Should non-wiki genealogists be WikiTree members? [closed]

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Here's a big question. It's something we haven't asked ourselves in a long time, and I think it may be time to reconsider our answer.

Should WikiTree welcome genealogists who don't sign the Honor Code and help grow our shared tree? Do we want all genealogists to be members, or just genealogists who contribute?

It's not easy to contribute to our tree. There is a lot to it. The technology isn't as user-friendly as it could be, but there's more to it than that. Genealogical collaboration is not easy. We're good at it here because we have a highly developed community culture. For high-level contributors, at least, there is a lot to know, and not everyone is willing or able to make the commitment.

We made a choice a long time ago to discourage casual participation. Members who aren't serious cause problems for the community.

I still believe that collaborating on our tree should be restricted to members who are willing to take the time to understand what it requires. But, I am starting to think that we have reached a point where WikiTree can and should be more welcoming to all genealogists.

Why now?

There are a few reasons why I think it's time to reexamine this.

• Our community and organization have matured. We can handle more members without putting our mission at risk.
• After the GDPR we pulled back on what we store and display about living non-members. In particular, we no longer allow information about DNA tests for non-members. Our DNA features would be more effective if we had more genealogists recording their DNA tests here.
• Google is no longer indexing all our profiles. At least in part this is because too few genealogists elsewhere on the Internet talk about WikiTree. If we were more welcoming to the broader genealogy community we could be talked about more.
• We are about to release major improvements to our system for commenting on profiles. Because of spam problems we will still not be allowing non-members to comment. I think we want all genealogist cousins to be able to comment on the profiles of our shared ancestors.

What exactly would change on WikiTree?

I don't know, exactly. I have in mind two things:

1.) Create a permanent member type for non-wiki genealogists.

We currently have three member types: Guest Members, Family Members, and Wiki Genealogists. If you're not a family member of a Wiki Genealogist, you register as a Guest. We think of that as a temporary state. You're either on your way to becoming a Wiki Genealogist or you're just passing through. Your account will eventually be deleted if you don't participate.

Maybe we would have a new "Non-Wiki Genealogist" (or just "Genealogist"?) member type that would be like a Family Member account. You wouldn't need to volunteer and be confirmed by a Greeter. You could not edit Open profiles without being on the Trusted List but you could create and edit private profiles of close family members, participate on G2G, comment on profiles, receive private messages, and use GEDCompare for search.

All our rules and policies would still apply to everyone and every profile. We just wouldn't push all genealogists to sign the Honor Code and participate as wiki genealogists unless they want to. We would try to present staying as a non-wiki genealogist as a legitimate choice that's right for many members.

To have a non-wiki genealogist account maybe we would ask a couple optional questions about who you are as a genealogist, e.g. where/how you keep your tree, whether/where you maintain a membership (Ancestry, MyHeritage, Findmypast, etc.), and whether/where you've taken a DNA test.

2.) Highlight on account profiles who you are as a genealogist.

Right now our member account profiles look basically like all the other profiles on our tree. I'm thinking that we should do something more on them to clearly say that you're a genealogist, and what sort of genealogist you are. Many members already do this with their bios. This would just be something more to highlight the things I mentioned above, i.e. whether your tree is on WikiTree or elsewhere, whether you participate elsewhere, and where you have been DNA-tested.

Maybe we would even invite non-wiki genealogists to say if they don't endorse or agree with their ancestry on WikiTree, and if so, why. That might sound like it would cause controversy or conflict, but it might actually deflect it and encourage communication.

Before thinking about and discussing the finer details, I would like your feedback on the basic questions here. Do you think there is room in our community for non-wiki genealogists? Do they have something of value to offer us, and do we have something of value to offer them? Or would their presence be a distraction from our mission to grow an accurate single family tree?

Please post your thoughts. Thanks!

Chris

Comments

Guests who have volunteered and been confirmed, but have not signed the Honor Code, are also designated as Family Members, Melanie.

commented by Deb Durham

.

I thought those were Volunteers, not Family Members. 

---

actually, they are clearly labeled guests on their profiles

---

Hi, Danielle,

If they have been confirmed and have not signed the Honor Code, they are labeled  Family Members. They are only guests until they have been confirmed no matter how the confirmation happens.

---

Gaile I really like what you have proposed. I have several male family members with no interest in genealogy, but would be willing to contribute their DNA tests and check their own family profiles.

---

Though I understand the concern, where would you draw the line. Do you keep raising the bar year by year because of perceived inadequacies in the work of certain members? There are checks and balances already in place that are not available in other forums. Maybe there are some out there that are interested in contributing, but their resources are limited. There are adult researchers that may pale in comparison to others for a variety of reasons. You might be unknowingly compare a person that has 5 kids and working 50 hrs per week to a member that is retired and has substantially more time to contribute. A person may also be in a temporary time bind, unable to contribute, but able to make up for his/her shortfall of involvement later. Some may feel cheated as they are putting their lives into research, but we don't do this for personal glory it is to build a world tree, competently. That person that does not contribute as much or hardly at all may be the only one that has a portrait or birth certificate that opens many doors to the past. I myself am doing this to leave my grand-kids and for future generations. Sometimes I find going off track a bit, for example helps. My granddaughter is now interested because I discovered a link to a famous person and she now wants to use it in a school show and tell project. This could be a future genealogist. I understand that troublemakers, consistent rule violators, or people that are constantly argumentative or always bring up non-relative subjects need to pointed in the correct direction. I would suggest a separate remedial page showing an (abc..) way of doing things. Personally, I was an engineer for 30 yrs working on highly technical products and am willing to bet most intelligent people in this forum would take a long time just to grab the concept of what I was discussing. It doesn't make them ignorant nor does it make me incompetent on this site. If you change policy, you may also lose very informed genealogists that don't agree with a change in policy. If Wikitree begins to look like an exclusive site, overly restrictive, we might viewed as DNA Darwinists and this is an imperfect study of human relativity, refining as we go. Also, people can react in unpredictable ways, creating a ripple effect. There are those who may decide to privatize their own info, reducing Wiki's references from other sites(Ancestry, Heritage, Find-a-Grave etc. Maybe they will lose quality people to learn proper researching from and return to the old habits of just making trees without confirming sources, adding/duplicating incorrect info...This could possible add to more inconsistencies and research difficulties in Wikis own world. Let's not roll snake eyes.

---

Calm down, Mark. Chris is talking about making it easier to participate here, not harder.

---

I feel there should be a way to let the less intellectual and uneducated contribute what we know to a less judgemental group of people who can add it to the tree.

I will be 77 in 2 days and I have a passion to see that my family is added and can find us when they become interested. Unfortunately I had 2 strokes several years ago plus breast cancer that has affected my memory especially short term.

There are a lot of helpful people on here  but if you had something like that it would help. Several people who are smart have gotten on then said it is too hard. I will keep trying as long as I can and I do appreciate that it is free.

---

Beverly,

Thanks for expressing yourself in an honest and concerning way. I hope you don't feel less educated or unimportant than the "heavy -hitters" out there. I'm a rookie at this too (as compared to many or most others. Many of us have only known the retail family tree packages. I won't lie to you, Wikitree is more challenging, requiring proof (not assumption). Example: In my own tree I made the mistake of adding information which was wrong. I didn't think it could be possible for there to be two names which were very uncommon, but I was wrong. It doesn't mean I was not making valuable contributions elsewhere. I just found out that there was no such thing as a logical assumption.

Please don't feel like you are being judged. You really are not. Sometimes we have to be a little thick skinned and take criticism. People are human and some put a ton of effort into something valuable and get frustrated. They are human and maybe get overtired and simply overreact. In some cases people need to be told "the way it is" because they fail to conform. We are not all of the same capability in doing this type of research. But then some people doing research couldn't change the wiper blades on their cars. People that are too verbally aggressive or sarcastic don't work well with groups, and if openly hostile should consider doing something other than working with people. I know this by working within large businesses and small for many years.

I have made the mistake of getting defensive myself. It doesn't make me bad, I just stayed up far too late for my own good and overreacted. it happens.

There are many ways you can contribute. You might live next to a cemetery and could photograph a gravestone for someone. It might not seem like a big deal to you, but to someone else it could be the one thing that fills the gap for them. At 77 you have seen history. There may be some events that are only documented in your head, not on paper anywhere. Things no genealogist on this site will ever know. Do you have church bulletins, old pictures, not just of people but areas. You family tree is as important as anyones. I would be glad to help you in the coming weeks. There are judgemental people out there, as anywhere, but I have found that most of the leaders are not judgemental. I have found them to be pretty encouraging. Do not be discouraged! You do have "friends in wikiland"...

I'm sorry to hear of the health issues you have been dealing with. My wife also has and still is dealing with parathyroid problems. Hope you are well. Happy holidays,

Mark

---

I am late to the comment string, but I believe that Mindy's comment should have received more positive attention.  When 'non' is used, it is telling you what you are not, and that is always negative.  I am relatively new to WikiTree, but I can tell you that I would have a strong negative reaction to being told what I am not, rather than what I am or what I could become.  Please use a different term than 'non', and I think that as Mindy has suggested, 'Friend' would work.

---

We have moved the conversation here: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/979886/welcoming-genealogists-highlighting-genealogical-interests

Answer 1

Wow! This is a lot to digest and think about. The commentary I get from people who have tried WikiTree and walked away is that it's too easy to change profiles and information. People don't have time to babysit their family lines to make sure things don't get rearranged in a bad way.

I have had this happen to the mess that originally brought me to WikiTree - spent a long while separating two families that were mixed together, only to have them all re-mixed just this year. Thank you Ellen Gustafsen for alerting me and working the Westchester, NY Hunt line and helping me get them separate again!

Then, day before yesterday, a prominent Genetic Genealogist told they had finally joined and discovered that her family had two families mixed together as well. I was apologetic and offered them help but was met with, "this will give me an opportunity to learn how to do WikiTree".

They will continue to work and learn and they have read and signed the honor code.

I have never heard someone say they left WikiTree because of the honor code and I think the honor code is the most important part of being any level WikiTree Genealogist and it should stay that way.

As to allowing a more open level of wiki-genealogist newcomer to work our tree? I say bring them on. I can't wait to see some great ideas come from this post, because it's going to take some great ideas to make this happen.

Like the great idea of GEDCompare vs. all-out GEDCOM uploads. BUT, I hear people saying they don't come to WikiTree because GEDCOM uploads are restricted. I say to them work small bits of your GEDCOM at a time, and they say they don't have time, or "I have already 'worked' my GEDCOM and don't need to do it over.

I agree with the great idea of GEDCompare and think it saves our Volunteers from working crazy GEDCOM uploads. It's a restriction that needs to stay in place. But what restrictions do we have in place that we can open up without opening a can of worms?

Comments

I feel like the change logs should help a lot with that mix up problem, but nobody has the time to be constantly vigilant, and watchlists become unmanageable after a while (ESPECIALLY if you’re an active wikitreer!)

I wish there was a way to just add a profile to your watchlist by clicking a button - WITHOUT being on the TL/being a PM. That would help me on the “mixed up families” front as well, since I definitely have a lot of those.

---

Yes, Liz! Absolutely about following the logs which I try to do religiously but I still missed the changes, and I will blame the commonality of the name, Hunt. It's about time. Plain and simple, time.

Answer 2

Just two quick random thoughts, until I've had an opportunity to digest this a little more:

1)  I'm not sure why anyone would consider the honor code to be a big impediment to participation here.  I don't think it would be a good idea to send a message to candidate new participants that they don't really need to abide by those points.

2)  In G2G I still see a lot of "my tree" mentality on the part of newbies.  My sense of it is that they're not really fighting the concept of single worldwide tree with one profile per person, but they just never picked up on that difference from other genealogy sites they may be familiar with.  Somehow this proposal would need to be implemented in a way that doesn't exacerbate that problem.

Answer 3

I think the end goals are worthwhile. It may open more opportunities to collaborate with folks who do their genealogy on other platforms. It is a little scary that the oft-repeated errors on other platforms could be brought here! But I think at the very least we ought to run a Beta test with a mock new Wiki Genealogist and see what it looks like and how it could/should operate to add value without doing any damage.....?

Comments

And the other stuff has been brought over to WikiTree back before GEDCompare was implemented. WikiTreers work daily on trying to clear the old GEDCOM imports. Ales has done a great job with the suggestions errors and the Data Doctors to help with this as well as individual project work, like the Arborists. This means we, as WikiTreer's already have a lot of knowledge and experience on working those issues.

Answer 4

There's something about "trying to be all things to everyone" and it doesn't work well. 

By definition, the selection of one course of action, or one flavor of ice cream, or one type of fabric for the drapes, effectively means you exclude all others (for some time span or "forever"). There should be no overlap in privileges if you persist in propagating various "classes" of WT users. 

The situation as it is -- outsiders can look but not touch, ditto Guests. Committed members sign the honor pledge. Given that some apparently change their mind midstream and walk away from their commitment is a typical human behavior, and similar to a cat batting a capture around and then suddenly abandoning it. 

The boast is x number of Genealogists, of whom perhaps 3000 are currently active. Committed, one could say, to Contribution. Why open up a new class which is more likely to be like the cat than the Committed Genealogist? 

Comments

Cannot see that this answer deserved to be flagged.

---

flag cleared.

Answer 5

So I have a few problems with the Wikitree Approach to things. Ever since GDPR came to view (but even before) I felt particularly odd about a few suggestions from Wikitree. The biggest, of course, is that Wikitree suggests that you make a profile for someone (a DNA match, a random emailer, anyone you want to invite). You should do this in order to invite them to Wikitree. But that can be kind of messed up, especially since I’ve had a lot of people outright reject my invite requests even if they said that they wanted to make an account (as I never make a profile without asking). And I know a lot of people make profiles without asking all. The. Time. 

Other services give invite links. If you follow my specific link for Duolingo or Todoist, my account is linked to yours (adding me as a friend, I get perks if they buy premium, etc). This could be repurposed for Wikitree - I get added to their trusted list (the same as if I invited them now, I am already on their trusted list), I can help them personalize things and connect their tree to mine if they are a DNA match. They will also get a personalized intro page. Take Todoist for example, since I sent that invite link around recently. “Liz has invited you to join Todoist”, going straight to the sign up page. It could really help us - especially since you could just send it to people you met through Facebook or 23andme. 

I also think that another huge detriment to Wikitree keeping people (especially dna matches) is its lack of 1) accessibility and 2) mobile formatting. I think that a lot more serious genealogists (and casual participants!) would participate if they could. For example, I usually use Wikitree on a laptop. But for a long time (and now, even) I’m mostly using Wikitree on my phone and tablet, and the changes are astounding. I believe we would have a lot more member retention if we could make it more accessible.

I think that opening up Wikitree membership to everyone is a good thing. We already have family member accounts, we already have so many other things. But we’re trying to appeal to a wide audience now. Wikitree isn’t all people who can spend all day, every day fixing profiles. I mean, I spend more time than the average person on here and it’s burning me out. We should be appealing to people of all age ranges, time levels, abilities and disabilities, et cetera. Not everyone has the time, but we can seriously benefit wikitree with the casual genealogist who adds their DNA info.

Also, can we stop closing peoples accounts because they’re inactive? Some people have kids or get sick or have a loved one die, some people start a new job or focus on their schooling. And that’s okay. That doesn’t mean we have to remove all of their participation, as if they weren’t even here. Just let other people on the trusted lists. 

Comments

I agree with you on the lack of a WikiTree Mobile app. Other sites are miles ahead of WikiTree on that front, which makes WikiTree look out of touch or outdated. We know it's not but...Do we know of any Programmers willing to take on this task?

---

Liz,

If you've seen accounts get closed due to inactivity, you should raise that as a separate g2g thread. I've never seen that happen. Not to say it hasn't happened, but it's got to be pretty rare.

---

Jillaine, I could be wrong on this, but I think that an Unresponsive Profile Manager action results in closing the person's account, along with orphaning the profiles they manage.

---

I like Liz's invite link idea. I imagine active wiki-genealogists could pull in a couple thousand new casual members that way, especially if it put the inviter (sp?) on their trusted list, letting them to help the new member out. Make a badge for members who've had 5? 10? people join via their invite link.

Maybe let this more casual-level of member see ads so you don't loose that revenue.

(For that matter, just FYI, I wouldn't mind seeing ads myself if it meant WikiTree was able to invest more into improving the platform. I wouldn't mind even engaging with the ads on occasion. I already do so for free games on my phone that I care about far less than WikiTree.)

---

No, Gaile, that does not always happen (does not always need to happen). I just checked on a case of Unresponsiveness where I got about 30 profiles orphaned and opened this summer; there is still a profile for the ex-manager.

---

The invite link idea isn’t fully mine - just my “version” - the credit should go to JN Murphy for sparking that (though he views it entirely differently than I - I hope he will voice his ideas here as well). Also a badge would be interesting for the invite links!

I was under the impression that UPM submissions removed their accounts and opened public profiles/scrapped the rest. If that’s not the case then I don’t know how I got that idea - I thought that was how the system worked.

Mags, I am desperate to have an app, or even just a better mobile interface. The main site is a mess on mobile and so is G2G. It isn’t optimized at all. We could probably get someone to do it if Chris asked around (obviously with compensation).

I also agree with Thomas here - the more casual members should definitely see ads, but I would also love to view ads to support wikitree. Let’s face it - if they’re non-obtrusive and we can genuinely see them help wikitree (And implement some of our ideas), it is NOT a problem for me.

---

I've seen occasional messages from people who say their account was closed because of an email snafu. This situation could be improved by allowing people to register a backup email address -- or a phone number for text messages, as so many other websites do.

---

On the mobile app interface: I use my iphone and ipad on wikitree very frequently, and I do not see a huge difference in interface.  

If you do, that deserves a separate thread, too, so we can explore it in more depth. (There may already be an existing thread.)

---

Yes, on a mobile device the site is nearly identical to what we see on a computer screen. But many other websites now have mobile versions that have features to improve navigation and other aspects of usability on a mobile device.

---

Someone in this section mentioned ads to improve revenue for Wikitree. While this may be a good idea and worthwhile thought, please keep in mind that there are hackers who get into some of these ads and all of a sudden we are selling 'male enhancement devices.' We would need to have a wonk check ads on a weekly basis to check the integrity of the ads. And, there goes the profit for Wikitree. Just a thought.

---

WikiTree already has ads, it's just that "Wiki-Genealogists" (and perhaps "Family Members"?) don't see them. Visitors do. Since WikiTree already has ads, hopefully they already have methods to deal with such problems.

---

 - ? perhaps as PM's - we each should have an 'off / on see AD button' - rather than having to log-out/in to see the ads ? - - -

---

Users don't all see the same ads.  If you aren't logged in, the site sends out pages with empty spaces in, and tells your browser to fetch stuff from Google's advertising division to fill in the spaces.

Google knows all about you and will choose the ads accordingly.

---

LOL about Google, RJ.

When I peruse this site while logged out, all of the ads I see are from Ancestry and MyHeritage.

Answer 6

1) There is a certain "dedication" to the truth that separates WikiTree from other family tree sites, this is why I joined and why I stay.   The number #1 issue I see as a mentor is the fact that people sign the Honor Code and then do not cite sources, or create intentional duplicates to support disproven lineages.   So, I am not sure I agree that this new "category of member" should be able to  create and edit private profiles of close family members, how this would be controlled to avoid duplicates is my concern.   

2) I also fear that projects like PGM, Magna Carts, Mayflower, and US Presidents would endure repetitive questions regarding the false information on many other sites.   

3) I feel confident that the people who honestly want to support our mission will not be any more willing to participate just because they don't have to sign the Honor Code.

Comments

Robin speaks my mind.

---

I especially agree with your point 1, Robin. There are plenty of Honor Code members who “drop and dash” just using the Unsourced family tree source. Some of them have added thousands of profiles with made up dates and no places and frankly, their input is either worthless or damaging. These people create work and issues for the tree. If we don’t want WikiTree to become like Geni, we need to make sure we expect and emphasise quality. Also, how many people count as close family members? Would that just be to the grandparents level with perhaps the grandparents’ siblings and spouses? Would the number of profiles be limited to perhaps 50 people or 100 contributions? If there were limits and a greeter checked profiles before more could be added, and at that point the Honor Code could be signed, perhaps it may be a worthwhile change. Letting people lose with Gedcoms seems fraught with danger.

---

I'm with Robin on this. I was on the point of taking a break from WikiTree (there is more to life than spending my hours correcting the data of others and ordering the bio's after the endless repetitive duplication - merging …) when I saw this feed. I do not agree with many of your observations Chris (for example: "We made a choice a long time ago to discourage casual participation. Members who aren't serious cause problems for the community." - It seems that WikiTree does just the opposite of discouraging casual participation, and most members are serious and do cause 'problems' for the 'Community' anyhow). In the least I question the validity (the statistics). Most of all I'm tiring of the re-hashing of old mêmes based on vague & scrambled notions such as been voiced quite rightly in previous answers & comments to your question here. Even though I do not doubt your sincerity in this, I do beg you to please listen and not presume.

---

I agree with Robin and others above. I might add also that those of us who work daily on WikiTree could see the inadvertant destruction of a lot of hard work unless we constantly monitor our family and project activity feeds. Many of us already do that now and don't want to do more of it. The potential for unsourced/incorrect info, database errors and duplicated profiles could be overwhelming. We all signed the honor code and agreed to collaborate and source our profiles. I think this is exactly what makes our community so successful and causes our information more reliable than other free sites. I already spend too much of my time clearing errors and competing merges. I'm not interested in spending more time doing that. I agree that being more inclusive is an admirable concept...but what will it cost the existing community?

Answer 7

Should non wiki genealogists be wikitree members? Well, let me fill you in on something, boss.

I don't know if Eowyn told you this, but, I've been dealing with spambots/porn bots commenting on my Italy Project newsletter threads here in g2g even after closing them. I'm not sure what you want to do going forward about that. I've been flagging them and they've been REALLY annoying.

If you want to open the site to everyone, do you think we could curtail the bots by implimenting a captcha system? Just a box people can check to prove they aren't a bot. I think that would go a long way to improve things.

As for everything else, I hope we can entice more people to join. The honor code is good and everything. However, we could do with something that could keep the bots away. I'm sure the mods are tired of cleaning up those messes. Keeping bots can tend to keep people away.

I do like the idea for #2. Keep us posted, bossman.

Answer 8

On many sites, "guest" means anonymous.  You use the guest account to get through the login without being registered.

But on WikiTree, guest members are registered.  If they can't post messages or DNA, why not?

Don't make it more complicated.  Just have two member types.

Make it as easy as possible to register as a member.  Could the robot check be automated?  Could there be a "Login with Facebook"?  "Login with FamilySearch"?

Answer 9

Chris,

I appreciate that you want to bring the value of WikiTree to a bigger audience.

That said, you've created something very special here, and the heart of it is the Honor Code.

I worry about there becoming two classes of people-- those who abide by the honor code and those who are free to ignore it.  I fear that would really diminish the quality of what's going on here and create more challenges than benefits.

Have you considered how many people you might lose if you implemented this?

Comments

And, as a volunteer Mediator, I think this would horrifically increase the number of a) increased need for mentoring and b) mentorings that would be escalated. They're bad enough as is.

---

In my opinion, we already have 2 membership classes: Wiki Genealogists, those who have signed and are bound by the Honor Code; and the combined Guest/Family Member group, those who have not signed and thus are not bound by the Honor Code.

This proposed new membership level, to me, is merely a hybrid of the Guest and Family Member levels, but with some added Wiki Genealogist/Honor Code signer abilities. I see no reason to have such a hybrid level that is not required to sign the Honor Code but still has some Honor Code signer abilities.

I agree with Jillaine that the Honor Code is the heart of WikiTree. In my opinion, we should not extend the abilities of its signers to those who have not signed it. I also agree that this proposed new membership level will add unnecessary strain to the already greatly strained leadership-levels system.

---

I absolutely agree with you Jillaine. This is a special community and the Honour Code is at its heart. I too worry that it will create a schism on WikiTree and am not sure what the real benefit would be in inviting people to join who have not signed the Honour Code.

Answer 10

Could I ask how this will apply to joining a Project, please?  The One Name Studies Project (and many others) asks that you have signed the Honor Code.

If you establish a new type of membership which doesn't require the person to have signed the Honor Code, will they be able to join a Project/have a Name Study? (and I already feel a little uneasy at the possibility of saying "yes, you can come to the party, and you don't have to say you'll behave.  You can do whatever you want to")

Comments

I would certainly want to retain the requirement for Honor Code signing for any project that I (co)lead.

---

I agree with Jillaine that the Honor Code should be a prerequisite for joining full-fledged WikiTree projects.

I guess it might be different for activities like individual One-Name Studies.

---

I wonder what percentage of members actually join projects or adhere to the guidelines. As someone who has just checked in with project members, most seem to just do their own thing and have a badge. If they don’t check in, they lose the badge, which doesn’t seem to be a big deal. I don’t see it would restrict anyone just adding “close family members”.

---

I agree, Ros. The Honour Code is at the very heart of how we work together in a project. It's what protects us and guides us in how we treat one another. It contributes to WikiTree being a safe place that we want to come back to. It would seem nonsensical to me for people to be able to join projects who have not signed the Honour Code. Can we unsign it so we can behave as we please? Why would we even want to do that? Why even contemplate having a double standard?

Answer 11

I've been here nearly two years now and I wasn't aware that there _is_ a "family member" and a "guest" account type, nevermind the difference between them. When I first came to the site, I couldn't even figure out a way to _look_ at profiles without registering, so I registered. It involved a lot more hoopla than other sites, but it made sense -- on FamilySearch and Geni, I had seen plenty of the confusion and mess that is caused by people who've managed to completely miss the part about ONE tree.

I don't think yet another level/class of membership makes sense, especially not a level/class that has basically the same priviledges as an existing one. A clearer process for creating an account -- or not! -- and an explicit list of what each level can and can't do would be better. And as mentioned in various comments and answers already, renaming the existing categories may be a good idea, because in many people's minds, "genealogist" means a specially-educated professional.

Comments

100% agreement. WikiTree looks complex enough for newcomers, and even more so for non-Anglo-Saxon natives. The difference between Guest and Family Member is still obscure to me.

Whatever the choice, renaming to clarify is a must. I'm not a genealogist either, even less a "wiki genealogist". I'd be happy with "full member" or something along those lines.

In one word, KISS.

---

It's probably an example of the language(s) barrier, but I have never considered the word genealogist to refer only to professional genealogists. That's why, in my native USA-English at least, we have adjectives!

Those who do genealogy for free would be called amateur genealogists in my neck of the woods, if we need to distinguish between genealogist sub-groups.

I am a genealogist, an amateur genealogist, and a Wiki Genealogist - I do genealogy for myself and not for pay.

---

I am not a genealogist, an amateur genealogist, nor a Wiki genealogist.

Answer 12

Chris, you always said you wouldn't invent a premium "membership" at WikiTree. Effectively you are bringing in with the "non-wiki-genealogist"-member just that. There will be members that signed the Honor Code and members that didn't sign it. I fear that will result in a bunch of profiles with not so correct dates, and when you point the "non-genealogist members" to that, that they COULD say: "What do you want, I didn't sign the code, I don't have to strive for correctness." Even if I sound too pessimistic the basic thing stays: You are creating two different kind of members.

Comments

The Wiki Genealogist membership level should be considered the one and only "premium" membership level, in my opinion.

And as such (also in my opinion), should remain as the only membership level with full creating/editing/etc. abilities.

Any new membership level that does not require that the Honor Code be accepted and signed, should have creating/editing restrictions similar to those of the Guest and Family Member levels (again, my opinions).

Answer 13

Well, I completely misunderstood the original question. I though Chris was suggesting trying to attract professional Genealogists to join WikiTree as members who will not necessarily be contributing profiles.

I think it will be difficult to attract more people to join because so many people just aren't that serious about genealogy. Sure, everyone wants to know where their family came from, but to actually do serious research, not so much. There are people out there who would be great members, I just don't known how to attract them! I always direct people who contact me on Ancestry or elsewhere and tell them there is more information on WikiTree.

Answer 14

I would suggest making Wikitree more different, not more similar to alternative platforms. Wikitree's mission/value proposition/distinguishing feature is a commitment to collaboration and accuracy. Any change should be designed to support those aims. So, should anyone be able to comment on a profile and contribute to G2G? Probably. Should someone who can't commit to the relatively basic principles of the Honor Code be permitted to make substantive changes? Probably not. I don't know how hard it is technically, but what you see is what you get editing, a friendlier interface and easier to find "help" might take care of much of the perceived coldness. For the more advanced stuff - merging, adding connections to existing profiles - there is a pretty welcoming, giving crew already in existence if you know how to find them.

Answer 15

1. I think the Honor Code should be something which everyone at every membership level has to sign and strive to abide by. It is important to maintain the quality and integrity here on WikiTree and to hold every contributor/member to the same standards.

2. I personally wouldn't want anyone who wasn't willing to sign and abide by the Honor Code to be on any Trusted Lists to make changes to open profiles. Someone who did that would no longer be a "non-Wiki genealogist." If they are contributing, making changes, etc. to open profiles. they are regular WIKItreers and should have to sign the Honor Code.

3. Everyone who becomes a regular WikiTreer already contributes at their own level. Some are very active (the ones who get the "1000 contribution badges" every month and do the thons and other challenges and become leaders and work on projects, some are moderately active (like me) who usually get the "100 contribution badge" and may or may not participate in thons and challenges, and some are not very active, but like to "dabble" as time and circumstances permits them. I don't see the need to create a separate "class" of membership, but maybe we could improve the current sign-up process to let everyone know they can participate at their own level and that becoming a "volunteer" doesn't require hours of work on a daily or weekly basis. The word "volunteer" may be a little off-putting for some, but it can either be replaced by another term or it can be clarified better to let those who become members know they can contribute as much or as little as they want or are able. We could even say outright from the get-go that they can be a member and not be a contributor unless they want to be.

Answer 16

Is WikiTree not already welcoming (in spirit, at least) to anyone who wants to join? If not, how will a new membership level (of apparently non-members?) change that?

What exactly will a non-Wiki member do at a wiki site? And what will we allow a non-Wiki, non-Honor-Code-signer to do that we don't already allow a Family Member to do?

Rather than a need to add a new membership level, perhaps we simply need to revamp the current levels.

Additionally, perhaps we need to remind each other that we are all volunteers who are free to work and collaborate as much or as little as we each individually choose. Perhaps we shouldn't be expected to jump through another member's hoops or be on his/her timetable to work at WikiTree (personal observation).

And perhaps we need to remind ourselves that constantly judging each other's earnest work is not quite so honorable or courteous as we think (personal observation).

Until we are presented a clearer picture of what this idea will entail and allow, I vote against it.

Answer 17

Ok I'm in agreement that our honor code is very important, and I think it should have nothing to do with any of this at all. To me if a person is a "certified professional genealogist" they should have no problem at all with the honor code, as anyone who goes thru the studies and testings to get certified and make it their profession (Genealogy) they are going to be on point to begin with on finding actual sources.  (And most of you know already how I feel about finding these. lol)

I think also that by removing the need to sign the honor code, like others have said.. opens up another can of worms... "because they say they are "certified/ or professional-genealogist" doesn't always make it so.. we are online afterall, and ppl unfortunately can and sometimes do stretch the truth.  And others still who like me don't have certifications in genealogy- many of them after decades of researching for their families may see themselves as "Genealogists" albeit the lack of certifications that prove so.  This lack of certification, may mean they are lacking in some knowledge that they may never had to touch upon researching - if that makes sense.  This doesn't mean they are without knowledge or could be very serious about doing right while on wikitree.

But the flip-side is this.. removing the need to sign the honor code to do any number of things on wikitree- gives a "special level of credence" to ones claiming the "Genealogist" status.

*What will be done to verify their backgrounds or certifications if this does go forward?

*Will their be qualifiers such as "produce your certifications, please"

(Btw  I really don't see too many "professional genealogists" volunteering to work on a one world tree.  Why?  Because in essence we are volunteering them out of their paid profession, by making records, and tree limb connections all available to all to see and use to connect their family lines.)  After being on Wikitree a number of years now, theres' no way i would pay or allow anyone I know to pay for a genealogical workup- I just refer them to wikitree, most of the time, they find their answers are already on the tree.

The "welcoming non-wiki genealogists" differently????  Ok I just don't get it.  Everyone here that puts any information on here in any form (where they truly tried to be accurate) deserves the same welcome and thanks that any newbe- certified or not would recieve.  There should be no differences in this at all.  We are all human beings, all contributing, and some are just more advanced in their research abilities, or technical skill sets, this again, makes noones "comments on a profile, or messages sent to pms, or things asked or said in G2G more important for one skill set than another.  We each have value and no "special levels" of value for New People entering the tree should ever involve them not having to sign that honor code.  It is what makes this place so much better than all the jumbled messes out on the internet.  By stating you don't have to sign the honor code you are basically saying outright.. because of your skill and certification level we will trust you blindly.  My son is an IT Professional with all kinds of letters next to his name half of which I have no clue what they mean..But if you think my son ever goes into a situation for any kind of work or volunteer of his services that doesn't involve a contract of his skills and his "responsibilities" you would be mistaken. The Honor Code is our set of "what is expected- what the rules and our responsibilities are". Don't let anyone off the hook on this.

This alone could lead to "well I never signed an honor code, so I never read it, so why would I know or even care".

* The suggestion that maybe referring ppl and gaining??? points, status?? don't understand, may have read thru it too fast, no offense intended, just reading and doing real life stuff while also doing wt today.  I think adding any kind of referral program that rewards ppl on wktr for bringing others on, could be another huge mistake.  People that thrive on praise and presents..many could decide this is how they raise themselves up...no telling who could end up being invited in, and the messes of good profiles and the uploads of fake gedcoms that can and most certainly will occurr.

Ok another thing brought up about pms non-active.. ya I would have to say... determining that someone is not serious about genealogy based on.. they can't be here for 30days or even a year, is not reality.  It means like someone else said..we don't know, they could be in a hospital bed, they could have had death(s) in their families, their RL jobs could have them working 70 hour weeks.  This doesn't mean they don't have valuable content to add, it means it may have been put on hold because they had RL issues that had to come before research.  Removing their profiles...as if they never existed..its' just wrong.

I have many family members really really sick battling all kinds of illnesses daily right now. There may be a point where I won't be on wikitree for 6months to a year. If that happens I hope I don't come back to find out that my 51,000+ G2g points and my over 4100 manual contributions were so little that I could be just "case closed/profile closed".  If it happened I'd come back download my trees that i might need and I'd leave permanently.

ok all my food for thought and my questions on this.

one other thing.. why is it, it seems to me, that wikitree is always looking for ways to make this place more complicated and exclusive. I ask, because it seems to me the emphasis on "professional genealogists" is like a want to create an exclusivity that maybe isn't on other sites?  By treating them differently (no honor-code /giving extra abilities that other newbies don't have)..an exclusivity is what I see possibly occurring over time, if bringing many onboard did occurr.  And... have any of you who are not certified genealogists tried to ask a certified genealogist any questions about how to research?

I have... the answers I got were snooty, and i was talked to as if I were stupid.  Sort of like my 1st intro to asking a question on G2g. (years ago).. the answers appeared thru texts as rude, as if I were stupid for asking.  (mind you wktr has changed alot since then, and it only happened once..but that once as a new person, was all it took for me to not go on G2g for over a year after that. I thought i had gone into an area I wasn't allowed in.

Answer 18

That's a lot to digest. 

Do you think there is room in our community for non-wiki genealogists? 

Yes. Every community has a skewed mixture of those who contribute and those who lurk: 

90% of the participants of a community only view content, 9% of the participants edit content, and 1% of the participants actively create new content.

Being a lurker or observer isn't a bad thing, and many studies show that lurkers eventually do become contributors or editors when they feel that they have something to contribute. In my own experience, lurkers are often promoting the sites that they frequent through word-of-mouth. So WT would benefit from that. Much in the way that many genealogists here benefit from WT functioning as "cousin bait". But if those lurkers were given accounts here, that would provide WT with a more permanent audience. Other sites do this by having one of those frustrating pop-up messages, asking you to sign up for updates, before you've even read half of an article. WikiTree doesn't need to do that. It has an opportunity to being people on-board more organically.

Do they have something of value to offer us, and do we have something of value to offer them? 

Yes and yes. First, such a set of users could function in a manner similar to a marketing list or audience. And that may be one of the things that WikiTree currently lacks. WikiTree's emails are currently "preaching to the choir".

Perhaps the n00bz could get weekly emails providing advice on genealogy and using WikiTree. e.g. Have a rotation of volunteers writing a post (cross-posted to the blog and email) on G2G discussing some aspect of genealogy and WikiTree; that also gets sent as a weekly newbie-members' email. That both boosts WT's rep and helps develop new contributors. (That's just an example; other ways to develop the newbie members and promote WT could be explored.)

People are often online seeking some kind of connection, and WikiTree offers people to connect with their ancestors and even distant family. And, as it's a fairly narrowly focused forum, one might even be able connect with an opinionated Uncle Frank who's unpleasant to be around during Thanksgiving, but who nonetheless may have memories and knowledge to share about your grandparents and great grandparents.   

To summarize, 

WT receives:

• a broader fan-base / more supporter.
• potential for more word-of-mouth promotion
• opportunity to develop future contributors

WT provides:

• family tree functionality
• opportunities to connect with family
• WT's rich collection of features

Or would their presence be a distraction from our mission to grow an accurate single family tree?

No. We cannot do this without more help.

WikiTree really needs to put its foot on the gas. Typically, WT is adding 3 million profiles each year. Globally, there are 144 million people born just in  in 2019. It can't even keep up with births in the United States at 3.85 million per year.

There is always a bit of trade-off between accuracy (I'm still not sure what WikiTree means by that!) and growth. But it needs to be said that no family tree will ever be perfect. There will be people missing or with misattributed parentage always. Part of the real problem point of WT in the past was speed and non-involvement: quickly upload a GEDcom, then run off. Inviting people to stick around means that they will have the opportunity to learn and develop skills. As they do that, they may even start to critically question or double check their work.  

Proposal 1: Invitation Links

Here's the jist of it: It would be great to have an invitation link system to get our DNA matches involved with us on WikiTree.

The potential for WikiTree as a collaborative platform, not just in the "global family tree" sense, but even with those who share a 3rd great grandparent. One of the greatest aspects of a Wiki is that collaboration reduces individual effort and duplication of effort. If Greg does a great job of researching my 3rd great grandfather, I am not going to go and re-invent the wheel. At most, perhaps I'll add a little tidbit that I've learned or a photo of an artifact related to him.  

Consequently, I really want to get some of my DNA matches on this site! But the current invite structure makes that a pain.

Since this part would be really long on its own, I've posted it separately and linked it here:  https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/941051/feature-proposal-invitation-links-for-sending-dna-matches

Proposal 2: Terminology

While WikiTree is reconsidering the membership structure, it would be very worthwhile to consider the terminology that we use. It should be more uniform and less loaded. The current terminology used to describe various roles is frankly weird and clanky. 

• Guest Members, 
• Family Members, and 
• Wiki Genealogists

"Family Members" is cute, but inappropriate. Because it inadvertently implies that those who do not accept the invite are not "family members". That makes me cringe.

"Wiki Genealogists" just sounds clunky. Wikipedia has a dual terminology: "Wikipedians" or "Editors". Both mean the same. Both are short, sweet, and sound natural, none of which describe "Wiki Genealogist". But "editors" and "Wikipedians" are both more activity neutral, and invites broad participation.

• Someone who adds a photo is an editor.
• Someone who fixes grammar is an editor. 
• Someone who writes a new article is an editor. 
• Someone who adds to an existing article is an editor. etc...  

"Wiki Genealogist" doesn't express the same neutrality towards the value of various contributions. To borrow Chris Whitten's phrase, this site is about "Genealogical collaboration". The "collaboration" part should be weighed equally, instead of putting all of the weight on "genealogical". 

First, some people who do genealogy as a hobby might not consider themselves as "genealogists". I do genealogy; I don't consider myself a "genealogist". To me, that carries a semi-professional connotation. 

Second, it limits the range of participation that the community welcomes. I'm not sure that someone who loves writing good biographies necessarily considers himself a "genealogist"; someone who loves building hierarchies and categories might not consider herself a genealogist. So what if by using such a narrow term, we are leading to people intentionally excluding themselves from participation?

Additionally, the term "volunteer" creates its own set of problems because it is never clear what we are "volunteering" to do. Many people view "volunteering" as time consuming and even burdensome, or something that must be regular and consistent. And it's unclear in scope. In my own experience in organizing events for non-profit efforts, there were many people afraid of the commitment that the idea of "volunteering" entailed. So asking them to "help" or contribute (usually with a specific task) was more effective. Given that, it might be better to talk about the site's users a "contributors" or "editors" rather than "volunteers". 

What if WikiTree offered a more "neutral" set of terms?

• Guest
• User or Member or Participant
• Contributor or Editor

Or even just a numbered system (to help people understand the ability to progress):

• Member 0 (Guest)
• Member 1 (Permanent profile; family member; limited editing)
• Member 2 (Editor; Contributor; General editing permission)
• Member 3 (Quality contributor / pre-1700)
• ... more?

Another option:

• Contributing Member
• Novice Member
• Participating Member
• Guest Member

Comments

I agree with a lot of what JN is saying, especially about terminology. Personally, I like the term contributor better than editor.

---

Thank you JN for your very insightful answer. I agree with what you say, I also prefer the word Contributor is more friendly. I have in the past been asked what does volunteering mean, it worries people about what the site is expecting of them. All have joined but it is the fact they ask the question that indicate a change would be good.

---

JN, thank you for this excellent, thoughtful, reply (like many of your posts and replies). I am sorry I didn't read it sooner. I am just going through all the responses more carefully now, as we prepare to move this to the next stage.

I had no idea that so many people objected to our membership titles, or that many members don't consider themselves genealogists.

Answer 19

Hi Chris,

Thanks for keeping on looking at ways to improve WikiTree and keep it viable. That is really important to all of us!

To simplify things, would it be possible to just have 'Members' (and pending members) and 'Wiki Genealogists'? I imagine that a lot of people may like to join and add their own family back a couple of generations, and possibly join the trusted list for profiles that already exist, if they want to have input on their direct ancestors for another couple of generations (but still post-1700).

Also, I wonder if the step of 'volunteering' might be a disincentive for that 1st tier membership, as people who just want to add their own tree may then feel that they are going to be required to commit to more involvement on the site than they want to. So maybe 'volunteering' could be part of the process for progressing from a Member to a Wiki Genealogist.

Comments

Like Gillian says the word Volunteer is a worry for some folk.

Guest have asked what does volunteering mean, it worries people about what is expecting of them. While all who asked have volunteered, it is the fact they ask the question that indicates a change would be good.

Answer 20

Nope, not a good plan to my mind.  The Honour Code should apply to anybody who can do edits.  To give someone the power to edit profiles outside of their own personal one as a Guest is a recipe for disaster.  It's opening the door to a 2-value system, and will generate disgust and disgruntlement among the members who are actively working on our tree and abiding by the code.  

If people don't wish to contribute per the code, then what sort of criterion could you use to judge if they are a valid ''non-wiki genealogist''?  If you are wanting to attract professional genealogists, well, by definition they do this for a living, so not very likely they will volunteer their work for free.

If you are attempting to get more people working with us by this, then maybe you should look at the paying sites that dip into our work ''for free'' to their members.  I was using  MyHeritage before I came to WikiTree, and would get these ''free'' profiles from WikiTree offered me to fill in some blanks.  Of course, I had already paid MH a fee for working on their site.  Not cheap either.

When I moved here and uploaded a GEDCom, lo and behold, some of those profiles got loaded up, and guess what?  The source cited was WikiTree.

Maybe for any such ''borrowings'' done by paid sites, they should have a banner attached to them inviting people to come work with us.

Meanwhile, you need to find a solution to the language issue.  I personally know several people who would have been highly interested in joining us, but not speaking English much, they said forget it.  I do my bit to get bilingual bios done, they're great cousin-bait.  But I am only one person.  Can't do it all.  And the translation of all the mega help pages is such a long and arduous process it is discouraging.

Comments

Good suggestion about the importance of addressing the language issue.