Is quantity more important than quality in the creation of profiles? What happened to the honor code for valid sources?

Question

Have been seeing many members of my ancestral line families being added with a date of birth and death and the source is a census.  Could get the year, parents and siblings.  Sometimes findagrave which is unsourced or unvalidated is the source. Births in Virginia but the census has more information and they are all WV residents pre 1863 where their records are found.  No reseach just addition: No Quality just quantity.

Comments

Censuses are great sources. What's the problem?

---

Ben

Yes they are.  You get parents, children, ages, where they were living but not when/where born/died, married or not married, where did they come from or go to and who with, what did they do there or where they got to.  That is biography.  bio- life graph-story.  One of the best hints to get that information and know where to look for their story.

Sharon

---

You can get good information from Census returns, the only problem I have found with them are the dates, many of them are incorrect, so if I don't have another source with a more accurate date then  I tick the uncertain box and in the bio I put born about XXXX so others will know it is not an exact date

---

Karen,

So true especially name spellings, birth years but it is a great hint to find them, get the family and clarify the info.  Found one the other day that at three different names/spellings on three different censuses.  What helped was another source available to me and it was my family.

Great Comment

Sharon

---

Thanks Sharon, I found a lot of unknown family through them, and after a few found don't take the dates as gospel, ,also the writing on them can be very hard to decipher  and it is nice to know what your ancestors did for a living, and many families all did the same type of work xxx

Answer 1

A lot of the time we fall into the trap of thinking that, once a profile is 'up there', it is finished.  If there is only one source (ie a census), we think "well, that's pretty rubbish".  But profiles are a work in progress.

For instance, if I find a census with twelve children, I will create all the profiles: father, mother, 12 children with that source.  Then I can sit back and view the relationships a bit better, what I'm going to be looking for, plan out a research strategy and a research log, and so on.  And then I roll up my sleeves and start researching.  Somebody else could come along before I had finished (in fact, while I am in the middle of researching) and say "well, those are some rubbish profiles.  She just wanted to get lots of contribution points." That's why you will see 'home-made' signs like "Under Construction" or "Just Adopted - gimme a break!".  We often seem to think that a person will do all their research offline BEFORE they put it on WikiTree, when in fact when you put a profile on the Tree, you stand a better chance of online researching.

Yes, I know there are exceptions.  Dump-and-run GEDcoms from 2011, for example.  But the majority of profiles are *being worked on*, either on WikiTree or offline.  That's what makes this hobby great - there's something to do all the time, and some people work better (and faster) from an online profile.

Comments

 'home-made' signs like  . . . "Just Adopted - gimme a break!"

answered by Ros Haywood

.

There's a non-'home-made' one for the adopted, research still ongoing: {{Research_pending}}

I don't even remember how I found that one.
 

---

Ros,

Guess my problem is that if the tools are right in front of me then add more that She/He lived. She/He died. She/He child of________ and do not choose to move on until it is finalized to a greater extent with research.  Just another roll up my sleeves and use research found on the parents' profile.

Thanks for your reply,
Sharon

---

I guess each of us has their own way of working. :)

Good question: got me thinking.

---

I am easily led down many different limbs and branches and tend to be all over the place as I research and input my and my husband's trees.  If you've read "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" or watched the movie "Up!" (Squirrel!!), that's me!

---

Lynnette,

The paternal lines were quite complete so started on the maternal lines that tend to be forgotten and I have many all over many trees as a result.  Have not read or seen the book/movie but believe we are alike--climbing from limb to limb.  Keep up the good work growing our World tree.

Sharon

---

I agree with you, Ros. Sometimes I add entire families using a linked census record as an appropriate source of the info in order to build a branch because I am looking for something or someone else in my research.  That is perfectly acceptable under WikiTree rules.  And, of course, it is then easy for anyone to use RootSearch on the new profile to find additional sources for it. That's a lot easier than trying to use outside sources materials for supporting evidence and then transfer it all at the creation of a profile.

I find that sometimes I want to fully flesh out a profile and sometimes I don't; and as you said, we each have our own preferred way of working.

Answer 2

Records will be indexed and/or stored under the current location name, but on WikiTree we use the name of the location at the time of the event. Prior to admission to the union in 1863, it would have been Virginia.

Comments

Dreck isn't an obscene word. It doesn't mean s**t in Yiddish. It's more like junk or trash.

---

I can tell you the Yiddish word for that if you want...

---

And I mean the ck spelling as in "dreck". I mean, seriously, this is a commonplace word in American English. Most people probably don't even know it's Yiddish anymore.

---

Ben, I just flagged your post for inappropriate language.  I was raised in a home where Yiddish was spoken and my grandmother spoke broken English that was more than half Yiddish.  I don't know where you formed your opinion, but I can assure you from first hand knowledge that the word in question is obscene.

---

Used in the Wall Street Journal (2017) https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-you-judge-a-wine-by-the-size-of-the-winery-1490802928

New York Times (1994) - https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/26/magazine/talking-about-the-media-circus.html
You're claiming that a word is so obscene that we can't use it in G2G, but yet in America's capital of Yiddish, respected mainstream publications just throw it around?

---

Oh, is this like your math expertise, how you were lecturing everyone on how mathematicians never use the term reductio ad absurdum?

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/style/sleep-problem-late-night.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/10/archives/theatercabaret-spoof-of-brechtweill-musicals-on-the-road-to-berlin.html

https://newyorktimescrossword.net/category/new-york-times-crossword-clues/page/17144/

---

Agatha Christie!! (my favorite exclamation/curse word). What has this discussion deteriorated into?!  Public excoriation? If this is public, good-hearted joshing, I don't hear it.  Let's get along and move on.

---

Edie, this ain't nothing to what blew up over the one about WT prejudice against the LGBT which STARTED on a declaration of war and went downhill from there ... until a truce of sorts was declared and perhaps a more reasonable / rational frame of mind settled in

AND it is educational, no doubt about it, reminding all of us that no matter how much we have in common as humans, there are still all those "differences" to respect

---

I hope you've written that story in other places besides the g2g. It's fun reading!

Answer 3

The Honor Code requires us to add sources, and the linked page defines a source as 'the identification of where you obtained information.'  The Honor Code does not impose standards of validity, except to the extent that 'We care about accuracy.'  Readers of the profile can judge for themselves the validity and quality.  If you find the validity and quality fall short, you are free to collaborate and improve them.  Even better, you can work with the less experienced member to improve his or her skills.  As for quantity:  GEDCOMs.  Enough said.

Comments

What about GEDCOM's?  Lots of names and no information or barely any.

Sharon

---

I note that the page Herbert linked to also says;

"You must include your sources when you put information on WikiTree. It's in our Honor Code." [my emphasis]

To me, "when you put information on WikiTree" means before you move on to the next profile. Not later, when you get around to it.

---

And there will never be agreement regards "because I witnessed it" being a valid source, even though the help page says it is.

So someone creates a profile for their child and uses themself as the source for the birth, the marriage and, sometimes, the death of said child.  That is a valid source, because that is where the information was found: in that person's personal involvement and experience.

I did this for my children.  I was most definitely present for the births .. and I defy you to say I am not a valid source.  I was also present for their marriages.  I witnessed it with my own eyes, with my participation, with the taking of photographs (and being in them, darn it all).

So, when I added the information, I added myself as the source, therefore upholding the honour code.

I am in agreement that "personal recollection" should NEVER be used for someone dead before you were born/of an age where memory can actually be reliable, but for current events .. what I witnessed/was part of, I witnessed/was part of.

---

Sharon, gedcoms are another whole topic and IF the profiles are Offensive then any PM can Collaborate by taking one and adequately sourcing it and cleaning out the junk. That's a Contribution, that's Collaboration. That's something that can be done whenever such a horrid mess is encountered. It's a Good Deed. When you've wrestled with a gross of them (144) you can rest.

---

Thanks for the star, Susan!

---

Susan

And many of my 15000++are just that--unsourced profiles which was adopted by me. It is a lot more than 144 and it is worth it when you have met the challenge--contributed and collaborated!

Sharon

---

Melanie,

A family Bible was a source for me but when they were available in West Virginia Vital Records at wvculture.org, personal observation counts--witnessed the event, funeral brochures.  When my baby brother was born we got to stay home until he entered the world, now that is personal observation and will never forget his birth on May 1.

Thanks for comment/input

Sharon

---

Stu,

My thought too.

Sharon

Answer 4

Well, you could just consider this gift of "something" AS a gift and use it as a stepping stone to your own research ... such a nice gift, something given, even if it looks like the dead mouse the cat just laid at your feet, it IS a gift

Comments

Susan,

Just what I have been doing but you just do not plant the seed and leave it to someone to tend the garden to get the crop.  The seeds of the Wikitree require lots of gardening and crowding in a lot with no way to grow will stunt it.  Every seed was a gift and every one need nourishment to grow the tree.

Sharon

---

Actually, we do. WikiTree is one big garden, and we are a bunch of gardeners working collaboratively, not in our own little plot exclusively.  One person can plant the seed, and another one can water or weed or add fertilizer. We each work to our own strengths

---

That's quite correct, Edie, quite so.

Answer 5

I'm not sure why this is even a question, quantity over quality. WikiTree basically got a big boost in the early days and the quantity helped it to grow. This doesn't mean quality doesn't matter, but if a profile exists, it can be expanded and made better. If all we had were high quality profiles only, there would be very few of them on WikiTree.

Most of the connections started from quantity. Many of the people actively working on WikiTree to improve it started at quantity and tried to improve the quality. Not only that, but many of the tools for finding sources work best if you have a profile to start from.

Without quantity, you wouldn't need Sourcerers, you would need very few Data Doctors, and almost everyone would be a bio builder. The connectors would all have had nervous breakdowns and left. The relationship tool would have very few practical applications. I would be willing to bet up to 1/3 or more of the active members hate making biographies. All these people and more would have left if it was only "Quality". People would have become frustrated and left while still in the learning phase if it was always quality.

So, with all of that being said, I vastly prefer quantity, preferably with at least 1 source. This gives us a huge tree that many different people can work on to make it better. This is vastly superior to high quality isolated branches with very few caretakers.

Comments

"preferably with at least one source?"

"VIII. We cite sources. Without sources we can't objectively resolve conflicting information." (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:Honor_Code)

That doesn;t sound like "preferably" to me.

---

Well said, Steven. Well said.

---

Thanks Stu.

---

Stu, I was referring back to the gedcom dumps with the complete lack of sources. Preferrably they have at least 1.

Answer 6

Census and Find a Grave are very good starting points (I am eagerly awaiting the release of the 1950 Census).

Although the Census is not the most reliable for dates and spelling, it is a great starting point. While Find a Grave bios often are not sourced, I believe the headstone and its location to be reliable as well.