Acknowledging GEDCOM Contributors

Question

I understand that it is good to acknowledge contirbutors to profiles.  However, as I clean up some of the multiply merged profles and put all the acknowledgments at the end, that section gets to be really long and doesn't add anything.  And, most of the GEDCOM stuff has been edited out because it was not sourced or merely referred to someone's Ancestry Family Tree.

An example is Normandie-54.  Is it OK to just say that there were numerous contirbutors and delete the individual references? Those who really contribute to the profile can add themsellves, if they wish.

Comments

We already have a problem.

I do not see credit due for the work of Mary McKague (Stamper-78)?
7 August 2011 17:44: Mary McKague imported the data for Duke Rollo of Normandy from MaryStamperMcKague2011-08-06_01.ged

Can you show me were credit due her is posted?

---

Perhaps one day we will have better tracking. In the mean time its best not to remove credit due.

For those that say its a wiki, credit is not due on the front page fine see how credit due is properly handled on another wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollo

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rollo&action=history - Revision history

http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Rollo&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia - Article revision statistics

---

"Those who really contribute to the profile can add themsellves, if they wish."

They added themselves once,  Can you ask Mary if she wants to add her name again? Is Mary still with us?

---

I cetainly didn't remove credits for anyone on purpose.  That is why I asked the question BEFORE doing anything.  I have added McKague into the Acknowledgments.

---

Thank you, Mike

---

Michael, the links you provide to Wikipedia show contributors (via their changes tab) the same way wikitree does through its Changes tab.

---

Yes they do, they show all changes by all indivuduals with out having to do several hours research to find missing contributions.

---

Mike, remember that you're talking about duplicates. Duplicates are the enemy on WikiTree! If someone creates a duplicate and then it's merged into the original profile, yes, you do need to click back to a separate Changes page from the main Changes page to see changes to the duplicate. But it's all there. Even though we wish it weren't.

Answer 1

I want to agree with this also. After a profile from a GEDCOM goes through so many merges, sometimes after I clean up the Acknowledgement area, I realize I may be giving equal credit to someone who copied and pasted, versus someone who maybe went on a long trip digging through dusty records from small libraries or going through Ellis Island manifests or something.

In the end though, I know that it is not for me to decide, so I leave it all and I just clean and organize. Besides, perhaps, one day, someone has a question about one of their ancestors, and I just deleted the name of the person who knew the answer! It could happen!

 

Trib

Comments

"In the end though, I know that it is not for me to decide, so I leave it all and I just clean and organize. Besides, perhaps, one day, someone has a question about one of their ancestors, and I just deleted the name of the person who knew the answer!"

Good point, Trib.  Thanks.

---

Whether one is the traveler who finds the records, or the at-home mother who transcribes them for hours, we all contribute something. Everyone deserves credit, even the copy/paste people... consider it consolidation of information! I have been making a special == Contributors == section on profiles that have had multiple files compiled. I just don't want to hurt people's feelings! I know that if their names are there, it is highly likely that this is a member of their family. To remove their name seems... dishonorable. Does anybody "get" what I'm saying?

---

Trib, Vic and Robin, thank you, Mike

Answer 2

You could do that but then are you sure your not removing credit for valued contributions. Its one of the reasons I rairly work on profiles anymore. My fathers name is removed as a contributor. If you are asking for approval to remove contributors names without verifying the contribution I would say NO!!! Check the contribution and verify a link in the changes page and perhaps then ok.

Management disagrees with my position, but its my opinion.

Comments

See example page Edmund Rice  for means of condensing the information. It may be to late to salvage this information from the file of Rollo.

---

I always group the Gedcom sources together chronologiacally at the end of the biography above the footnotes. Yeah, I've had some with over 20 contributors. I'm in no postion to determine quality of their contributions.

---

I do the same as Tom.

---

My view again,

1) Give credit due for those that have contributed to a profile.  Credit should be on the profile page(footnote reference of contributor). Credit is due for new information if and only if it is properly sourced.

2) Erasing all credit references with out leaving valid credit is wrong.

3) Claiming all credit due is on our changes tab is rediculous.

---

Tom and Eugene, thank you, Mike

Answer 3

Obviously this issue is pretty controversial, as it was when the Acknowledgments section was first added to new profiles.

My point of view continues to be that someone importing a GEDCOM with no real info in it should not be in the acknowledgments. All except the first one imported were just creating duplicate profiles, which is exactly what we don't want, so I don't really understand thanking them for that.

If we're going to acknowledge people's contributions on the profile page itself, it should at least be actual contributions we're acknowledging, like "Thank you to So-and-So for merging the many duplicates of this profile." or "Thank you to So-and-So for writing the biography on this profile." or even "Thank you to So-and-So for adding sources to this profile."

Comments

Michael, I'm sorry you've moved away from working on profiles. Your work was good. But I'm with Lianne on this one. The bulk of profiles I see when merging have little to any source information, and when they do, they point to (usually unsourced) family tree files on ancestry.com. This includes first uploads or manually-created profiles. And this doesn't count the high amount of inaccurate (or even absent) information because someone did a copy/paste of someone else's "research" that they didn't check themselves.

I don't think including the names of people who uploaded/added these near-empty profiles adds any value to the profiles. 

---

Exactly. If someone just created an unsourced duplicate they shouldn't be thanked for it.

---

"just created" sounds like a different problem, send the profile to the trash heap (duplicate-1) along with all ancestors of the profile if the manager will not take care of it. Delete the bio and all sources if you do not want a trash profile.  Set a date, duplicate profiles to be removed with in a week of identification if not merged. Remove the manager (no manager) of the duplicate profiles.

---

Mike, you know that's not how WikiTree works. Deletion is only feasible if we catch the profiles in the first couple days. See http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Merging and http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Deletion_FAQ

---

I do condense the acknowledgments at the end, under an additional section, with a * for ech to display them correctly in a list. I try to keep them in numeric/date order, and remove etraneous words in the acknowledgments such as 'WikiTree profile ', 'See the xxx for the details', 'click xxx to edit', and <!-- Please edit, add...

It just keeps the overall biography shorter after many many merges.

So much work, so many profiles, I'm hoping to automate some of it soon.

---

Thank you Bob,  Mike