.  Wouldn't it be great to have a Thon focused completely on improving sources to profiles?  

When a new profile is created the biocheck can determine if sources are added, and when biocheck is run on profiles it can count them.  Perhaps we could use that to assess quality for such a Thon (or any Thon).

I recently worked on my Bourque ONS 0birth 0death dates and found all kinds of dates and sources!  Maybe those could be included in a Thon.  There could be many ways to include profiles that need more sourcing.

Answer 13

I share the same concerns as Linda Cooper. It is very frustrating to come across profiles (some not even my biological family) to still find 'will add source' that was written 10 to 12 years prior!

I have no easy answers and no solutions to offer. I just take on the responsibility of seeking information and adding Biographies and proper sources. It is very time consuming and takes me away from my own family work; however, these people are ancestors to someone and should get a proper profile.

As to Thons, one reason why I do not achieve BIG numbers is because my OCD kicks in and I have to add a Biography and sources as I come across profiles when I do ANY thon.

With the members who have outstanding computer tech skills, it would be great if an add on could be some sort of 'alert' when:

1) a surname is in question,

2) if there is already a profile that will likely end up having to be merged because one already exists with a different spelling,

3) a way to identify and alert NEW members who MUST do at least five of their OWN generations with full (as possible) Biographies and Sources (not FindAGrave, or will provide source in future, or personal knowledge

4) At least five full generations of their own family prior to even thinking about taking the simple pre-1700 exam to become certified

5) Require the England Team Orphan Trail (even level 1) be taken prior to pre-1500 certification (and really learn to find out how different LNAB spellings can muck things up that contribute to duplicates and NO sources...e.g., Baldwin, Baldin, Baldwen, Baldwyn, Baldewyn, Baldewyne, etc.

Thank you all for your attention to this matter.

Signed, Sometimes Really Frustrated in Arizona

Answer 14

I personally feel that this question should be closed and Michel should repost the question so that the conversation can be focused on specifically what he asked.  I do apologize for my part in derailing the conversation.  I also feel that down voting should not have a part in a collaborative environment as WikiTree.  If you like something upvote.  If not, make your comment and post to make your feelings known but do not downvote please.

Michel, I have been thinking about this and I believe a warning system or a suggestion would be beneficial though this might be very difficult to program for.  It would most likely have to be tied to location, dates and even possibly common LNAB errors.

A message could pop up when trying to save just like the category or formatting errors.  It could explain that this profile apperas to falls into this category and to please reach out to someone.  It could direct you to a free space page where the contacts for the various time and countries could be messaged or asked questtions so error can be caught at the first instance instead of hundreds later.

Or even better (if manpower is available), the profile is put on a temporary hold until someone who knows can review it and then reach out to the Profile Manager to explain whether it is correct or not.  If it is correct, they can warn them what to watch out for moving forward.  If it is not correct, then they can explain why.  

Most of that could be eventually set up as "canned responses" as the overseers will run into the same surnames or areas over and over again.  Or they could set up a free space page explaining the naming conventions for the area that they could direct people to.

Then we are educating as well as fixing.

For ones, that slip through the cracks because of lack of information or the field that triggers the above is empty, possibly Aleš (who I believe is the resident expert) might be able to figure out suggestions that might catch these.

Just a thought.

Comments

M, thanks for thinking this over.

I am hoping that a simple warning/message system based on a combination of location and date is relatively simple to make.

This should preferably become part of the core, as new users will not have installed the browser extension. But the extension has most developers at the moment.

The temporary hold is a really good feature, but I'm not sure all projects have enough volunteers available. It will also be detrimental for the experience of the new user.

I will leave this question open for some time more, see if more smart ideas pop in.

---

I agree 100% regarding down-voting. If WikiTree wants to keep down-voting than the person that uses it should have to say why they down-voted. I have received down-votes and couldn't figure out why.

You can maybe disagree with a statement that someone has made in the g2g but that certainly is not a reason to down-vote someone, and Michael asking a question should not be a reason to give him a down-vote.

My opinion only. You are welcome to yours.

Answer 15

I too have tried to address this especially with certain profiles where I may comment (after proposing the x-teenth merge) something like "Does anyone have ideas as to why person has so many duplicates created?"  The surprising observation for me was that it usually has nothing to do with LNAB because these profiles literally have the same name- spelling and all- as well as the same dates and / or locations. They pop up when I do my GEDcom match check-ups and whatever the individual case; it's either someone ignoring "potential matches", not paying attention to the "rules" about looking for said matches or perhaps there is a glitch somewhere and some people don't get this step or can ignore it. It would seem there is a way to automatically flag if a profile is created pre-1700 that has over a dozen potential matches; for example, and perhaps they could be reviewed?

  I don't know how much this helps but I think unless the person is living and you're creating it (as in a autobiographical situation) there should be a more stringent source rule. It really does upset me to see someone write something disrespectful for their source like "My ged.com vs WikiTree / FS / (insert site here)" .

  Sorry about the tangent; had I seen this post earlier I'd have "upvoted" rather than down vote; so perhaps this Answer will be down voted too. I hope not as I truly just want everyone new to feel valued and see there are tons of ways to add to the site while still giving and showing respect to the work done by others (no matter how long they've been a WikiTree member.

  Cheers! Thanks for posting :)

Comments

And thank you for replying/answering.

It is really important to understand the reason members do create duplicates and/or wrong LNABs. When we know the why, we can solve it.So if, as you say, there is a glitch, we need to find it. But meanwhile we need something better I believe.

It shouldn't be hard to create a real warning when a similar sentence like you give is being used.But how do we get the member to read it and check the data first?