The Ugly Truth

Question

I've just come across yet another generous contributor, whose entire production (1000+ profiles) is unsourced. Yay .

I'm wondering how it is possible to avoid detection for that long (the profiles are hand-made, no gedcom) ?

How are you going to prevent this from happening again (and again) ?

If you haven't already donned your thinking caps, NOW is probably a good time to do it.

Meanwhile the Unsourced Profile count for Denmark will now reach 14.000 (out of 64.000 possible).

A while ago we passed 1-in-5, now we are within striking distance of 1-in-4 profiles being unsourced. Yay .

That is an exceptionally bad statistic. The 19th & 20th-century profiles can probably be fixed with a simple lookup, but the older ones are going to be one tough nut to crack.

I fully understand your wish to use the carrot rather than the stick, but you need to realise that if you don't enforce the rules they become meaningless.

Comments

Were they pre-1700 or post-1700?  Are they unsourced in your opinion, or minimally sourced as the policy allows for post-1700 profiles?  When were they created?

Answer 1

We're looking at this the wrong way.  We get as much sourced material as we get.  If we also get unsourced material, so what?  It just sits there.  You can take it or leave it.  It doesn't reduce the amount of sourced material.

Trying to fix unsourced profiles wastes time and effort that could be better spent.  But you can't blame the unsourced profiles for that.  It's your choice what you spend the time and effort on.  Creating new sourced profiles is more productive.

If they really don't want unsourced material on the site, they can wipe it.

But you can't insist that people supply sources, because you can't insist that people do anything. They can just not contribute.  Too many do.

Comments

What a wonderfully positive answer. Thank you RJ Horace for seeing the "glass half fill". So many of us see the "glass half empty".

---

I agree with you Jean!  RJ is right on in his assessment.

---

In working on the profile of an in-law to one of my main lines, I came across a gedcom import from 2013 of a fairly significant northeast Missouri family. Some profiles were sourced, most not, none having even the most basic clean-up. I've adopted them, I'm cleaning and sourcing them. FWIW, they are ending up being supportable.

You're right, there is no harm in letting unsourced profiles sit there. However, there is great value in someone actively sourcing such profiles.  Why recreate them if they are already there? And if they offend someone's sense of aesthetics and that person enjoys the sleuthing, god speed!

---

Just echoing this amazing and powerfully positive alternate perspective....

When I'm building out a branch and can connect to an existing family that's all well documented, it's just fantastic, maybe the experience could be rated like a 4 out of 5 or a 5 of 5 if they're really great profiles.

I chose to see the unsourced existing profiles I encounter as a .25? of 5....instead a 0 of 5 for a starting point and add what I can from there.

---

Yes, RJ! That's exactly how I think about this, too.

There are people who want to preserve their family lines, but they don't have the skills or time to do it themselves. It's not ideal if they contribute their unsourced profiles, but if they do, they're there for the next descendant to come along and prove them and make necessary corrections.

Thank you for saying this. :-)

Answer 2

I know nothing whatsoever about Danish profiles, but I find tons of profiles that are unsourced but lacking an unsourced sticker. I spent a decent amount of time on Wikitree trying to source totally unrelated people, merging, etc.

As difficult as it is to imagine for source-lovers like ourselves, some folks take the stance that they "know" this information, so why do they need to source it? They "know" it! Duh!

Answer 3

Without knowing when these profiles were created, I can only say that in the past couple of years this problem has been reduced a lot.   We have clear direction about sources now, and we have a mentor staff that is out there helping new people, along with the Greeters who are helping new people get started.   IF this is someone new....help us all and don't keep it a secret about who is doing this.   Follow the Problems with Members process to help.

Comments

Stu, this is a recurring theme of yours, and you are not the only one.  We have the same discussion over and over and over.

So let me ask you something:  Why do you think Chris Whitten created WikiTree?  Why do you think hundreds of very dedicated researchers have spent big chunks of their lives on it?  Surely not just to put another bunch of crap on the internet!

---

Stu --

I think the difference in opinion that we're having here is that I consider that sort of source "just fine" as a starting point. We don't expect people to only add fully sourced profiles. Many, many of us *start* our research here, and sometimes the only thing we have when we're starting a profile is what "Aunt Edna" told us. Then it's up to us to verify the accuracy of that with additional sources.

It doesn't bother me in the least that someone adds a profile for their 2nd gr. grandfather and the only source they have is an "Unsourced family tree." If and when they have the time, they will come back and do additional research, especially if they're met by a community that encourages them to learn and grow their skill set.

This community is very good at teaching those of us that are true beginners when we get here. I would hate to see us start turning people away because they're only getting started and don't know what they're doing yet.

---

You'd have to ask Chris why he created it. I have no idea.

As far as why "hundreds of very dedicated researchers have spent huge chunks of their lives on it," I can't answer for anyone but myself. I spend time on WikiTree because it lets me do serious genealogy in a forum that has a chance of enduring for a long time, and to collaborate with other serious genealogists. Unfortunately, it appears to me that serious genealogists are in the minority here, at least among those who work in the area that I do, i.e., colonial and 19th century New England. There is good work being done here, but unfortunately, it's sometimes hard to find amidst the c**p. And the good-work-to-c**p ratio is unlikely to get better, given management's current policies.

---

OK, my point is that I think it is very unfair to say "Management has demonstrated that it does not care about serious genealogy..."

Serious genealogists are in the minority everywhere.  But we can also learn something from the occasional genealogists, incompetent as they may seem to be, when they tell us about their own close families, which they are extremely likely to know more about than the rest of us do, and that is part of building the big tree.

---

I have to agree with Julie. The quality of genealogy on WikiTree far outweighs the quality of genealogy on most other sites ... I can't think of any mainstream genealogy site that even comes close.

That was a recurring theme of people I talked to at Rootstech this past weekend. I had a lot of people stop by to let us know how much they appreciate what we do here.

And, yes, it's not fair to say that "management" doesn't care. Being part of that management and knowing many others who are also, I can tell you that they (and I) care very much.

---

Comparing yourself to other internet genealogy sites sets a very low bar indeed. Why not compare yourself to other wikis, say Wikipedia, where there are real standards in place for contributions? Yes, I know there is unverified stuff there too, but it's very much in the minority, and the management of that site does not actively encourage unverified contributions.

---

Why wouldn't we compare ourselves to other genealogy sites?  We are a genealogy site!  And Wikipedia is really not comparable.

---

As I said, Julie, because it's a very low bar. If you want to say "We're not as bad as Ancestry," I won't disagree, but if you then were to go on to claim "and that proves that management of this site is dedicated to serious genealogy," that's where our agreement would end.

---

Stu ...

Knowing what I know, I am sure that the Leaders and staff of WikiTree and plenty of other members are, indeed, concerned with serious genealogy. If you can't see it that way, that's unfortunate.

I believe that the majority of people on WikiTree are doing the best they can with the skills and knowledge they currently have. If they are making the effort to learn and grow, then they are working toward improving the data on WikiTree, and that advances our efforts to accomplish our mission. It's an evolving process, and we get better at what we're doing every day/week/month/year.

I don't see that further discussion of our different opinions here is going to make any changes. So, this is probably a good time to close out this thread of comments.

---

I don't see it that way because the evidence in front of me doesn't show that.

Now we can close the thread, if that's your wont.

Answer 4

I think it's all a matter of perspective, those who make great profiles get irritated by those who don't and worried that the bad profiles will ruin a good thing, but not everyone is at the same level and everything is constantly evolving.

I like to think the unsourced and bad profiles are just draft and like the idea of all profiles having a big grey draft across them and no access to backgrounds. Then when a pm feels their profile is good enough to come out of draft they press a button to send it to a relevant  project group for review to remove the draft from it. And if it's draft with an active pm we pretty much ignore the profile quality.

I also like the idea that there are bronze, silver and gold profile standards. Bronze being birth or baptism, marriage, death or burial and no errors,  silver including censuses or other sources, gold being all sources double checked, pictures and written as a biography not just points.

I also like the idea of orphan profiles being passed to the project groups once they meet basic level. Obviously this would put a lot of extra jobs on the project teams but I feel it's the next step forward in improving quality

Comments

I like the idea but not sure it would ever work here. I know of one lady who is approaching 200000 contributions and I can guarentee that the majority would be in the draft section permanently. I feel like I've sourced hundreds of "her" profiles which takes time out of what I'm trying to do myself.

Answer 5

Thank you to WikiTree members who put unsourced tags on profiles needing sources.  This enriches the lives of those members who enjoy working with challenges like the Source-a-Thon or Saturday sourcing sprints and helps projects with efforts like the Orphan Trail that teach country specific genealogy skills to other members.

There is plenty to do on WikiTree no matter what you enjoy doing. Create new well sourced profiles of interest to you if that is what floats your boat.  Participate in challenges if you enjoy the team camaraderie.

As for these particular unsourced Danish profiles, I encourage those of you who may be interested to work on them during Saturday sourcing sprints or next fall's source-a-thon.  And if you are a member of Project Denmark, or have another interest in improving these profiles, I encourage you to work on them as time allows.  Or use them as you help others learn to do Danish genealogy research.

Answer 6

On the plus side, Lars, when an unsourced profile is detected and marked as unsourced, it is already an improvement. It gives it a far better chance of being attended to.

And thank you for all the great work you're doing - when I happen to create a Danish profile from the French side, it's really a bonus to see you come in and the Danish sources to it.

Comments

That is what brings me most joy.

To use my expertise to build bridges between contries, in the past, and in the present.