Honor Code "Verification"

Question

Based on a recent conversation, it was noted that some of the most prominent misunderstandings on WikiTree seem to come from issues that should have been solved (or at least understood) when new members 'signed' the Honor Code.

For example, a simple search on G2G will reveal that there are multiple threads that start off or contain statements like "These are my profiles, why are you making changes?", "Why are you adding sources to my profiles", or some other variation thereof.

It has been several years for me, but I believe the process was simply clicking a button at the bottom of the page - which doesn't really verify that anyone has actually read the Honor Code - or that they understand it. If they haven't read it or don't actually understand what it means, how they can possibly abide by it?

So the question I pose is simple in terms - but may not be received well:

Is it time to refine the system so that new members can be tested on their understanding and willingness to follow the Honor Code?

This could be implemented as easily as a questionnaire where a simple question is posed, and the new member can document their own response, (e.g., What does the Honor Code mean by "We collaborate"?). Alternatively, this could be implemented as a multiple-choice quiz very similar to the Pre-1700 self-certification process.

---

For those who may say that this might (or would) slow or even stop new member registrations on WikiTree due to the additional steps - I would ask - Is it better to have dedicated members who take the time to learn they WikiTree way, or those who simply fly through the registration process by clicking on the "accept" button like they would on an iTunes Terms and Conditions page?

Comments

I really think we should not only include this for new members, I think ALL present members also should take the test.

And since it is such a vital part of WikiTree, perhaps some volunteers should also translate it into different languages? Perhaps not all the languages of the world, but at least into those that have enough members to have a project?

---

Hello.  New member here.  Clicked the Honor Code.  Meant well, but... Now I wish I understood the process better.  Instead I wanted to jump right in.  In a perfect world a couple of things might have helped me.  First, a Mentor.  Second, some sort of "Practice" ancestor tree.  Call it Adam and Eve, if you like, were folks can go on and add children, grandchildren, spouses, link people, add sources... all made up, mind you, but done it a way that lets you know when you've done well and when you haven't.  There are still some (to you old pros) simple things I don't understand.  And I hate to pester anyone with questions.  My 2 cents.  I really enjoy this site, by the way.  Love it.  Don't want to mess it up.

---

I just noticed this conversation, again, when it got bumped up. So I went back to look at the Honor Code.  To my surprise, it says”When we share ancestors we work together on the same ancestor profiles.  This seems to suggest that we only collaborate if we share ancestors.  Now, I know that isn’t what it means, but it’s easy to see how a newbie  might  interpret it so.

Answer 1

Steven, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is absolutely frustrating to see things that could easily be solved by the honor code take up so much space - on here, in G2G, in conversations, and in our minds and hearts.

I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain to people (related to me and not related to me) how Wikitree and other OWT-type sites work. The main sticking point seems to be that they don’t understand that it’s a collaborative effort - they think it’s “my tree” and “my ancestor’ and “how dare you edit my profile”. Some throw a fit on social media, some others demand that we “take their whole tree down”. This could be easily prevented if people read the first LINE of the Honor Code, and if they really understood what a one world tree was. Another important honor code problem - sourcing. “What do you mean that I need to source this profile? It’s my family! Of course I would know!” is a common one. These comments spread far beyond G2G - there was a post in a Facebook group attacking FamilySearch trees just recently for people “adding things to their ancestors”, which caused a whole lot of people to scream “how do I delete my ancestors?!” And “That’s why I don’t use it!” and honestly WT gets a lot of those people  

I think that a quiz similar to the pre-1700 quiz would be necessary, especially with focus on the collaboration and sourcing. Those seem to be the main problems here, and the common thread that seems to frustrate people. If people took the time to think about what they were doing and agreeing to, it may come out different. I know I mindlessly clicked the button to agree to the honor code without actually reading it, and honestly? I know many, many people who did the same. A quiz would make people stop and think.

Comments

Liz,

I agree, particularly with respect to collaboration and sourcing.

In the 9 hours since this post there have been at least 4 posts with the phrase “my tree” in the subject.

Answer 2

I agree with you Steven Harris.  I did read what the Honor Code entailed, and understood that it was a collaborative effort.  However, there are several aspects that I just couldn't understand by virtue of not really grasping how WikiTree specifics worked, such as finding and citing resources, and finding the changes that were made as well as the difference between the change and the original post.  I would welcome anything that would make it easier, including your idea of a "quiz".  Thanks so much for the wonderful suggestion.

Answer 3

I agree with this. I've been involved in several exchanges with users where they insist that they don't "need" to add sources because "it's my family." A recent discussion is in the Facebook group, wherein the user was upset that people added sources to user's relatives during the Source-a-thon and also didn't like the unsourced template being placed on profiles they manage. User wanted to be asked, even if a simple source was being added. Can you imagine asking if it's ok to add sources?

My reaction is WHAT, didn't you read the Honor Code and sign on to WikiTree anyway? Did you think it was a joke?

A quick 3 or 4 question quiz would, perhaps, hammer home the idea that this is a shared tree and that we collaborate.

Answer 4

I applaud the intent here, but I have to say I'm skeptical that another quiz or questionnaire, or another hoop for newcomers to jump through, could actually solve this problem. In my experience it is one thing to understand and accept the concepts of single tree and collaboration in your objective, rational, adult brain. It is a much different thing to become comfortable with their actual implementation in practice. I was a firm believer and supporter of the single tree idea before I ever actually began Step 1 of genealogy. But I confess to being startled and very uncomfortable the first few times I saw that someone I didn't know had made changes to one of “my” profiles of “my” ancestor. The idea does take some getting used to, especially (I would guess) for people who have worked on one of the other every-man-for-himself sites!   So quiz or no quiz, we are likely to continue to see people vent about edits to “their” profiles, especially when the editor actually changes data or has a different style or a different perspective on what data should be emphasized. It might be a part of the coming-of-age process.

Comments

I think you are right, in that there is no way to actually solve this problem altogether. I do however think that steps can be taken in order to reduce the likelihood that these topics keep recurring, by simply investing more responsibility in the user registration process.

---

Right? The first time someone edited one of mine, I was irked! But then when I looked at it closely, the edit was needed and was correct. I left it. It happened again and I saw a trend. The edits were to profiles I uploaded from GEDCOMs. People were fixing place names or adding genders. I started looking more closely at my own profiles.

Answer 5

Maybe if the Honor Code was broken up in a page per code. Read the first with a fuller explanation of that particular code, click “I agree” or something like that, which leads to the next code presented the same way (with a fuller explanation), etc.

Case is point: Me. I joined and great tags, flew through the Honor Code, and started entering profiles right away... with horrible sources (because I didn’t see the difference between WT and other sites at first, and because, I thought, I’d been doing genealogy for so long, etc, being a pompous axx.). I didn’t take the Honor Code as seriously as I should have.

I mentioned this one time awhile back, but for sure, I believe that somethings need to be emphasized right from the get go, sourcing and non-ownership of profiles and trees. And a longer explanation of each of the individual codes.

I also understand that while I do not “own” my profiles, I, like many others who have made the complaint, wouldn’t want someone trashing my profiles with poor work. Still, if I had to ask permission of managers of profiles for permission to add a source, like during the Source-a-Thon, I’d be waiting still for some profile managers to respond. How many times have we seen here the complaint that a manager is not responding?

I think I mentioned before, some months ago, that a video requirement would be good. Maybe a video on the Honor Code would be beneficial. Wouldn’t have to be long, but it would have the benefit of hearing instead of just reading (which could easily be skipped as it so often is now).

Just my thoughts. Not trying to contradict anyone participating in this discussion. All of you have said some excellent things.

Comments

Some people are auditory learners, so yes, an audiovisual version might sometimes be helpful -- but there are technical obstacles: the internet is primarily a lexical medium, and most people's devices are set up accordingly. Requiring a response to an audiovisual presentation only makes sense for a site like YouTube, where having the technical setup to view and listen to A/V is kind of the whole point. On a site like WikiTree, where you're never going to encounter another sound file or video, it does not make sense.

---

A video could be good but really should not be a requirement, not without text alternatives.

---

I agree that an audiovisual presentation should not be required. I read and understood the Honor Code before I agreed to it and went back and read it again to make sure I followed it.  If you made me sit still and watch a video, I probably would have never joined.

Answer 6

Perhaps there could/should be a re-affirment to the honor code periodically, so people are reminded of their 'obligations'? Perhaps putting edit rights on hold until they affirm.

Perhaps an introductory video, explaining how WikiTree works and what this means. Sometimes it is better received when delivered by a human face, rather than words to be clicked through (like the iTunes Ts&Cs - I like that comparison)

But I agree, I come across so many people who don't grasp the nature of an open, collaborative tree - and I've only been here less than a year, so can imagine who jaded/frustrated could be!

Answer 7

Wow, do I love this thread!  And I really like the idea of a multi-page presentation of the Honor Code, each page with a paragraph explaining an aspect of the Code, plus a single line at the bottom in red that summarizes that pages point, plus an "I agree" button.  I'd like to see this new version required to be completed by everyone, with a nag box or message on the profile of every active member until the new Honor Code pages have been clicked through.  There's no need to restrict edit privileges, just let the intrusive nag message do its work.  How can anyone legitimately complain about that?  Or complain any longer about anyone messing with 'their' profiles?

Starter ideas: "1. Profiles belong to everyone, they aren't 'mine' ".  "2. We collaborate (because they belong to everyone, we work together, we communicate)".  "3. Because we're all different, with differing opinions, we believe in evidence-based genealogy, adding as many sources as possible to back up the facts we add".  Etc, etc.

Comments

Would we leave the original honor code and add the extra explanation or quiz or whatever on another page (perhaps they have to click through it) or would we have to edit the honor code itself? I’d rather the former...

---

I don't have any particular feelings one way or the other, happy to leave it to staff and others.  My main interest is in encouraging a wider and deeper understanding of all aspects of the Honor Code, and I'll be happy no matter how it's implemented.

Answer 8

We could do a page per code with multiple choice answers per page. Select the correct answer for the next page. But labels the pages like (3 of 8) so they know it isn't endless.

At the end we could have the short video with link and a box that says "Please enter code" with the code given at the end of the video.

This would make people engage brain cells to pick the correct answer and guarantee they watched the video to get the code. It would also give the impression of how seriously we take the code. Anything above clicking that you agree tends to make you pay more attention even if it is as simple as having to click a box before you agree.

Comments

First thing I do when I get a new PC is turn the sound off!

Answer 9

I think that in theory this sounds like a very good idea. However I would like to point out a small(?) practical issue that does not seem to have been mentioned so far.

The idea is based on the fact that people read and fully understand quite a lot of information and/or listen to and understand it. Since WikiTree is an international site this information should ideally be presented in multiple languages, otherwise there is little chance that a non-English speaker would fully understand the contents. Does WikiTree have the capacity to provide this sort of multi-lingual support?

I know that this comment applies to much more than just this particular suggestion, but if people are unable to contribute to the site until they have gone through this process then it would accelerate the need for this type of support. For the written part I guess people could copy the text into a translator and gain a basic understanding (which may be what they do now), but they would probably miss some parts due to the quality of the translation and it would not feel particularly welcoming. If there is an accompanying video then I have no idea how they would cope with that.

Edit: Maggie has also now commented on the same aspect, but we posted within seconds of each other so I don't know who got in first!

Comments

Looks like she was about 14 seconds ahead of you, but this is very good feedback. Even if what I am asking is not possible, at least this thread gives us an idea of what we may be able to do in the short term (i.e., translations of specific pages).

---

Not sure if we have the people to do it but could a "core" set of translations be done as a start? I don't know the exact set, but French and German would seem cover a lot of people. International Standards get published in English, French and Russian.

I don't look at many non-USA profiles, but from what I've seen, the problems tend to be more vocal here. More people from here participating so the chances are higher but I don't think the problem is entirely language. Part of it is attitude.

---

For the written part I guess people could copy the text into a translator and gain a basic understanding

What about providing a link to a translator right on the Honor Code page to make it easier to translate?

Or ... I know that Google has a plugin for their translate tool, but I'm afraid I know nothing about how it works.

---

Most modern browsers will offer to translate pages for you if they are not in your native language. For instance, if you use Google Chrome and visit a page in French, Google will offer to translate the page for you. See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

---

I think it would be better to start with human translations in languages unrelated to English, because machine translators fail utterly to produce anything sensible for those. (I'm still surprised when Google produces mostly-correct translations for German text; it barely even functions as a dictionary for Hungarian.)

---

We do have a long list of language volunteers.