Challenge of the week: help improve marriages

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Want to join us in a challenge?

This week's Data Doctors Challenge is centered on weddings and marriages. Let's help profiles in our tree live happily ever after.

WikiTree+ data analysis has discovered almost 70,000 marriage-related errors and warnings to be investigated, including:

• Unknown gender of spouse: The person's spouse does not have a gender. If it can be confidently determined, you should set the spouse's gender from their edit page.
• Single sex marriage: Both spouses have the same gender. Same-sex marriage is not uncommon today but it was rare in history. Try to verify that one of the partners does not have the wrong gender and edit if appropriate.
• Marriage before birth: The person's marriage date is before their birth date. If the correct marriage date or the person's birth date can be confidently determined, fix it. To edit a marriage date look for the "edit marriage" link below the spouse in the Edit Family section of the person's edit page.
• Marriage too long after birth:The person's marriage date is more than 115 years after their birth date.
• Marriage after death: The person's marriage date is after their death date. If the correct marriage date or death date can be determined, fix it.
• Lived too long after marriage: The person lived too long after marriage. So probably death or marriage date is wrong. Limit is set at 115 years. Correct death or marriage date.
• Multiple marriages on same day: The person married more than one spouse on the same day. If one marriage date is incorrect, fix it, or if the spouses are duplicates, merge them.
• Marriage to duplicate person: The person married more than one person with the same name. If the spouses are duplicates, merge them.
• Marriage End Date before Marriage Date: The marriage end date is before the marriage date.
• Marriage End Date before Birth Date: The marriage end date is before the person's birth date. If the correct birth or marriage date can be determined, fix it.
• Marriage End Date too late: The difference between the person's birth date and their marriage date is too long. The dates would mean the person's marriage ended when they were over 115 years old.
• Marriage End Date after Death Date: The person died before their marriage ended.
• Spouse is a sibling: The person's spouse has one of the same parents. This is not impossible but unlikely. If the problem can be determined, correct it.

Here is the table of errors we need to investigate.

To earn a point, click the status button on the report by the profile you edited and follow the instructions there. [more info]

The member with the most points at 11:59 pm EDT on Sunday night will get the badge and the bragging rights. But we'll all benefit from an improved tree, with stronger marriages. :-)

What will you be working on? Please post here to let us know and we'll cheer each other on. Or post if you have any questions about how to participate.

Thanks for helping to clean our tree!

UPDATE:

Top 10

• Amy Wiemer - 595
• Darren J. Kellett - 278
• Paula J. Cullen -270
• Linda L. Barnett - 204
• Elizabeth B. Coltrane - 139
• Jamie O. Ball - 112
• S Davenport - 101
• Natalie J. Trott - 78
• Cindy Cooper - 74
• Tim Perrins - 58
• Diane Darcy - 55

For more results see:

• By Participant
• By Error Type
• By Participant and Error Type
• By Error Type and Day
• By Participant and Day
• By Hour

Comments

Challenge started.

---

spreadsheet and chat here. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jlRaiRtaMEpsPdeuRLS2ids4HAXJyGVCKiQyEMh4NNE/edit#gid=2

chat is in upper right to the left of comments. http://prntscr.com/gybz36

---

I think the tracker is broke???

---

Tracker results are up.

---

Thank you!

---

I would like to participate.

---

Could we please direct data doctors cleaning USA too early errors to read the following G2G post: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/289628/state-abbreviations

Jamie

Answer 1

Just as a reminder, as always, please respect the guidelines for collaboration. Marriage data can be sensitive.

Please check this post if you are working on South Africa. Thank you!

Comments

At least where merges are proposed (such as for marriage to duplicate people) profile managers have the opportunity to approve, right?

---

Of course!

Answer 2

On suggestion of our new leader Isabelle Rassinot, I'm posting this question in this feed as an answer:

We (the {{Dutch Cape Colony}} project) got the following message from a datadoctor (who in 5 years of being on WikiTree, has not even made more than 2000 contributions) [[Campher-3]]: ''Please remove extra-marital affair as a marriage, put a notation in each profile that they had illegitimate child(ren) together instead and leave them as parents of the correct child(ren).''

I answered on his homepage:

1. There is no such thing as an "illegitimate" child or "correct" child. QUALIFICATION: I received the following response: "Now we appreciate the hard work all of you do but while we are doing our best to clean up the errors, deliberately putting errors in seems counter-productive. As far as there being no illegitimate children, I provide a link for your benefit. Concerning the latter - this is the official definition of what has over centuries been perceived as an "illegitimate" child, to the extend that it was also entered into baptism records. That does not mean that we still have to abide by that definition, and that certainly does not disprove any DNA-linkage. Concerning the former statement - "deliberately entering errors" - I protest. This was meant as a temporary measure, also tolerated as such [on and off]. It only formally became and "error" with the invention of the "error" data base. As it is written it is made out as if we are intentionally trying to subvert the truth. To the contrary.
2. There still hasn't been a solution to the thousands of profiles ''also being researched'' as concubinal relations go - see this G2G feed (In-a-bind-about-relationships)
3. Putting the information ''only'' in the bio's makes researching  - also DNA research - much more difficult. There are thousands of concubinal relationships in the { {Dutch Cape Colony} } project alone. We are not merely sitting idly around - we all work constantly at improving WikiTree; a little support and credit from the data doctors would be much appreciated.

I honestly appreciate the work the data doctors are doing. Also the fact that as far as I can see that they ask / mail before action. In this case (and in similar cases where the place name has been used for placing "extra-marital relationship" I understand where they are coming from.

Yet the solution would be an extra field for those relationships; this has been asked for in quite a few G2G feeds before. Merely moving the information to the bio's means distortion of the facts and also makes working the thousands of profiles in this project just that more difficult. When the information is ''merely'' in the bio's and not also in the data fields, it is not obvious and not in the "algorithmic" [DNA] tree.

Also - I'm starting to notice place names (especially in the marital fields) dissapearing at an alarming rate. This is concerning. Please also see this feed on that point (there has been other feeds as well).

Regarding the latter feed, there has been some exception made for the {{Dutch Cape Colony}} project in correspondence between our project leader with Ales, but I do not think that this extends to the marital data fields.

Comments

I am 100% appalled at the message you received.  Parents are parents and children are children.  How about the African slaves in America who were not allowed to marry, but were committed to each other?  These were "marriages" if not legally recognized.  

And as to extra-marital affairs (And I do have a few in my lines as well as children born before marriage scenarios) I have no intention of unattaching the parents from each other on my profiles.  They had a relationship, even if not legally married, and I want this recognized as such.

In my opinion, this should be up to the profile manager and not in the purview of a Data Doctor or anyone else.

---

I'm used to messages such as those and despite my vehement "protest" I also get that the data doctor is just doing his job and that issues such as this in such a big democratic enterprise such as WikiTree happen. I do not hold a grugde towards him.

Though I am also always appalled at how easily [especially still in modern times] dismissive and insensitive we can be as humans to the present and past suffering and pain of others, caused by the paradigms that play out on macro level. Slavery, bastard children. People with other sexual orientations (such as me) that would in many religions be ostracised, discriminated against, killed, being called demonic. Also realising that I myself can be as dismissive at times.

Even gedcom data such as "@Relationship to father: natural" reveals how deep this kind of perception goes.

I do hope on a change of data fields in future and where when necessary also protocols; I do realise though the immense work that goes into it behind the scenes and the responsibilities involved.

Answer 3

Hi Everyone, I'll work on marriages to duplicate person DBE 409, starting with the 1800-1899 list. How does the spreadsheet work?

Answer 4

I have already started working on the marriage location formats in Upper Case (I was continuing on from last week and it is just luck it fits in with this weeks challenge also). Later in the week I will take a few deep breaths and attempt some of the more "interesting" suggestions on relations.

Answer 5

I found agreeing my wife is always right improved my own marriage no end.

Comments

Thank you, Jason. I was hoping someone was going to make this point. hahaha

Answer 6

I'll work on 409 from 1700-1799.

Comments

How can I find these errors in Canada, specifically Quebec?  I have better sources there than for the US.  I mean besides scrolling past many pairs.  Is there a lookup I can use?

---

Never mind.  Im doing a find on Canada on the list.  Interestingly, there are very few from Canada.  I'll do what I can on all these and then work the 1600's.

Answer 7

Decided that I might manage something a little more challenging than location errors this week, so thought I'd have a look at error code 418, partner is also a sibling. Have corrected 3 this afternoon, and it's taken 3 hours. This will not be one of my highest scoring challenges, but it's certainly going to put all my genealogical skills to the test.

Comments

Thanx, This are really hard to see what is the problem and remove the wrong relation. Usually there are other relation errors present in this mess.

---

These are always fun--putting the right people in the right places :-)

---

Thanks for doing these Carol!

Answer 8

I'll see what I can do with Scottish errors again:-)

Answer 9

I'm working on Married to duplicate person in the 1900's

Comments

I think it is a lot of merges there.

Can you report back at the end of the challenge, how accurate was this suggestion. Did you merge most of them or were they false errors.

---

I've done the 1900's. Proposed merges on nearly all of them. A couple are set as unmerged matches for various reasons. Most of them seem to be created at exactly the same time, the ID differs by one number. I remember someone saying this happens sometimes due to slow connections? I wonder if it is worth checking for very similar profiles with one number different in ID's ie Name-110 and Name-111 if that is possible? Most of them are probably picked up in this suggestion and the siblings duplicates though.

May work some of the different century ones later in the week.

Answer 10

I'll have a go at Australian profiles.

Answer 11

I'm in for this one.  I am working NY errors.

Answer 12

I will work on 405 in the 1800's in US records. And fall back to 663 location errors for relief when the difficulty gets to me.

Answer 13

I am in on this challenge and I will use the challenge tracker.

Answer 14

I'll try to get a few in this week.

Answer 15

I'll take that challenge. See you on the errors page.

Comments

Ah, here I am. Can't seem to pull up an "edit" page. I'm logged in and it's a green open lock. Found a census record that will correct scads of unsourced errors all over the tree, but no "edit." Error-403. Please help.

---

That green open lock indicates the profile is viewable by the public, but can only be edited by the PM or those on the trusted list. Only profiles with an open lock outline can be edited by any WikiTreer, unless it's project protected.

I think the best course of action is to add source specifics to that census record in the profile's public comment section. If, because of length limitations, you need to use a second comment to explain that multiple profiles can be improved with the source, I'd go ahead and do it. Just MHO.

---

Yup. I finally figured it out when I clicked on the lock. I get all excited during challenges when I find information, then frustrated when I can't share it. So is the challenge closed?

Answer 16

Will be working on 671.