What to do about someone adding the wrong sources to your profiles

Question

I have a question, someone keeps adding all kind of sources to profiles, but those sources don't belong to that specific profile, but is a source for a child or spouse or additional family members. In this way I have for instance multiple marriages or deaths in the bio of my ancestors, but they don't belong to them. They are leads or sources for other familymembers. 

I have already asked someone to stop with this, but she needs guidance. You can't just add all the sources on the internet on a profile, some of them are indeed good acceptable sources (if she would create that new familymember) but sometimes she referes to Family search for a profile and on Familysearch she's directing to the same source in WT. And sometimes it's just an unverified lead on the Internet. 

I've tried to point her out to the Dutch Naming Convention and to the Sourcing rules, but  she's not reacting any more on my emails.

What would you do, I know she means well, but she's new at WT (and I think even on FS)

Comments

Is there a possibility that the sources could be seen as links between a parent and a child, as can be seen on a baptism or marriage record??

If not it sounds like someone needs more specific help, perhaps someone with lots of experience teaching people, how to, what to .

A MIR seems a bit over the top for a new person.

---

This is indeed my point. (pity I can't choose your answer as the best answer). She needs help about how WT works.

---

Hallo Margreet,

you manage these profiles, so delete these "sources".

---

Hoi Joop,

Voor mijn eigen profielen heb ik dat ook al gedaan hoor. Maar gaat om al die andere pre-1700 profielen die ze ook aan het aanmaken is.

Ik hoopte dat iemand een beetje begeleiding aan haar kon geven.

Ik heb haar gewezen op de naamgevingsconventie en op de pagina’s waar de juiste bronnen te vinden zijn en op de nog door jou gemaakte pagina’s over hoe WT werkt.

Answer 1

Hi Margreet,

Sorry to hear about this. Try the advice here:

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

Comments

Peggy,

I know about this procedure and I know I would be ending at the 6A.1. (I've posted on profiles, contacted her on private email and trying to explain the 'rules' at WT).

So I would end at filing a MIR, but I also know that you can never get rid of a MIR once you had one. So isn't there something in between?

---

Can you give me some new examples via private message?  I can then also send them some message as my role as Netherland Project Coordinator.

---

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Grooteman-4

Answer 2

I don't see the problem with adding sources, as whether they are "good, acceptable sources" depends on the viewer. However, some of the things you describe perhaps could be added to a researcher notes section.

Last, you didn't attach a profile example, but I would think inline citations would solve most of this as to whether it is relevant to be on the profile. Some people like to include children's names in the biography, and in that case a citation for the child is appropriate.

Comments

I didn't add a profile because of the fact that I didn't want to 'name' names. But please take a look at for example this profile: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jois-7

I can't imagine that we would like to have those kind of profiles. Althought this are correct sources, but not for this profile

---

The example does not meet WikiTree source standards for pre-1700 profiles. One of the objectives of WikiTree is that the source information for that particular profile is found on that particular profile. If the children are added in a section on children as is common with many of our better profile creators, then the birth documentation for a child is usually found as an inline citation for that child.

---

I see it as a starting point rather than a finished or optimal representation. Some of the sources attached to the page are referenced, but I am unsure of their contents.

The reliability of these source references would diminish if the links were to break, which is likely to happen at some point in the future.

While some people consider the rules to be strict and all-encompassing, I prefer a more collaborative approach. I interpret the honor code—"We know mistakes are inevitable. We don't want to be afraid to make them. We assume that mistakes are unintentional when others make them and ask for the same understanding."—quite literally.

With that perspective, I view this as an opportunity for collaboration. Given that this profile involves a Pre-1700 individual, I would reach out to the Pre-1700 Netherland profiles project team for assistance in enhancing these profiles. I believe in working together with everyone involved to broaden our collective knowledge and improve profile creation practices.

I would post a message to G2G with a tag to Dutch Roots, seeking assistance from them to refine and enhance these profiles.

---

To bring this back to the original question, we have someone working on pre-1700 profiles who needs assistance in meeting WikiTree's pre-1700 criteria. Many in WT view a Mentor Intervention Request as a form of demerit while in reality it is the only current method of formally requesting help when it is needed. Bringing someone who needs assistance to the attention of the Mentor/Mediator Group without filing an MIR is frequently met with a response, and I am paraphrasing, of 'please follow the problems with members procedure' or 'file an MIR if needed.' Having spent much time as a Mentor, I always believed we needed a formal interim step to the MIR but that has never been developed, very likely due to lack of available volunteers and the need to establish some criteria for the interim step (vs the help so many members freely offer). Margreet's question as I read it indicates this has reached the point obtaining help via MIR is warranted.

---

@Jimmy, what kind of post is this then? To my opinion I’ve created a G2G post and tagged the Netherlands Project (as there isn’t a Dutch Roots project anymore)

@T Stanton, it’s indeed the interim step I’m seeking for. I need someone that could also tell this person the same stuff I already told, and guide this person a bit more as she clearly don’t understand WT

---

I second T Stanton's advice of file an MIR. As another Mentor, they aren't a demerit, they are a way to request help for an individual who isn't taking suggestions from a profile PM. This may be especially needed if they are doing pre-1700 work incorrectly.

---

Well I’m not going to file a MIR, because I know the consequences. And I personally think that’s way too heavy, but feel free to start it yourself. Anybody can see that sometimes the pre-1700 certificate is not enough especially when given so shortly after signing up at WT

---

I've tidied up that particular profile, improving the sources, making them inline, as well as showing what they were for. I also left a comment recommending that each child has it's own profile and the sources be move to that, as well as using some browser extensions to make that sort of things easier to do.

Answer 3

I have to say I add stuff like this as well. If a father is mentioned in a child's baptism record, I enter that record for the father as well. Like a cross-reference: one record has links to all people involved, not just the main character. It also shows where a person was at that day, for example.

Not sure if that is the exact example you were trying to show us, but that is what I am reading there.

Comments

I agree that the sources may be a baptism for the profile person, followed by the marriage for the person and the the baptism of children for that person, but it needs to be stated as such, not just links in Sources section.  There should also be more than just a link, in case the site changes their links so there is information.  Looking at some of the later baptisms, there is a child name mentioned, so those should be included 'when' the profile is being created.  Someone else should not be expected to follow this person to correct each profile

---

You're right, just a list of sources is not very readable.

---

This is even worse. Some lady already created almost 1.700 profiles and in most of them she only put this:

• Geneanet Community Trees Index

as source. You can look at all her profiles, but here you have an example: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Somers-1781

(Edited to change the number of profiles, that’s not the same as the contributions)

---

Left a note on the spouse of that profile, as someone else already has commented on the original profile.  Added the unsourced sticker to both of them, and added a source for their daughter's death.

If you come across profiles like that, go right ahead and add {{unsourced|Netherlands}} to them.