WikiTree growth and unresponsive managers

Question

Recently it was announced that Wikitree had achieved the milestone of fifteen million (15,000,000) profiles and a few days later that there were now over half million (500,000) genealogists (members) who have submitted data.

That is an average of thirty profiles created by each member and knowing that many of us have done many more there must be a large number who created only a very few.

What I wonder is how many of the "members" are still active -- those that have added data or even just signed on say in the last year? I suspect that it would be less than half (250,000) which is the root of the unresponsive managers problems.

I would suggest that profiles created by managers who have not been active for over a year would be changed to open. An exception might be for profiles for anyone under 18 years of age.

Comments

With the exception of those who were born within the last hundred years, (for privacy reasons) I'd like to see that -- or a streamlining process added.

I was recently going to add a birth date and location to a  semi-distant relative that I had sources for. The profile was an unsourced, green locked profile with no birth or death dates, and almost no information except for the spouse and one child.  The profile manager hadn't been active for a long time.  

I couldn't edit it, and posted a comment on the profile giving the information and sources that I had.  I have no reason to believe that the profile manager will see it or add the information -- and the (missing) birth date probably should have dictated that the profile be open already.

I hate to admit that the hassle factor of the current procedure kept me from pursuing it further.  I used to try, but I have knocked my head into the "contact the profile manager" brick wall so many times.  It takes a huge amount of time (for me, at least) to compose an email explaining the entire rationale for the change I'd like to make... and then knowing  I have to wait at least 30 days for an answer that rarely comes.  I have usually entirely forgotten about the whole thing before the 30 days has elapsed, unless it's a profile really close and dear to my heart.

Reba

---

The Unresponsive Profile Manager process is not speedy, but it is an effective way to overcome the kinds of problems you are describing.

---

In a situation like that when I have a source for a birth date, then the "Open profile request" option on the profile menu works extremely well

---

While I agree that green locked profiles are a drag, I can't support a 12 month orphaning policy.

Plenty of people are active genealogists without being active on wikitree. Putting their tree on wikitree is just one more way to hopefully come across relatives and they do their work elsewhere. I've had people who haven't been active here for over six years respond. (The minority I'll admit).

And 30 days is not unreasonable, although yes, realistically, 80%of people will have responded within a week. For busy people it can take a while to find the time to sit down and  get in the right headspace.

Plenty of people go on four or six week and even longer holidays (I'm taking six weeks myself later this year) and may not have much of an opportunity to respond.

I've had wikitree messages end up in my spam folder, so you really do need to try multiple times to contact someone.

I've done scores of unresponsive manager requests and the process works and is not onerous, I just keep a list of what's on the go.

But biggest complaint is not inactive managers but the occasional active manager who completely ignores multiple communications.

---

For me, the main problem is merges.   The vast majority of mine, I've had to wait the full month for it to default as the profile manager is inactive.

I've recently submitted about 22 merges, in the last couple of weeks.

Only 2 of them, did the profile managers ok the merge.

The remaining 20, I'll have to wait as it appears the profile managers haven't been active for some time.

---

Remember that people also have lives off wikitree. they might be on vacation, having health issues, possibly died. Would you want someone just jumping the gun and orphaning your profiles while you were temporarily incapacitated?

---

Unresponsive and managers who have not been active for years are a problem that should be addressed.   I'm having to wait 30 days for a merger to be approved by default because the profile manager of the other profile has not been active on WikiTree in 6 years.  It would seem to me that if someone has not been active in 5 or 6 years the profiles they manage should be available for adoption.

Answer 1

Well, I know I somehow lost a bunch of profiles that got snapped up because it used to be if you didn't sign in after so long they could be adopted.

At least that is what I was told and I did lose profiles.

Comments

If you ever find that you want a profile from me, please ask. 99.9% of the time I'm more than happy to transfer them over to you. :)

The other .1% I'd probably be happy to share with you.

---

Stephen if I have any you want, please say so.  I adopt so I can make corrections, and improvements.  I'm connected to so many people in my ancestral lines and none of my profiles are especially "emotional" for me except for my father, so you (or anyone else) can have them!

Answer 2

Ongoing problem for a long time.  My thought would be a radio button on "each Manger profile" that would be set to active/inactive if no contribs in last 6 months.becomes inactive - if default merges, becomes inactive, closed profiles (100+) then set to open, etc.

I would think this could be done via "system" vs "manual"

Anyway, my 2 cents.

Regards,

Answer 3

Much like Sandy said, I have been thinking it would be extremely helpful if profiles managed by inactive people could be flagged in some way. For example, data doctors could focus time on profiles who do not have active managers (but are not actually orphans). Knowing that something is not active on wikitree (and therefore I won't be stepping on their toes) would encourage me to be more thorough in my edits and sourcing. (To be clear, I am not a data doctor or a sourcerer, but do edits of that source on not only extended family members, but on Dutch immigrants to Iowa and their families.

Comments

To clarify,  I don't suggest orphaning the open profiles managed by inactive people.  I would simply like to know if someone hadn't been active in x (12? 18?) Months,  then more modifications to an old gedcom would likely be fine, without a lot of communication before making changes.

---

Agree about this proposal to display that a profile's manager(s) are inactive, if such a flag or notification is technically feasible.  It's not reasonable to expect us to initiate collaboration with users who are long gone.

Answer 4

Personally, I strongly believe volunteer managers fulfilling stewardship responsibilities of WikiTree profiles ought to retain management rights for as long as they remain a productive custodian. Consider, recognition as manager is the primary, and sometimes only, “reward” for profile development.

A policy to remove manager status due to failure of stewardship responsibilities, I believe, ought not assume derrilection of duty because, more often than not life events happen, infirmities arise and death prohibits.

Perhaps the site can add a clickable button on the Managers line that would display a full list of managers emeritus. The listing ought not include the names of managers that personally chose to relinquish management or managers suspended for cause.

Answer 5

I do suggestions on my profiles to see if any family member is unconnected. I don't necessarily want to be the profile manager, I would just like to add research to the profile so maybe one day we can all be linked. Can it not be set up that when the death is 100 + that it automatically goes to open from public? I realize that someone may be famous or have a legit reason to not open it, so maybe send an email to the profile managers before you open it for them to give reasons to not open it. Have them mark a box listing the genetic legit reasons to not open it. I don't think that they should be orphaned but just opened. Just my two cents.

Answer 6

I would like to see inactive profile managers defined in this way:

1.  No login to WikiTree in over a year

2.  No postings (questions or answers) in G2G for over a year.

3.  No creation or editing or any profiles in over a year.

I think at that point any profile that would be 150 years old should be opened.

Comments

Laura,

The three points are basically what I proposed in my original post.

BUT, I would open all the profiles for persons over the age of 18, i.e.right now that would be births before year 2000,. An alternative would be green lock level for persons under the age of 100.

For those with identity theft concerns, there is fall less data on WIkiTree than can be purchased online for nominal sum from sites like Intellus and others that offer social security numbers, etc.

Answer 7

I wish (if it doesn't happen already) that each year wiki would email all profile managers who have had no activity in the last year, to remind them about wiki, the profiles they added and to give them info and mentoring links. From bounce backs it would be possible to see where an email address doesn't exist and if there is an obvious typo in the email and it could encourage some pm's to come back.

Comments

I suggested a variation of this last year.  The response was that wikitree doesn't have the staff capacity to implement this.

Answer 8

An unresponsive PM is VERY frustrating!! Can a geneologist not be graded by his/her badges and or points earned? The better a persons grading the more access they are granted.... Maybe at a certain grading they must sign a Privacy Code.... Food for thought. (We currently have a world population of 7.6 Billion people. Will we ever log all the living, let alone the ancestors???

Answer 9

I am going to put my two cents in here for the idea of deliberately removing oneself from being a Profile Manager in many cases.  There's really only so many profiles that any one person can reasonably manage.  Most of us fall into the habit of simply leaving ourselves as manager every time we enter a profile, even if we never plan to come back to that profile.  Or worse, we feel guilty and adopt orphaned profiles that we don't really intend to do our best work on.  It's actually not a bad thing for a profile to have no PM.  If anything, it's better for the next person that comes along and wants to improve the profile because they don't have to consult with a PM that's moved on to other things or lost interest in WikiTree.  So, consider this a PSA.  Removing yourself as the PM is OK!

Comments

Those are really, really excellent points Kyle.  Thanks for making them.  Wikitree has too many high volume, low quality PMs.  Most of their thousands of profiles they never have, and never will improve upon.  Unfortunately, they're probably also not reading this in G2G...

Answer 10

Do consider that some of the inactive full members on here may well be family members who have been added as "back-up" in case we are sick.

My partner is on Wikitree at my invitation, as is his son. I have added them to the trusted list on profiles that are relevant to them, the whole point of which is, should I as a chronically sick person be unable to look after their side of the family tree, they can work on it themselves or choose to ask for help or orphan the profiles, whichever they see fit when the time comes.

I am also on the trusted list of an older gentleman who spends half the year abroad and who has added family members and other genealogists to his trusted list  for the same reason.

Just steam-rollering over that would be completely unacceptable.