Erasing data, corrupting a profile and removing credit due - how do we properly resolve this?

Question

There was a proper sourced profile before incorrect merges and removal of data.  Who supervises the supervisors.  Removal of credit to Michael Lechner and his father on this profile is an error or _________?

Comments

Relevant profiles:

Spencer-753 -- John Spencer

Merrill-391 -- Ann Merrill

Clark-14592 -- Ann Clark

Answer 1

This profile is protected.  Why weren't the changes dicussed with the managers before the editing was done?  Did whoever edited the documentation ignore the notice on the editing page?

Maybe the privacy status should be changed on protected profiles. I know that they are over 200 years old, but at least if the status was changed, it would be the managers who did the editing. Anyone with sources and information would leave a message on the profile's board where it would be seen by the managers.

This is just a suggestion.  It may save a lot of heartaches down the road.

M.

Answer 2

Hi Dean,

I'm not sure what you mean by "corrupting" the profile, but in computer science, data corruption means that the data can't be read or used. This doesn't seem to be the case as I can load and see the profile correctly.

What I suspect you really mean is that you disagree with the data in the profile. If that's the case, it is usually more productive to discuss such issues with the collaboraters working on the profile.

Keep in mind that this is a Wiki, and one powerful feature is the "Changes" tab. There you can find all the information that was ever entered as well as who has worked on the profile. It is therefore not possible to completely erase data or to remove credit for any of those changes. It a change was made where useful data was apparently removed, the "changes" tab can be used recover such data.

Another side-effect of this being a wiki with a goal of collaborating on a single tree, is that when a duplicate profile gets created, it must get merged and the resulting bio must be cleaned up. If an error was made during such a merge, I would suggest you discuss the issues in question in a courteous fashion with the collaborators.

Your tone with this question seems to be more confrontational that collaborative and does not seem to me to follow the spirit of the Honor Code. Attacking the genealogy skills of your collaborators is not productive. If you do believe a particular supervisor of any user is being malicious, please contact  the wikitree team.

Now, if you are truely interested in improving Anne Spencer's profile, I would suggest you focus your question on a particular fact that you may think is incorrect, and get a disscussion going from there. Keep in mind that you will make a much stronger case for information which is backed up with credible sources.

Comments

Thank you Roland,  for your input.  Sourced information was on this profile.  Replacing the information with data not confirmed by this source and not verified by another seems harmful to the mission of this wiki.  Removing sources and the names of the contributor of said source would also seem inappropriate.

It appears a supervisor merged these profiles incorrectly.

It appears another deleted sourced information and replaced some of it.  This now establishes her as the contributor.

It appears another removed all reference to Ted Lechner a contributor to this data.

You now have a profile with the incorrect parents, an extra child.  A major portion of the sourcing was removed.  And credit to a wikitree member removed.  I am asking what gives, before I restore the profile.  Thank you, Dean

---

To tell you the truth, I don't see any relevant data erased. There was a long text in the biography, which was not specific to the profile itself, and the other removed 'facts' looked quite redundant to me.

Further on, the Lechner space does not look like a source to me, so I'm OK with the removal of the reference to that too. I checked that space, and found a lot of information there, including scans etc., but where relevant, these scans can be referenced directly from the profile page.

And as far as credits go, I don't see such things on wikipedia, and have big doubts about the importance of those here, unless they are to the author of a source, a specific source, I mean. Same for the list of imported GEDCOMs that I see everywhere.

---

I took a look at the profile's history as well, and I agree with Enno that it does seem like the removed info was indeed redundant.

About the sources, I agree that the Lechner space didn't seem to be very helpful as a source, so it's removal shouldn't be seen as removing credit from anyone.

In fact, the changes tab is where the definitve list of contributers is located, as it can't be modified. The sources section of the bio should not be confused with the list of contributors, it should be reserved for listing actual sources for the data which can ideally be verified by anyone accessing the profile.

Looking at the changes tab, I still see the multiple contributions made by Michael Lechner, so credit is not being removed.

Now trying to focus in on the important issue, which is to improve the profile, the real problem is that who the parents are is in dispute?

---

Agree there doesn't seem any relevant info was removed.

Answer 3

From what can be seen,  it seems this is what has now happened:

Information was taken from:

http://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Merrill-391&public=1

and then placed on the newly created profile:

 

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Clark-14592.

 

Instead of continuing with the inquiry that was started on Merrill-391, she has been detached  as spouse of :

 

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Spencer-753

 

Merrill-391 was emptied out (which had included a VERY nice rewrite by Katherine Patterson) and  Clark-14592  was made replacement spouse for Spencer-753.

These actions work against the Honor Code not in line with it..

Going off and creating another profile based on an unsourced  theory and in the process sabotaging the work of someone else is not the solution nor appropriate. Instead there should be a collaborative effort in the resolution of the spouse theories in which the available evidence is analyzed.

Some members are currently working to determine, with proper sources, who the correct spouse of Spencer-753 should be.   For the time being, I have reattached Merrill-391 as a spouse of Spencer-753 until evidence says otherwise and I will restore the biography that Katherine previously entered.