More and more unsourced profiles. What to do?

Question

From my feed this morning I clicked on a profile for a family name - a new profile with no biography and the source is a family tree. Then I clicked on other family members. Ah, one had three words of biography. More clicks and a few had a list of information like residence or baptism, but not a single source for any of these facts. No stories.

This was not a new member. He started in 2016. Events like this make me wonder if I should be continuing to put so much effort into what I am doing on WikiTree. How can the message get out to source every fact or say why you can't?

I could try sending the PM a message. But my experience is that only a low number of my messages get replied too. Requests to help source profiles or correct relationships just go unanswered. It seems that communication is not important to the majority of people I encounter on WikiTree. The small number of very helpful people are a bright oasis in an otherwise desert that frustrates me that the goal of a global fully-sourced tree is not being achieved.

At this stage I cannot see how this matter can be resolved as it requires an attitudinal change from large numbers of people, most of whom are getting used to being able to add to their trees by clicking on a hint or a smart match. The vast majority of online trees on the major sites quote other trees as their sources. Doing research using primary sources is starting to be an old-fashioned method.

Thank you for letting me have my rant today.

Comments

I hate to say this but welcome to the human condition...

Answer 1

Until WikiTree starts to make it harder to add people, this will continue indefinitely.

Comments

Lois, that is the unfortunate truth. You don't need a source to add profiles. You only need to type in a phrase in the source box and it is accepted. I did that once accidentally. Now I put my text in that box so the profile is added, then use RootsSearch to add the citations in addition to those I already have on my private tree in my text. And if it is unfinished, I say so at the top of the biography.

Answer 2

Margaret, although I am definitely one of those who would appreciate better sourcing, I think your pessimism may be a bit unwarranted.  

Most of the unsourced profiles on WikiTree, as far as I know, are the result of gedcom uploads before new standards were implemented.  Edit:  Based on what others have said elsewhere on this thread, I could be wrong.  But we are not all defining "source" the same way.  I want to say more about this in another answer below.

There is no WikiTree requirement to source every fact, and I would not want that.  For example, yesterday I expanded the biography of a profile I manage.  I added a better source and included information about his children.  I don't recall whether I added a source for each child, yet I thought it could be useful for other researchers to know that the children existed.  Wouldn't you rather have more clues rather than fewer, if they were your ancestors?

When people cite Ancestry trees, they are supposed to name the particular tree.  Not everyone does, I know.  But if they do, at least they have provided a trail.

Comments

One was citing WikiTree as their source.

commented by Patricia Roche

.

I have this problem with a cousin of a cousin.  They cite profiles I created, because I mention names in the biography.  The reason *I* didn't create the profiles is because there. are. no. sources. due to the privacy cutoff (and "personal knowledge", or "family sources" isn't good enough). 

---

I do, and presume many others are, also..  I like to encourage new members with badges, thank yous, etc. when they are making good quality contributions.

---

That's interesting. I have been getting badges for my contributions. I didn't know how they were awarded. I thought the computer would count each time you added a profile or something like that.

---

The monthly 100 badges are now automatic, but others someone awards them, and Margaret, you are in need of a Family Star badge.  The system will only allow us to give out one every few days, and I used mine already, but put you on my calendar for later in the week, if someone doesn't jump in here and take care of it.  Your profiles are fantastic 

---

Badge awarded, Patricia. Margaret, you absolutely deserve it!

---

As a Mentor on wikitree, we are seeing plenty of people sent to Mentors to get help in sourcing.  Most of the people that I work with have entered nothing in the sources section, other than ancestry.com, their own wikitree ID, or family search and nothing more.  Entering an ancestry.com family tree does no good for someone that has no access to ancestry.  Entering a family search family tree ID usually doesn't matter either, since most of them are either not sourced or have mentions of ancestry.com or sources that are user created on ancestry.  

Yes, there are some old Gedcom loaded profiles, but that is NOT the majority of the profiles that I see that are unsourced. It would be great if a change could be made so that profiles being created could not have just ancestry, family search, personal knowledge (especially for profiles prior to 1900), etc, even if a date was added, such as 100 years old.  That would stop the majority of profiles that should be able to find some sources OR they shouldn't be created until they have found something.

---

Unfortunately, management has decided that almost any "source" is acceptable. Quantity is important, quality is not. Until that changes (and there's little hope it ever will), the attitude expressed by Ryan upthread is the best way to go—do your own work, sourcing every asserted fact, and when you encounter one of the myriad of junk profiles, either fix it or sigh and move on.

---

Thank you Patricia and Fiona for your kind gesture. I understood from the beginning how important sources are. But that is my scientific training which requires primary references for all statements. I will continue to write my sourced profiles, also to source others that I encounter. But at present I am having a break as I chase a missing segment of my family with DNA and sources. They are on here, but I do not accept that what is here is correct until I have double-checked.

---

Linda, you are absolutely correct as is Stu. I've hit my head on this wall for some time now, posted a really long, moderately snarky post about the problem, and got nothing but a headache and a few down votes! I don't know what goes on in the minds of "management" but one would think, with the numbers of genealogists on this site who are fed up, pissed-off, or just plain tired of the sorry situation with profiles lacking "appropriate" (NOT what they call appropriate) sources. My suggestion is this, don't hit your head against this particular wall!

---

That's a really good idea using the badge as encouragement to new members who are doing good work.

How do we find the new members?

Answer 3

The way I look at it, the most important thing is that the number of profiles with good sourcing is constantly increasing. The fact that there continue to be large numbers of existing and new profiles that have few if any sources does not detract from the value of those that do or from the value of the overall tree; they just don't add any value.

Comments

I think they do distract because when interested genealogists look at WikiTree and encounter unsourced profiles with slapdash dates and places the ones we want to join, those with an interest in well-sourced genealogy, are going to be the ones least likely to stay.

---

Helmut (and Chase), every genealogy website has unsourced and neglected profiles.  As I have said elsewhere, that was not what initially put me off from WikiTree, nor is it the reason many of my genealogist friends won't join.  The main reason is the amount of wrong information on profiles, and the understandable reluctance to have to fight with existing PMs to get information corrected.

---

Helmut - "when interested genealogists look at WikiTree and encounter unsourced profiles" - I agree. But no one cares about the ones they don't encounter. It doesn't matter if there are a billion unsourced profiles, so long as a good percentage of the ones that most people people are interested in are well sourced. So long as we are making progress on those (eg, the 5-star profiles), an increase in the shear number of unsourced profiles is not problematic IMHO.

---

Julie - I think most people can build most of their tree back to the 1700s before they find that profiles for most of their ancestors exist, so there is lots of room for people to do work without having to worry about existing profiles. Once you get back to existing profiles, however, I agree that doing wikitree requires being willing to deal with existing PMs. That is often a good thing, as it requires people to do their homework and not just slap up whatever they found on ancestry or familysearch. But admittedly, it is not always a good thing, as when an existing PM refuses to be swayed by evidence or insists of their particular style. In either case, it requires a willingness to at least risk a disagreement/having to work with others. Not everyone's cup of tea.

---

Chase, I am here and have made my choice.  Had I known what was in store, I'm not sure I would have.

You're right that most people can get back to the 1700s before running into existing profiles, but the problem is that the ones who can't are most likely to be the serious genealogists, the ones we most need in order to build a better tree.

---

Julie, when I joined to correct a mistake in my family tree on WikiTree found from record matching on MyHeritage, the first profiles I found were my family loaded as a GEDCOM years ago and abandoned with no profile manager and no sources apart from a link to a family tree. I have done profiles for my own line but there may be thousands more of them still on here. Dozens of descendants, many of them doing genealogy from the numbers I DNA match to. I've asked them to come on here, but not seen any sign of any of them yet.

---

There are many dedicated genealogists here fixing up the mess that is created by others. Some of the mess generators are doing it for years and not developing better habits. How many extra records could we have in this tree if the fixers could devote that fixing time to adding new profiles instead?

Answer 4

I hear you, Margaret. I could show you a little corner of the tree where a local member has made over 9000 contributions with not a source in sight except “Unsourced family tree handed down to....” I’ve reminded this person to source, sourced profiles for her (most are really easy with local and UK sources), I’ve filled a Mentor Intervention Report and it was agreed my concerns were justified. However, there has been no change. The decision to not allow the Unsourced template when profiles like this are created just makes the whole thing worse. How is anyone going to find and source these profiles? I now try very hard to not let this issue annoy me. If I bang into unsourced profiles, I just source them if I can. I don’t communicate in advance and no one has even taken offence. I justify it to myself as being the change I want.

Comments

Thanks, Fiona. What annoys me most is that these people put up many profiles in a month - and get rewarded by getting badges for 100 or 1000 contributions. Does any one look at the quality of the contributions? I can spend a few hours doing one profile if it is a tricky one for finding sources and if there is a lot I can write from those sources. But the system does not notice that. One a day is my goal.

And if I find a family member that is on here unsourced, then like you I source them. Papers Past nearly always has something you can add. I found two unknowns recently. Just checked in Papers Past for the weddings which gave the bride's maiden names. How can people put up women as Unknown and not check for their maiden names. I always look for these poor women's names.

---

The person I mentioned above came to my attention because of a 1000 contribution badge. I challenged it and upset someone on G2G who hands out the badges. I was told they don’t have time to check. I too always try to find out maiden names. They can be hard if you’re working off a shipping list, or if the husband has a common surname and the wife a common first name. I often won’t create Unknown wives, which I find very sad. They need to be recognised.

---

Exactly. WikiTree is rewarding quantity not quality. I could put up a GEDCOM for my almost 5000 person tree, but I won't. I used that technique for two other smaller trees, but every profile is being added individually and sourced before the next is added. And I go back as I sometimes find from a later source more information about an earlier profile. I know I need to do more work on quite a few, but all have some sources.

I do the same with unknown wives. I'm still waiting to add one of my 3xgreat grandmothers as no one can agree on her first name. A famous husband, but she is known as Miss McRae of Kintail. And no sources apart from being mentioned in the history written by her son. No known birth, marriage or death. Others have made guesses, but I'm still hoping to find her.

---

I found a lovely one today - an Alice married to a WW1 soldier. I found his burial; she was shown as a nurse on the RSA death plaque. No local marriage. I found the marriage in London and was able to confirm that she was a nurse on the National Archives. I’d love to know the whole story, but it’s not my family, just a Nelson one.

---

Fiona, I understand exactly what you're saying about the cousin. I was "found" by a distant cousin here on wikitree and there was a genetic match, so far so good. However, after he stopped communicating, saying he was too busy with work to Wikitree, Then, I discovered the "suggestions" on my profiles had multiplied by hundreds -literally! He had added me to every one of his profiles that had "Unsourced family tree handed down to me" as the only source. Mind you, I had added multiple sources to many his profiles already. Then, because he's a computer whiz, he did the new sources in a code or mark-up language I couldn't read or understand. I suppose if I were 20 instead of 60 years old, I would probably understand it, or have the patience to figure it out, since I was considered an early adopter 17-20 years ago. But alas, no longer! Still you get the point. He had the smarts and the resources to properly source his profiles and chose not to. I finally spent most of an afternoon taking myself off those profiles! C'est la vie.

Answer 5

Short answer: many (most) people aren't particularly skilled at historical research. That's the ugly, honest truth. All those "book smarts" that many people like to ridicule are actually pretty important for something like genealogy.

If you're going to do crowd-sourced genealogy, you have to live with the low standards of the crowds. What makes it worthwhile for me is that I can share my work here in a convenient way. I get few or no bad changes to my profiles here...because I source everything I can meticulously. Even many of the low-skilled know better than to lightly change something that looks authoritatively researched. Be the change you want to see.

Comments

Good point Ryan. I have sourced a few profiles for others in the hope that they will learn from what I have done. I guess, being a professional researcher (scientist), I set very high standards. I find as much as I possibly can, although for some I am still searching, especially those ancestors back in the 18th century before they emigrated.

---

I have recently come to the same conclusion and am working on this before I remove myself as manager. Create a profile, present it neatly, include good sources and the quality-impaired genealogists will likely keep their mitts off.

---

Yes. The key is good sourcing. Most of the trouble of these sites comes from profiles that aren't responsibly sourced. WikiTree has good mischief controls in place for well-sourced profiles.

---

Ryan, most people aren't good writers either, and sometimes don't even try.  I would rather see a profile with a couple of sources and an insightful biography than ten sources stuck on a profile with no analysis of what they mean.  

Nor do many have much ability to think logically.  I see a lot of profiles with information presented so randomly that it takes work to understand the person's life.

---

True. It looks like academic skills are actually useful for certain things.

---

Ha ha!

---

Another current thread on G2G has more to say about how and why to write insightful biographies:

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/983170/question-the-week-how-you-beyond-names-dates-your-genealogy

Answer 6

Hi Margaret,  I think there are lots of diligent Wikitree members  who agree that the standards are too low and make the overall tree look bad.  I know I sometimes feel the need to vent also.   I think that while collaborating and bringing up issues is encouraged,  ultimately it is the administrators who will determine the final direction - which seems to be quantity over quality.   That said, I appreciate the work done by the leaders and administrators and try to do my part in creating good biographies and improving the quality of sources.  These goals are what brought me here and I think it is still my best option for continuing to share my work.

Comments

I agree, Cheryl, that this is still the best option for me too. But it has the potential to be so much better. And I appreciate the effort that the people who run it put in as volunteers, having done much community work myself. We are preaching to the converted on this feed, how to reach the rest is the issue.

Answer 7

WikiTree's Help: Sources FAQ says:

"a source is the identification of where you obtained information" and "Our requirement for modern profiles is only that you say where your information comes from. We do not attempt to enforce any standard of reliability for sources or any method for securing pre-approval except on pre-1700 profiles."

 

Some examples follow, including "Personal records" is not adequate, but  "FamilySearch profile ABCD-123" and "Unsourced family tree handed down to X" are.

 

We have this discussion about once a week on G2G.  As some here have pointed out, management has made the decision to grow--so, yes, quantity over quality.  There is more than one reason for such a policy, but we should all recognize that we are getting something for free that costs money to run.

 

As for other possible contributions to the problem of poor quality profiles, I have long thought that the badge system has some undesirable consequences.  I have no problem with anyone, no matter how unskilled, coming to WikiTree and putting his or her own ancestors (a few generations) on WikiTree.  I do resent it when someone adds a thousand profiles just to get a badge.

 

Even among people contributing to this thread, who are generally sympathetic to the opening post, there is a range of opinions about what is best.  I personally do not add facts to WikiTree unless I am sure of them, but I do not feel I need to source every single fact.  Who has time?  Once I "anchor" a person into reality with a source or two, I feel that I have given others sufficient information to find the person on their own.  Or they can contact me.  Yes, I know, in theory I could complete every single profile before moving on, but in reality--I can't.  Often it is because I get diverted by inquiries about other branches of my ancestry.  And my G2G addiction is cutting into my genealogy time!

 

We all need to decide for ourselves whether it's worth our time to be here; whether the benefits outweigh the aggravations.

Comments

If I don't have a source for a fact, I don't add it. Otherwise, how is someone to evaluate whether or not the fact is accurate? If Wikitree expect to be taken seriously as a genealogical website, every fact needs to be backed up by a solid source. Otherwise, it's not that much better than Ancestry or one of the other garbage genealogy sites.

---

I didn't say I didn't have sources.  I said that I didn't add facts unless I was sure of them.  Not because I somehow imagined them to be correct, but (the next part I didn't say before) because I researched the person on Ancestry.  My tree of 10,000+ people has over 60,000 sources.  If it was as easy to add a source to WikiTree as it is to Ancestry, I would do it.  Meanwhile, if anyone wants more information about profiles I manage, they can 1. ask me, 2. consult my Ancestry tree, which is noted on my profile, or 3. do their own research.  (And by the way, I have never orphaned a profile that I've created.  Occasionally I hand one over to a closer relative.)

There are various reasons I add profiles to WikiTree.  I don't do it to earn points.  Often it is to link existing profiles.  For example, my surname is fairly rare.  If I see a new Kelts on WikiTree, I can usually link the person into the main Kelts family.  I think most people would appreciate it if, upon joining WikiTree, they suddenly found themselves linked into generations of ancestors they did not know of.  Even if I didn't have time to add ten sources.

By the way, there are some very good trees on Ancestry.  Not only my own (feel free to audit it and report back), but those of many of my relatives and genealogy contacts, including some brilliant people who have done good genealogy for decades.

---

However, Julie, to see a tree on Ancestry you need a subscription. And many people do not have that. I understood that we are to use free sources where possible. I do DNA matching on Ancestry without a sub.

---

When I cite Ancestry as a source, I provide a transcription as well as the source details.

I was on Ancestry for years before I joined WikiTree.  That's where my tree is.  That's where I did my research.  I want to share the information I have, but there is not enough time left in my lifetime to do my research all over again looking for free sources.

---

I agree with Julie, on a couple of fronts. First, I believe the new "Sources FAQ" confuses more than helps, and is even self-contradictory in places. How can the subtitle "Why are unreliable sources allowed for post-1700 profiles?" ever send the right message? Or "Unsourced family tree handed down to X" be deemed a sufficient source citation? This was/is being discussed elsewhere, so isn't appropriate here, but on Help:Sources we explain the preferred citation style (even point to the excellent reference Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills) and describe two minimal things a citation should do for a fellow genealogist (even given that those differ from Mills's description of purpose). And then on Help:Sources_FAQ we now pretty much say, "April Fools! Don't worry about any of that!"

On top of that confusion, I see very, very few profiles following the WikiTree Sources Style Guide. Even many of my own; but I intend to try to more closely adhere to that format in the future. Curious, I just took a quick glance at all the "Profile of the Week" featured items so far in 2020, and guess what? None of them strictly follow the WikiTree Sources Style Guide.

But even that is somewhat in disagreement with Evidence Explained. Shown Mills presents distinctions among a "Source List Entry" (think of this as an item in a traditional bibliography at the end of a chapter or book); a "First (Full) Reference Note" (the most complete of all the citation examples); and a "Subsequent (Short) Note" (additional citations to the same work or information already cited).

The WikiTree Sources Style Guide in that regard is most closely aligned not with Evidence Explained or the Chicago Manual of Style, but with the APA Style guide (American Psychological Association; more commonly in use in scientific papers than histories). There's no such thing as a bibliography in APA Style, though they can optionally be included. APA Style uses in-text citations and a reference list. However, in APA Style, each reference cited in the text must appear in the reference list, and each entry in the reference list must be cited in the text.

The WikiTree Sources Style Guide says to place that bibliography/source-list under a "See also" heading, which would agree with neither the APA nor Chicago/Turabian. The APA states: "A reference list contains works that specifically support the ideas, claims, and concepts in a paper; in contrast, a bibliography provides works for background or further reading and may include descriptive notes (e.g., an annotated bibliography)." I personally have used "See also" to add items "for background or further reading" and don't believe it's an appropriate title for what our Sources Style Guide describes as being a reference list.

Bottom line is that a source citation ain't that difficult to write. After all, we expect Middle and High School students to be able to accomplish it. But WikiTree sends mixed signals, which makes it confusing.

Evidence Explained provides just two simple purposes for source citations: 1) to record the specific location of each piece of data; and 2) to record details that affect the use or evaluation of that data. Number two is critically important to genealogy; i.e., give enough detail to help readers adequately understand and evaluate the data.

Citing a source isn't difficult, but it's made much more difficult if internal Help pages and advice from other WikiTreers aren't consistent. That's when a member relatively new to genealogy--or who hasn't written a research paper or published a nonfiction book in the past 20 or 30 years--can become confused. The only way to fix that is to clean up our act and start presenting a single, coherent message, not one that's internally inconsistent, that's self-contradictory in places, and that has introduced extra levels of complexity through different quality standards for different profiles.

Where I differ with Julie is only on a matter of preference, not substance. Barring a profile where the PM has unique experiences, family stories, or an evaluation of evidence that's best described in narrative form, I would prefer to land on a profile that has a detailed reference list nicely populated with as many relevant sources as currently discovered, rather than one with some expository text in the biography but only one or two sources. Referencing no standard at all and probably running afoul of others' tastes, I arrange my "reference list" not alphabetically like a bibliography, but chronologically wherever possible. I'd rather a marriage record follow a birth record, an 1860 census citation follow one from 1850, and burial information follow the death record.

Again; personal preference only, and it's the way I approach profiles I manage. I put priority on the reference list and citations because, as Julie noted (more succinctly than I could have), "Who has time?"

And, truthfully, does anyone who reads G2G also want to see a plethora more exegetical bloviation from me on profile biographies?
 

Yeah. Didn't think so...

---

Ed, you make some good points.  When I said earlier I'd rather see a good narrative than ten sources, I made some implicit assumptions that I didn't even think to express:  1.  That the narrative was based on facts, and 2.  I could verify those facts for myself if I chose.

 

Beyond that, though, there is the question of why we do genealogy.  Among the most important reasons that I joined WikiTree is that I wanted a place to make my family research public.  I have lots of (first) cousins who are mildly interested in their family history.  They don't care to do research.  They won't pay to join Ancestry.  If they can read a story, that is much more meaningful than a list of facts.

 

Ed, I don't doubt that you can read through such a list of facts and easily understand a person's life.  But for most of us, even writing a biography involves surprising discoveries.  A woman had three different husbands in three censuses.  How did that affect her life?  Why was one child missing from a certain census?  What were the people's occupations?  What about where they lived?  What was going on at the time?

 

I see genealogy as an opportunity to learn more about history.  Most people won't get that from a simple list of sources.

---

Thanks for your detailed comments, Edison. When I was new here some six months ago, I read that Sources Style Guide very carefully. Having published scientific papers, I am used to having to follow style guides.

What I saw was, "Ideally every fact related to a person has a reference".  That is what I have tried to achieve. Not always possible, but I try as hard as I can. If I can't find information, I put a research note in case someone does find it for me. I use the citation tab every time I write something (well, apart from those times when I put in personal information for people like my parents and other recent family members). I believe that someone should be able to check the details in my profiles. It annoys me when I click on a profile hoping it may be a member of my missing family to find minimal information and no sources apart from a tree, not available to me.

I also saw this, "We recommend searching for a freely available copy of the source document". Again, not always possible, so I have got references to Ancestry records as they are the only site I know of with New Zealand Electoral Rolls and some other records I use.

Do new members actually read the Help menus? I know I spent some time going through them, but still missed essential information. That was taught by people correcting my early profiles. So maybe all the first few weeks of profiles for new members need to be checked so bad habits are seen to early. I have had to go back and redo my first profiles as now I know how to do them so much better.

---

Julie, what I enjoy about this site - and why in spite of my comments I will continued - is writing the stories. Finding the strange twist or turns in their lives. Wondering what certain facts meant to them. So I write narrative supported by sources, sometime adding little comments.

Yesterday it was finding that my great grandfather had his empty house burnt down. Arson was suspected but nothing was proved. He was a stock inspector and would prosecute recalcitrant farmers. Maybe one had his revenge! He had moved for his work at the time. Discoveries like that are what gives me the incentive to keep on.

And I too want these stories to be publicly available so others can read and enjoy them (but with the detailed proof that I as a researcher need to show).

---

I find some of the help pages to be somewhat scattered on some topics. I know it isn't easy to write a good help section and I'm not saying I could do better. Some new members would struggle to find the answers they need in a short time. I've recently completed the England project's Orphan Trail and I think a generic version of that would be good for new members, to encourage them in good genealogical habits if they don't have them already.

Answer 8

I sometimes get depressed when I look at even the vast numbers of old profiles that are unsourced, unconnected, or without dates.  I once did the math on how long it might to get everything cleaned up (you don't want to know!

Maybe in the future, WikiTree will come up with a solution.  I think in the meantime the answer is to fnd a corner you can carve out where you can make a difference.  Working higher up on the tree and making sure that early ancestors are well sourced and accurate probably makes the most difference to the most people

Comments

I would like the solution to be that unsourced profiles are automatically deleted after one month. If they haven't been sourced by then, the creator is not serious.

This last week I have had two branches created, sourced from Ancestry private trees, both with a son of the same name John, but one born 1632 and one born 1662, from a father I manage, whom the only source found so far says died before 1650. This is so wrong! Let's just delete them after fair warning.