Seeking arguments against : "single tree" = "single thought".

Question

I'm seeking arguments in a debate I have with a (French) genealogist, making a fantastic work all by himself on Geneanet - over 280,000 profiles as I write, and counting.  I would really like him to join WikiTree, but he has a major concern, resumed in the title of this post. The very principle of the "single tree", says he, goes against the diversity of hypotheses and viewpoints needed in genealogy. If there is debate, it's better to have each genealogist publish independently his/her view of things, than trying to reach an impossible consensus in a collaborative way, often resulting either in a "strong voice" imposing her version of things, or endless wars.

In short, his main criticism is that WikiTree generates a genealogical "pensée unique". A thought reinforced by the very Frenchie defiance against America forcing the entire world to be American (a sentiment not totally baseless, if you ask me).

So, I would like to point to him some examples of best WikiTree practices of handling debate between conflicting hypotheses. Could you indicate profiles where conflicting versions are presented and sourced, and how the consensus was achieved on which one is presented as the most reliable? 

Answer 1

I suppose I'd want to point to some of the projects that attempt to resolve historical matters in a collaborative fashion that would be in my mind some of our larger successes on WikiTree. Magna Carta. Gateway migrations to early colonial US. And others of a similar vein. I've seen discussion after debate after mostly successful resolution of facts in G2G with those groups and while I've not been personally involved with a large number of the discussions, the information that comes out during those is phenomenal and helps to achieve the best end result possible.

The problem with single threading is that he's self-reliant. Which means that when he finds something that resolves a genealogical snafu that's been plaguing several other trees and lines out there, he's not able to share that information in a rapid manner to help others correct errors and overall improve the genealogical makeup of that line's ancestry. Same problem occurs when he makes an error in his tree. He has no one to provide him with any feedback, and so that error will continue to exist until he personally recognizes it - which could be through a fortunate happenstance, detailed research, or most likely never. Collaborative efforts have much greater numbers of reviewers, providing oversight as well as questions regarding how we come to our conclusions, can we prove it, and do we generally agree. He'll never get that sort of involvement with any single-threaded effort.

And the argument about diversity? I find that a bit awkward to address. I find that facts are facts. If a document indicates that Person X married Person Y, there is no way to reinterpret that information. You can certainly challenge the veracity of the document, you can attempt to determine if a conflation event may have occurred with like named people from the same general place and time, but you generally can't deny the truth of what has been presented. I would truly like to understand what he means by this. If he's simply indicating that it does not allow for creative activity to occur, I would disagree. Biographies are vastly different between profiles, profile managers, and even collaborative groups. While there is some level of standardization in the data, that's no different that Geneanet in that DOB or POB has to be put into specific fields and it must conform to the system standard. If he wanted to present a unique and well-written biography section all in French (for example), we have numerous profiles that are in different languages and with different approaches.

I do understand that he feels that if he enters the data and he owns the data then only he is responsible for it - the good and the bad - but I think overall the gain of collaborating on profiles far exceeds any gain he may believe he has by sitting on the information and keeping it single-threaded.

Just my opinion.

Comments

Thanks Scott. That's the kind of answer I was expecting, and unfortunately I've already used without succes similar arguments.

Regarding "facts are facts" I'm wondering. I have examples in my ancestors where the few available records are not mutually consistent, which means one of them at least is wrong. Most frequent inconsistency is on the name spelling, sometimes not even consistent inside the same record, or between the record officer spelling and the signatures. Being the only manager of such obscure profiles, I often take decisions which could be questioned. And those are post-1700, even post-1850 records.

So, I was looking for examples on more "notable" and old profiles, e.g. how is the LNAB question settled when there is no birth record, whatever. Concrete examples of decisions on precise examples.

---

Scott, see what I wrote on the bottom of this affair some years ago. I had not genealogy data in mind at the time (was not yet retired), but I would say today it applies nicely to it also.

https://bvatant.blogspot.com/2015/02/statements-are-only-statements.html

---

Name spelling is perhaps not the best place to look for "facts is facts" examples: until very recently, surnames did not have one single correct spelling, and given names didn't even have a single correct *form*.

---

But the argument holds very true for this part as well. If a source reads Miller, another shows Muller, and another Meller and it's clear they're all the same person, it's still not a personal choice as to which one is the definitive document that proves the spelling. Clear investigative work should be done to prove which is right, and that still goes back to the truth - which relies on facts to back it up. And I still believe that more heads involved here bring more facts to the table - and again prove that collaboration is the best way to go. Otherwise, it's just you... and you who decides which way to go, and with 1 out of 3 odds (in this case) you're more than likely going to be wrong.

---

But my point is that they can _all_ be right. Yes, one needs to make a choice -- we prefer to display single names, not lists -- but that choice doesn't make the others incorrect.

Answer 2

my biggest argument would be: The more non-Americans join, the more we can internationalize the tree and the more we can push the leaders to add "non-American features" like e.g. kick out the yellow banner when more than one name is entered into the First Name field. In Germany people can and do have several given names, but there is no "ranking" between them. They are all equal.

Comments

Jelena, thanks, we've been through this discussion already. The "too American" is a side argument, not the main one. Here I wish we could focus on how WikiTree at his best handles conflicting facts (e.g., filiation, place/date of birth ...) all being of course supported by primary records or reliable sources.

---

For example earlier this week I worked on sourcing some profiles. There was an unsourced profile (unsourced Family Tree handed down) with a marriage date. I looked on FamSearch and saw a marriage entry with a different date. I checked that entry and saw I have to scroll through hundreds of Spanish speaking entries to find the respective entry. Eventually I found the picture with the entry and used it to change the marriage date on the profile.

---

I am not even sure that the American users realize how American Wikitree is.

---

Of course, David, most American people don't see themselves as strangers. And most French people don't see themselves as strangers, either. In both cases because they know only their own language and hence don't understand that our common language is translation.

---

Wikitree is supposed to be international and its purpose is the creation of a singular worldwide family tree.

---

Yes David, I know that. It's why most of the bios I write are in French. I would like to be fluent in Brezhoneg like my ancestors (and yours, I guess given your family name), to write some bios in their native language.

Answer 3

On the basis that a profile with conflicting hypotheses would probably be protected by a project, I had a look through some of the profiles managed by the England Project. I'm not sure if it's precisely what you are looking for, but how about Arnold-61?

If that doesn't show quite what you want, you might be able to find something more suitable in Category:England, Pre-1500_PPPs, Category:England, Pre-1700_PPPs or Category:England, Post-1700_PPPs, or perhaps in the PPP categories for some of the other projects.

Comments

Thanks Paul.

This example is not exactly what I'm looking for. There is indeed an alternative filiation which is exposed and correctly it seems, refuted as "wrong". I would like an example with credible alternative, like e.g. a marriage record and a death record showing conflicting filiation, with no birth record to weigh in either direction.

---

But as I said above, sometimes the "normal" profiles are filled with data that don't stand a factcheck when you find the documents.

---

Jelena, what you say is true, but I don't see the relation with the question, sorry.

---

with which question? Yours or Paul's? If you mean your question, where you said you want 

some examples of best WikiTree practices of handling debate between conflicting hypotheses

then we have two conflicting hypotheses in the example I gave. One hypothesis says in an unsourced way: The marriage was then and then. And the other hypothesis, which is backed up with the original picture of the source says the marriage was on a different date. WikiTree handles the conflict that way that sourced hypothesis beats unsourced one.  

---

OK, Jelena, sorry, got your point.

But there is no real debate in this case. Again (said in other answers, sorry to repeat myself), I'm looking for cases where two or more sources, equally a priori reliable, give conflicting information. Or a single source, because it's difficult to decipher or ambiguous, open doors to different interpretations. Over 20+ million profiles, we should have tons of such cases, including on notable profiles.

---

I see this occasionally see this when I’m assembling families from the Mexican civil records. Birth records often name grandparents. Sometimes there will be an error in a name or two. But there is sufficient similar information to make a good case that there is an error in the record, and the correct information can be ascertained.

Answer 4

Sounds like he's conflating his frustration with American hegemony with genealogy research in general. Perhaps he's allowing his politics to influence his view on how to conduct research, which is too bad.

I would ask him, what of Wikitree was invented by some one in a different country, but had the exact same policies and community standards? Would he feel the same way? If he said "no", then his reluctance to join Wiktree makes no sense.

Another way to put it is to think of a field of science, like physics. Scientists all around the world routinely collaborate, sifting through the evidence, working towards finding common answers. Again, remove politics and he might become more agreeable to Wikitree.     

However, you have to wonder, if he has compiled a family tree of 280 000 profiles... what is the quality of his research? How is it possible to accurately research that many profiles? Chances are, with that number of people, there might be a significant portion of his work already on Wikitree.

Comments

Thanks Alex.

As answered above to Jelena, the feeling about America is not the main point, it's just a grain of salt on the wound, but not the wound itself. He would have exactly the same answer if the project was initially French, I'm pretty sure (but will ask nevertheless). It's the very principle of the collaborative single tree which is at stake here. And yes, it's kinda politics. 

The argument of science is double-edged, because indeed scientists collaborate, but the general process of scientific publication is papers by independent teams, with often (and more and more) conflicting hypotheses and results. And that's exactly the point of my interlocutor : he prefers to have, like in science, independent publications that can be afterwards confronted.

Re. the quality of his research, I've rarely found anything to criticize. Most of his work I've looked at is properly sourced and highly reliable. But as you, I wonder how he achieves such a number. Will ask, also.

And yes, a large part of his work is already in WikiTree, including my ancestors.

---

Alex, I asked him the very question of how he achieved that. Answer : a dedicated life, more than half a century of work, started at the age of about 13 (he's now 72) with notes gathered by his father, worked on paper till 1990, started at that time a personal computer data base, switched to online data base about 2006, now retired and full-time working on it (that is, as I understand, like 14 hours a day).

His work is focused on Brittany, and not all of it, with extensive and often exhaustive inventory of some patronyms. This region, which is also the one of my ancestors, have particularly well preserved records since 1650 and before, dedicated teams of genealogists, exhaustive online data bases of birth, marriages and death over more than two centuries, which helps.

Nevertheless, seems to me he sets a sort a limit of what can be achieved in a genealogist life time.

Answer 5

I'll probably draw a bunch of thumbs-down votes on this one, but honestly Bernard, I think it's a debate you cannot win, and it would end poorly if you did win.  We all have our interests and reasons and motives for pursuing our hobbies the way we do, and someone who is in fundamental disagreement with the basic premise here could not possibly be happy.  Your friend sounds like someone who wishes to create his own legacy in his own way, and would not tolerate anyone else corrupting it with different thoughts or styles.  So more power to him, to each his own, but it doesn't seem like a good fit.  You say his work is fantastic, but really, 280K profiles??  That's more than 15 per day, every day, over a 50 year period.  Does the guy eat and sleep?  I wonder if those profiles would meet the expectations we continually read about in this forum?

Comments

Dennis, no thumb down  on my behalf at least, but no thumb up either.

I know I cannot win this debate, but it raises questions which seem worth asking. I'm seeking to convince him less than to find arguments for myself. 

I think his arguments have a sound ground, and are worth discussing as such, independently of criticisms of his work, of how and why he achieves it etc. 

Nobody has answered so far, I'm afraid, the question. I would like the deabte to focus on the argument, not the man who argues. I have quoted the amount of his work just to tell he's not a newcomer in genealogy, and I've answered to the quality point above, which is in par with the exigence we have here.

And yes; like you, I wonder when he eats or sleeps (will ask).

---

Bernard, you say no one has answered the question, but a few minutes later you apparently selected a best answer so maybe you have changed your mind.

However, I'd like to add my thoughts:  I have my own Ancestry tree, and in most cases I find it superior to other Ancestry trees that include the same persons.  

I continue to work on integrating the information I have with what is on WikiTree, profile by profile. Sometime I find better information on WikiTree.  Sometimes I can add information to WikiTree profiles, and occasionally I am thanked for it.  Occasionally, I find myself in conflict with what is on WikiTree.    Sometimes that results in congenial discussion.  Three times, in my year on WikiTree, not so much.  Once, outright war.  Once, I hadn't got around to an actual dispute, but a project took over the profile and fixed it.  The third time, relatively minor in comparison to the other two, is still in progress and I am about to file an Unresponsive Manager complaint.

So all in all, I am still committed to WikiTree as a source for my own genealogy.  As for a person with 280,000 profiles, maybe he could start by looking at his own ancestors, not uploading a giant gedcom, and seeing if he can add information profile by profile.  As in my own case, I imagine he will always want to have his own work as well.  The advantage of WikiTree for him would be the publication of his own research in a free, one-tree format, and possibly meeting relatives he had not known of.

---

As to 280k profiles: Isn't it just a question of the quality and quantity of the source material and the ease of accessibility? In my area of research all existing parish, seigniorial, and land registers starting in the 1500's are published for free on the internet. In the time periods I'm working on my One Place Study I can easily churn out 1,000+ profiles a month, all documented with at least one if not all of birth, marriage, and death records, and many with property purchases and sales.

The problem with WikiTree is that once one orphans these profiles they can be changed beyond recognition, even including the deletion of sources, and one doesn't even know about it unless one stumbles across such a profile by chance.

---

Good point Helmut, about accessibility of records.  Perhaps some of us need to expand our thinking about what can realistically be accomplished in an environment like that.  But it seems there wouldn't have been accessibility on the internet for most of the half century the researcher in question has been doing this.  So I wonder how you would assess today's productivity relative to that in the days when you did this by pencil and paper, or perhaps typewriter, and visits to records repositories to sort through stacks of paper?

---

Helmut, Dennis, see my above answer to Alex.

Answer 6

The singularity of WikiTree to me is to remind us that humanity is one global family and that we are all connected. It is the only singularity I belong to on WikiTree.

There are multiple open apparatuses on WikiTree to exchange ideas, research questions and debate the data and science of evidence based results without compromising or requiring consensus of thought about its genealogy profiles . Projects, Forums, Biographical areas of profiles, comment sections, G2G , subject based teams, open access without charge, DNA databases and significant resource libraries come to mind initially.

The WikiTree value systems of documented sourcing, encouraging and supporting evidence based research, promoting teamwork collaborations, initiating special project teams and providing open communication methods demonstrates an open system diversity of thought, purpose and commitment.

For me, WikiTree promotes responsible genealogy science in practice and purpose while encouraging from its members its ability administratively, organizationally and principally to quality defined our genealogical global family with all its diversity.

Answer 7

Okay, let me see if I can find some examples of handling debate between conflicting hypotheses.  Let's see; ah yes, I remember this one:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fish-71

and its associated g2g discussion:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/18243/what-is-the-proof-that-ambrose-was-son-of-nathaniel-fish

Comments

Great, Jilaine, thanks a lot.

That's exactly the kind of example I was looking for. A long discussion over a filiation point, with a resolution to flag it as uncertain.

I'm not changing the chosen "best answer" by due respect to Scott.

---

I wouldn't be offended at all, Bernard. Best is in the eye of the beholder, and can change based on new information. But I appreciate the initial nod regardless.

---

The chosen 'best' answer has less to do with paying due respect and more to do with satisficing, 'a decision-making strategy ... that entails searching through the available alternatives until an acceptability threshold is met.' Which is inherently an example that should not be a best practice of handling debate between conflicting hypotheses. 

Answer 8

Once upon a time I was the PM for Singletary-4. Not sure what happened. But, what remains as the bio is largely my written work, with the input of many others. There are countless stories about his origin, but only a few have stood the test of time, with none emerging as fact. This bio tries to account for all.

Comments

Thanks Susan, good example too. I keep it bookmarked.

Answer 9

In short, his main criticism is that WikiTree generates a genealogical "pensée unique". A thought reinforced by the very Frenchie defiance against America forcing the entire world to be American (a sentiment not totally baseless, if you ask me).

First, I would recommend that you not refer to any French citizen or francophone as a "Frenchie", as that is sometimes considered derogatory. 

Second, forgive me as I'm going to address a bit more than what I've been asked to by your question because I would agree in part with your detractor friend and his critiques. 

So I'm going to offer what may be an alternative view here: WikiTree presents both pros and cons for a genealogist like your friend.

Part of the problem with how this question is being presented, is that it's an either-or scenario. I mean, I don't do all of my genealogy on WikiTree; do you? Sometimes for DNA stuff, I'm dealing with living people and I'm not about to put that info on WikiTree. WikiTree is my place for documenting the dead and possibly connecting to living cousins with their willing participation.

Moreover, as you present it, there's only one type of genealogy. I'd say that there's at least 3 kinds:

• Standard Genealogy (quotidian, straight-forward)
• Difficult Genealogy (novel, publishable, sometimes speculative)
• Disinformation and Misinformation Genealogy

There's a big difference between the novel, publishable stuff, and the quotidian stuff. If something were to be a publishable thing, a collaborative site probably isn't the place to do it. But if your friend has 280,000 profiles, surely that isn't the game unless he has a very large book in mind! If he does, great. Encourage him to get it written up and published!

It might also help you to consider WikiTree as being more analogous to Wikipedia: You do not and cannot publish original research in Wikipedia. Perhaps your friend views it as an inappropriate place to publish his work. He may not receive sufficient recognition or compensation (e.g. book royalties) for it.   

To me his view is very analogous to the practice of science: 

If there is debate, it's better to have each genealogist publish independently his/her view of things, than trying to reach an impossible consensus in a collaborative way, often resulting either in a "strong voice" imposing her version of things, or endless wars.

Lots of science is "settled" and verified as far as we as humans can go. That stuff can largely go in Wikipedia. But much more is unknown, and that stuff goes in peer-reviewed journals. Scientists spend our efforts on the unknown insofar as it is possible, plugging away at a problem, not emerging until we're ready to publish the solution. It isn't the only model, but it's the dominant one.

As part of that analogy, I'd note that scientists sometimes have that same problem that genealogists have with (Ancestry) user trees & hints have: disinformation and misinformation. Some myths are really stubborn. So it helps to publish definitive summaries of research and publicly accessible profiles of that research. Many genealogists do the same here and elsewhere (often out of frustration) due to false information being propagated user trees, hints, and even by ThruLines. It isn't that we lack a consensus; it's that the misinformation has taken over. Those who accept evidence-based conclusions have no trouble reaching consensus on those erroneous conclusions and correcting them. 

That propagated error also represents a form of unhealthy ideological conformism, IMO. And WikiTree is probably the best cure because one can make a public case about what the truth about who your 5th great grandfather's 3rd wife really was.

But for the quotidian stuff, WikiTree has benefits and private trees can have drawbacks. 

Time. Good genealogy takes time. So why reinvent the wheel? Collaboration takes some time and effort, but surely not as much as the duplication of effort spent verifying and re-entering all of this data does!  How much more of his time could be spent on original genealogy work, with interesting questions, were it possible to avoid re-researching (in depth) everything that someone else has already done!

On the flip side, for time, joining WT has some massive start-up costs: Imagine the headache of uploading a 280k profile GEDCOM file!! That kind of stuff isn't advised, nor, IIRC, permitted. Even one's own smaller tree can take a long time, particularly if seeking to maintain a high standard. That too can present a problem for someone who does genealogy professionally: Everything on WT is public and one will undoubtedly stumble along the way. Are we comfortable with that? I don't know: I've certainly seen some in G2G publicly chastise the efforts of new users. 

Interface. WikiTree's interface takes time to learn, but you need to consider that WT is a de facto Anglophone website at this point. No big steps have been taken toward regionalization. Geneanet, is based in France and available in French. That probably works better for a francophone.

Monetization and paywalls. Geneanet and WikiTree both are available for free, however Geneanet, like Ancestry, charges for some stuff. Both Geneanet and Ancestry place "public" user-created family trees (which are not restricted as private) behind a paywall. Consequently, others only get to find and see your tree if they pay first for the privilege. Here on WikiTree that is not the case. Yes, the site is still monetized - every site needs to earn money to operate! But WT does not put up a paywall. I want others to find my research. I want the research to survive my future demise AND stay free and open.

My general observation is that few are convinced that WikiTree is the ideal choice right from the start; instead, users tend to fall in love with it.  

Be sincere, and just invite him to give WikiTree a test run. Just to get himself connected, then no pressure. Don't enter with any burden of expecting any results. I would re-iterate to him that you are NOT asking him to add is 280k profiles here. Offer to be available and take initiative as a mentor for him, to make everything as easy as possible; in fact, you should see if you can build out a branch on WikiTree that will ensure that he's connected from day 1. (This is why a week ago, I made a feature request so those we invite to WikiTree could be connected in a simpler, faster, streamlined manner.) 

Maybe he will fall in love with WikiTree too.

Comments

JN, many thanks for this long and thoughtful answer.

Re. Frenchie : I know pretty well the derogatory connotation, and I would not use it if I was not French myself. Take it here as a form of auto-dérision. 

For the rest, after reading all the good arguments here and having a parallel discussion with my friend (I won't hassle him further) I am very happy that the crossed conversation allowed me to better understand what is at stake in the debate, and why he will not change now the way he's been working. What he has achieved is the result of more than half a century of dedicated work, (he just sent me the history of his work). Un travail de bénédictin, as he says. 

---

I think this is a great post. I had written an answer, then went a read all of the answers and ended up deleting mine without submitting because yours hits the point I wanted. However, I do question something:

"If something were to be a publishable thing, a collaborative site probably isn't the place to do it." and then "It might also help you to consider WikiTree as being more analogous to Wikipedia: You do not and cannot publish original research in Wikipedia."

I think precisely *because* you can publish original research on WikiTree that when discussing this aspect of Wikitree, the analogy with Wikipedia should not be made. On Wikipedia, even *small* original claims should not be included without independent publication and vetting. Wikitree has no such restriction, and I think it's absolutely a reasonable place to publish new discoveries that you want to get out far and fast -- especially if it may be publishable in a journal but you just don't feel the need to invest the considerable time to submit and revise the article, then wait the considerable amount of time before publication, to have it end up being available only to those with access. (Plenty of genealogical journals aren't peer-reviewed, so you might even get more vetting by putting the new research on Wikitree and asking people at G2G to take a look at it.)

---

I agree, Barry. Most profiles here on WikiTree are not notables in the sense of Wikipedia, and no research has been published about them before they were included. It's the case of all my ancestors up to 1700, with no exception. What I publish about my grandfather, that his name was engraved on the WWI memorial of his village, athough he was not killed, but two of his brothers were, is in that sense "original research", because beyond public records I put together, that story was published nowhere.

And indeed, this freedom is also what I like about WikiTree. I've given up editing Wikipedia, although I was an early adopter and one of the first editors of the French version back in 2001, in part because some of the content I'd created was deleted as "original research" and "lack of notability".

---

Hi Barry & Bernard,

Yes, it's true that one can directly post original research here on WikiTree -- there's no flat-out prohibition. But most of what is added is not really original; it's just not formally published. And much of the research done here is (ideally) citation and compilation of sources and extracting from those sources published information. Very little genealogy here on WikiTree (outside of DNA-based genealogy) would genuinely violate Wikipedia's "no original research" rule:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. 

The more technical violation most WT contributors would be committing, were this Wikipedia, is "synthesis of published material". The 1901, 1911, 1916, 1921, and 1926 censuses in Canada are all published material. Using those as the basis of a series of profiles, even if no one has ever compiled it before, is not "original research" as per that definition. 

So that' is the perspective from which I spoke.  

But I agree that collaborative research can, in the right circumstances and with the right people, be an amazing approach! That's a big part of what I want an easier way to invite others to WikiTree. There are genealogical questions that I certainly can't answer on my own.

And situations involving serious disambiguation tend to be what I would readily describe as original research. This profile of "dubious" parentage is an example that comes to mind. For that, WikiTree looks to me more like a platform for a particular kind of citizen science... or history (?). 

it may be publishable in a journal [...] to have it end up being available only to those with access. 

I'm not particularly supportive of publishing that isn't open-access. And that's a choice for both authors and publishers. But even if the article is closed-access, there is nothing to stop the author from submitting the same underlying GEDCOM file containing her or his research to WikiTree and citing the article on each; perhaps even citing the sources within. Just because the text of the article is closed does not lock down the facts contained within.

The problem from a publishing perspective is about getting recognition and credit for one's work. WikiTree is often good for intra-community recognition, but not particularly effective in providing access to outside recognition. And that is important to some researchers.

Answer 10

I'm pretty new to Wikitree, but I've found the 'Research Notes' tag extremely useful.

When I have a conflict of information I don't chose one option over another. I add a 'Research Note' in which I insert both options and simply state that it is impossible to decide on the current state of knowledge which one of the options is correct. If possible, I also add what 'Future Research' would be needed to get a definitive answer.

Additional online information in the future may resolve the conflict to everyone's satisfaction, but until it does, either decision may be wrong.

== Research Notes ==

'''Future Research'''

Comments

Indeed, Richard, I like "Research Notes" also, if it were just to show that the profile is "work in progress" and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Answer 11

In a bit of a different thought, you might also mention to him the collaborative nature of WikiTree. This is not necessarily conflicting hypotheses, but rather working together to locate sources.

Comments

An finding diamonds and emeralds down the hole.

Answer 12

Since I avoid conflict to such an extent that I have no friends, seldom leave my room, and probably have avoidant personality disorder, I will say that when I experienced conflict here, I gave up an entire line of research.  I'm pretty sure that the people who took over my ancestral line are wrong, but I find it too depressing to argue with them, so I gave up.  My mother asks what progress I've made on this line, and I switch the subject.  I suppose I hope that someone who is more assertive than I am will take the time to do the research someday and fix things.  I mean, even though I think I'm right and they're wrong, it's not as though I have enough resilience or resources to prove my point.  So my Wikitree experience includes a blobby gap of negativity.  Anyway, I like the idea of one tree, but in reality, it can be a painful thing to achieve.

Comments

Your post certainly makes me reflect on my own approach.   I too avoid conflict on WikiTree, mainly because I had so much conflict in my career I don't want a hobby that also throws me to the wolves.   However,  I've been fortunate, and few people are involved with my direct family line.    Last year was the only time I had to strongly challenge a new member about her edits.    She eventually agreed with me and we settled with great relations..... but I don't want to spend a lot of energy in conflict.  However,  if a profile doesn't involve my direct family line,  I probably won't strongly assert my position.....I'll just add Research Notes or some other compromise.

---

J, I couldn't help but laugh at your post, and I hope you meant it with that in mind.  But you're right.  Fighting it out over an ancestor can be difficult.  That is one point that I don't think has been made enough yet on this thread.  Yes, people have remarked that sometimes profiles can be conflated, or records misinterpreted.  But there are many cases in which a name is so common, and records are so lacking, that no side can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.  What happens then?  Are we not allowed to attach our line to those whom we believe are our ancestors?  And if not, we deprive all our relatives and DNA matches of information that could be useful to them.  Is there a consistent standard on WikiTree for how those disputes are resolved?

---

Julie,

You've hit it on the head!!  There's a eager attempt to attach our lines even without merit.   Sometimes,  the records just aren't there and may never appear.  Most of my family lines that are dead ends are in Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and other "frontier" states that kept poor records.... and then there were court house fires to compound the problems.   Maiden names are often difficult to find.     Perhaps DNA matches will one day be advanced and complete enough to help.   But in the mean time,  to attach to just any family line practically stops further research.   I'd rather live with a brick wall than a fantasy.

For example:  one of my family lines was  "attached" to a family line  by changing his given name from  Joseph to Jesse  (even though the only sources clearly said Joseph)  and then connecting this new "Jesse" to a family who had a son Jesse but they never lived in the state where  Joseph was born, (according to the only two reliable sources for Joseph).   While I can't provide a family line for Joseph,  shouldn't I object to this unsourced and illogical  conclusion?

As you your last question,  yes there's a WikiTree process to handle these disputes.  It's probably even standardized and likely has thoughtful WikiTree members involved.   I just haven't used it yet, perhaps one day I'll feel the need.....but  where's the fun in arbitration?

---

Peggy, I'm not sure we do agree.  I don't feel I have been overly eager to attach to an uncertain ancestor, nor do I feel my case is without merit, nor did I have to manipulate names to reach a conclusion.  But sometimes, even when we feel we are right, we can't prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt.

WikiTree allows for uncertainty:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Uncertain

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Disagreements_about_Certainty

You're right.  There's no fun in arbitration.  I have used it.  But at least it's there as a last resort.  (And in case a person involved is reading this, yes, a very thoughtful WikiTree member.)

(Edit was to correct typo.)

---

Julie,  I think we DO agree you wouldn't carelessly attach to family lines.... so sorry if I was sloppy in my earlier comment....  And I'm thankful to have arbitration as an option..... There are so many incredible WikiTree members available to help resolve these disputes,  it far outweighs this topic.

Answer 13

In my experience, "diversity of hypotheses and viewpoints" in genealogy is usually the result of bad research and the conflation of two or more individuals with the same name. I have encountered multiple instances of this when researching my own ancestry and my relations. Some examples: My 5th great-grandfather, William Handy, of Worcester County, Maryland, has been conflated with his first cousin William Handy and with an entirely unrelated William Handy who was most likely born in Virginia and died in Kentucky, with the majority of Ancestry trees for the Kentuckian giving him the life dates of Handy-607 and the parents of Handy-568. This is an error someone made on the basis of "name's the same"; the two Marylanders are fairly well-documented, both left wills, and neither was ever in Kentucky.

My 6th great-grandfather William Utley, who died in Wake County, NC in 1794, has been conflated with an entirely different William Utley who was born in Connecticut and died in Vermont.

My 7th great-grandparents William Dodd and Catherine Nederman were parents of a son, Jesse Dodd, was born circa 1746, served as a lieutenant in a South Carolina militia regiment in the Revolution, and died in Union County, SC around 1800. He has been conflated with an entirely different Jesse Dodd who was born in North Carolina in 1757 and died in Alabama in 1838 (descendants of both Jesse Dodds are part of the Dodd Y-DNA project at FTDNA and have entirely different haplogroups; NC>AL Jesse is I, VA>SC Jesse is R, and his descendant matches other descendants of William Dodd with a genetic distance of 2 at 67 markers).

Answer 14

Well obviously there are huge numbers of unsourced and unsourceable connections that some people would like to see snipped.  Mostly they were decided by default, ie. they were parachuted in like that and nobody has made an issue of them yet.

There are also lots of snipped connections that some people would like to see put back.  In those cases, a decision has been made.

You'd think it would be the other way round.  But the default in American genealogical culture is the greedy option - if in doubt, put it in.

But there's no consistency in the decisions.  Really bad cases get left in, while better cases get snipped.

There's no attempt to define and apply genealogical criteria or have a genealogical debate.  We don't vote.

The decisions are made the usual ways.  If there's a pecking order, follow the boss.  If there isn't, people just let it go when they decide that they aren't going to win, or arguing will cost more than it's worth.

Comments

Your experience of wikitree is so radically different from mine; it always surprises me.

---

Jillaine, my observation is that he does seem to be right.  People let things go because it is not worth their time to fight it, as two other people have already commented (or answered) above.  But if people are not willing to fight it out, how are we ever to reach the truth?