Recommended Change to Help:How to Get Started with DNA [closed]

Question

As was recently discussed here on G2G, the Suggestion Report currently shows 626 profiles with Error 151, DNA test information being entered on a profile for a person who died before the testing was available.

Given that, and that many of the pre-testing profiles have contained erroneous DNA test information for years, I checked the "How to Get Started with DNA" Help page and pages that are linked to from there, including "Help:DNA Tests," "Help:DNA Features," "Help:Confirmed with DNA," "Help:DNA Confirmation," and "Help:DNA Comparison." In none of them is the Error 151 problem addressed.

While "Help:How to Get Started with DNA" asks "Have You Taken a DNA Test?" (emphasis mine) and uses the "Special:DNATests" link that directs the member to his or her own profile, there is no other specific direction indicating that DNA test information should be entered only on the profile of the person who was actually tested. I hadn't assumed this would not be widespread problem, but over 600 ancestral profiles in the suggestion list says otherwise.

I believe this needs to be clearly and explicitly stated on the Help page.

No assumptions can be made about an ancestor's genome from testing a living or recently deceased descendant, not even an mtDNA or yDNA haplogroup. NPEs occur at a not insignificant rate in most genealogies--among which I would include undocumented adoptions and name changes--normal meiotic and mitotic mutation means that siblings share only about 50% of their half-identical autosomal DNA, and even defining haplogroups may differ within just a generation or two (related to that, you can read how Blaine Bettinger and his mother are not an mtDNA match). Adding spurious test information to ancestral profiles renders the nightly propagation to profiles' "DNA Connections" panels inaccurate and impacts members' expectations of the provided data.

None of the direct-to-consumer DNA testing companies, past or present, has ever offered sequencing of exhumed remains. That level of both field and laboratory work requires highly specialized techniques and equipment, including clean-rooms and rigorous contaminant screening measures well beyond the capabilities of our common commercial labs. In fact, none of the major DTC testing companies offer even testing of cadaveric blood cards; some specialty labs do offer this, like GenAlysis and DNA Plus, however the types of tests conducted are not comparable to what we use for genealogy.

A small handful of WikiTree profiles do have valid DNA test information from the testing of remains--Richard III is one example--but there are very few of these and they are typically the result of institutional research projects published in academic journals.

I think explicit clarification on the DNA Project's Help pages would be proactive and help members understand that DNA testing information belongs only on the profile of the person who actually took the test.

* Edited to add: I neglected to note that we in fact have two different suggestion items reported for this issue:

Error 151: "DNA Test on person dead before the tests were available"; 626 current instances, with an additional 23 marked as temporarily hidden

Error 152: "DNA Test on person born 100 years before the tests were available"; 173 instances

For a total of 799 affected profiles; 822 including suggestions temporarily hidden. 

* Edited to add: Having done a quick experiment adding DNA test information to a long-deceased ancestor, there is another place that a simple addition of text would be useful:

We could simply include: "The DNA test information must only be placed on the profile of the person who actually took the test. Do not enter your test information on any profile but your own."

Comments

Yes, I agree that wording should be added.

John

---

" We could simply include: "The DNA test information must only be placed on the profile of the person who actually took the test. Do not enter your test information on any profile but your own." "

I believe that that is the simple and appropriate solution; in IT, I believe the appropriate term, is "an elegant solution" - simple, efficient, and, effective.

In thinking about it further, perhaps, to add a DNA test, the form for adding the undergoing of the test, should include the Wikitree identifier for the person undertaking the test, and, the date of the test results being released.

That way, the probability of Aethelred being shown as having undergone an autosomal DNA test, would be minimised.

---

This page has been updated - https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:How_to_Get_Started_with_DNA.

---

Why does the web page at

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

not include reference to the free uploading of test data from other testing companies, to the companies that provide the free uploading of test data, such as MyHeritage and LivingDNA?

Is the omission due to Wikitree receiving commissions when people pay for tests to which they have been referred through Wikitree, but, not receiving financial benefits, when people make use of the free uploading of test data provisions?

And, why is LivingDNA omitted from the list of autosomal DNA testing companies?

---

Thank you, Eowyn. It's a simple change, but that "Note" item might go a long way to preventing the problem. And to shortening Aleš's suggestion reports. 

---

I've also been whittling away at those suggestions.  

Answer 1

I adoptedMitchell-11808 and someone had entered DNA for this profile based on Y-DNA as noted on the profile.  I am fairly sure he was not the actual person tested.   If I delete the test does that remove the info as shown?    I think we need to understand how to keep DNA notes but remove the tested designation

Comments

Just to clarify. I adopted the profile that had a valid dna error as the profile individual died before 2000. So. I copied the dna test info erroneously used to indicate a dna test was taken by the profile individual and moved it to the biography with a note then deleted the test from the profile and even as PM this was not an easy intuitive process to correct the issue.   I agree better to stop this before they get added. To incorrect profiles

---

My personal opinion is that your approach is the best one, Laura. You know me: the more info the better. I'm a fast reader. Good thing I don't also type too much.

But seriously, I'd never opt to completely remove any information that's associated with an incorrectly added DNA test. I'd do just what you did: move it to descriptive text in the Biography box under Research Notes or under its own "DNA" subheading. If there's any further data to be had via other profiles in the "DNA Connections" panel or from bio text entered in upstream or downstream profiles, I'd add that to the discussion.

In many instances, due to privacy concerns, we really don't capture any great depth of DNA analysis on WikiTree profiles; not enough to satisfy the Genealogical Proof Standard. For example, unlike a proper citation to a census enumeration or a marriage record, the "confirmed with DNA" guidelines often leave us with information that cannot be verified by a third party. No one can look up another person's Big Y results at FTDNA, for instance, and unless all involved in an autosomal triangulation are on GEDmatch, are WikiTree members, and have each opted to enter their GEDmatch kit number on their own profile, there may be no way to substantiate the reported matches.

So I'm all in for adding any potentially relevant DNA information--information that can be added under WikiTree's privacy guidelines--to the Biography box.

---

I cleared up a bunch of these errors on orphan profiles last week and this was exactly how I did it.

---

Laura,

Since you are listing a profile Mitchell-11801 I created I'm replying to you. I have looked back through changes and see where you piled in. The son of  Mitchell-11801, David Anderson Mitchell, deceased was the tester not his father. So your added comment that Robert Anderson was already dead is correct but should not be allowed to stand. I had already reverted changes after you "Adopted" and stand by our Mitchell tester David Anderson Mitchell deceased as validly matching our group as evidenced at familytreedna.

In fact I have 10 males connected to this line to current day having used the proper format at the time when I wrote the DNA confirmation statement, which took an incredible amount of time with additional members added. And, I still need to update increased levels of testing, but not sure I can do that, since DNA tested were submitted earlier.

I do think perhaps that issue need to be addressed. >> If when YDNA testing is entered and then additional testing is preformed on that kit, THE question becomes: How is that additional testing updated on profile for the initial tester, especially if they are deceased?

---

Recommended Change to Help:How to Get Started with DNA - WikiTree G2G

We should not be entering DNA on a profile of someone who did not take the test.    So I deleted the test but copied all the info into the bio so it is not lost but the profile is now within WikiTree DNA guidelines.

---

Laura,

Then all is well, David probably entered his own info for DNA testing, I adopted his profile. I don't remember  but do have a note posted on his profile thanking him for increasing testing level some years back. I think we are all adapting as best we can to ever changing standards at WT combined with YDNA testing.

Still>>>:  I'm raising the question of how we can adapt test results submitted by members who are now deceased and don't show current confirmed levels of testing as they are posted in current results at the various testing companies?

There doesn't seem to be an autoflow link presentthat addresses this. And, the only way I can see is to include a current day screen shot within the testing company. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome, I have several  with upgraded results within this Mitchell line who tie to results that show lesser levels of testing.

---

WiikiTree automatically shows within I think it is 6 generations a DNA test you have takn and entered on your profile.  

This is the profile for my 4x great grandfather nd it shows my autosomal test info Jean Georges Walter - WikiTree Profile

I am an only child and female so no Y for me.  I have distant cousins who tested Y and we match via autosomal and the men match via Y as well.

Just  an FYI I  also descend rom Janet Mitchell  Janet (Mitchell) Penny - WikiTree Profile she is my 4x great grndmother My grandmother was a Walter who married a Pennie/Penny.

Answer 2

Agree. But if you have living descendants tested then simple laws of inheritance suggests that ancestors and children who have never tested have at least the hypothesis that no NPE event has occurred. This would include complimentary family lines for testing purposes. The whole area of DNA test result tracking with family tree data should be assessed for purpose and usefulness. Feature/function changes may put better guardrails on use if that is your objective.

Comments

I'm afraid I'm not following, Leake. The primary point is that WikiTree, and rightfully so, already denotes as an error any test information attributed to someone born before DNA testing was available.

Proactive language on the Help page might be a simple step toward preventing that occurring with the same frequency it has in the past, and in minimizing the resultant incorrect information displayed in the "DNA Connections" panels.

And while certain extrapolations can be made from the results of living test-takers, in no instance can an assumption be made that the genomic data presented by a contemporary test-takers represents the genomic data of someone born multiple generations ago. Even if you have three full siblings, their DNA would collectively represent only 87.5%, averaged, of either parental genome. I gave the example of Dr. Blaine Bettinger not being an mtDNA match to his own mother, and we know from deep Y-SNP testing that as a broad average polymorphisms there can occur as frequently as every 2.5 generations or so.

If you were, for example, to enter your own autosomal or yDNA test information as that of your 2g-grandfather, it plainly would be fallacious. We have a total of 799 instances of that very thing having happened already. It isn't a matter of setting a new policy; it's a matter of explaining to members the policy that already exists.

---

I'm not seeking to argue a specific point Edison. My observation of having developed online learning applications globally is that performance support, policies and similar approaches don't always anticipate how users wish to use these tools. If you really want to lock down a path for how it is used or navigated then one might consider doing that with the feature/function (hard code). It's not irregular to consider that a family line marker is a good bogey for genetic testing purposes, at least as a starting point to either prove or disprove NPEs on the line. Of course that would only matter to direct line relations and not the genealogy public generally. You're welcome to disagree but again, it's not an argument. And I'm not taking anything away from WikiTree's website by simply noting this along with your post.

---

Thats not whats happening Leake, they are not just saying "this person likely has this haplogroup or marker", they are entering the data as if George Washington took a test himself.

Thats not a question of "did they use the form in a non anticipated way", its a clear error

---

J - that's certainly true but the tool itself is not discriminating among all possible, even novel uses... either you close the barn door and keep the animals safe or you leave the door open and be surprised when well-meaning people 'break' the rules...  errors are simply incomplete answers from this point of view unless you are really into being "right" and "wrong" about these things. I see a lot of upside from trying to understand errors - not always killing snakes.

Answer 3

The issue of a system/software change was raised in 2015, so this issue of incorrect DNA test posts on profiles is a longstanding problem.

Edison are you suggesting a sentence on the intro Help page such as

 "The DNA test result must only be placed on the test taker's profile"?

It still seems that the best option would be a system change that blocks adding a test that a profile could not possibly have given a sample for, or at least an error message when an attempt is made to add such a test.

 Should this issue be tagged for the Tech people or brought to Jamie Nelson's attention, maybe there's a record of why the 2015 posting didn't result in a change.

Comments

I am sure I am guilty of exactly what you are discussing -- on every page the whole right side of the profile is suggesting you list DNA -- of course that is what I did.  Maybe take that suggestion down OR make the first line should said NOT AVAILABLE to anyone who was born before ...    I have yDNA test information and just listed that test back to my oldest known CLARKSON.

---

I agree, the system should refuse to add a DNA test to a profile that would cause this error in the first place.

I don't know who handles that software, but it seems that it could be part of the check that ensures that DNA test information entered for living individuals is done by the person who took the test. If the person is dead, at least check to see if the DNA test would have been available to them when they were alive.

John Kingman, a DNA Project Coordinator

---

Hello Mary, On your DNA Tests page you noted that you had taken an mtDNA test and you correctly included your mtDNA haplogroup. It is not necessary to also note haplogroup information in an ancestor’s biography because it automatically appears under DNA Connections on the right hand side.  What is being discussed is selecting that an ancestor took a DNA test before a DNA Test existed.  Thanks and sincerely,

---

Gary and John: Yes; as a short-term measure that could be done in seconds, what I'm suggesting is that even adding a single sentence, as Gary noted, would be helpful.

Another quick change that would be helpful is the warning text that displays when attempting to add DNA test information to a deceased individual. I'll go back and add that to the original question.

We know ascribing a DNA test taken by Individual A to Individual B is erroneous, even if it's one sibling saying it's the test of a different sibling...or using a "pseudokit" derived from GEDmatch's arithmetic phasing or Lazarus tools. I posted this Question only after looking at the existing profiles that are logged in the Suggestion Report as containing this error, and being surprised at the number.

Exacerbating the issue with those numbers is that--certainly for autosomal DNA but also for mtDNA and yDNA--the farther up the tree the error is made, the older the ancestor, the more broadly the error has the potential to propagate to other profiles and be shown incorrectly on the "DNA Connections" panel.

The problem is compounded (and John, correct me here if I'm wrong) by the fact that DNA Project volunteers or Data Doctors doing cleanup can't modify or remove the erroneous test data unless they happen to be on the Trusted List (or are a Profile Manager) for a given profile. The result is that, unlike many other items on the Suggestion Report, the error can only be corrected by those on the Trusted List or by a WikiTree admin, meaning that some of these errors have remained in place for several years and the casual WikiTreer continues to see incorrect data propagation into the "DNA Connections" panels across the tree.

Programmatic validation at data entry would be the best way to prevent new instances from occurring. But as Gary noted, while one would think a simple date validation wouldn't be terribly difficult, the matter was raised years ago but hasn't yet been achieved. As an aside to that, approximately 10 of the 822 total suggestion items are valid ancient remains testing. So about 10 profiles during the decade that we have been entering DNA test information on WikiTree. It doesn't seem untenable that a profile manager would need to seek admin assistance to add that sort of test information derived from actual exhumation testing.

The first direct-to-consumer DNA tests--traditional Sanger sequencing of mtDNA--began selling in 2000. Microarray testing wasn't invented until 1995; in 1997, the same researchers from Stanford University published the first microarray-based study, that of a yeast genome. I'm not sure what date Aleš uses as the cut-off for the Suggestion Report, but anything prior to 2000, if valid, would be limited STR data that came only from a research study.

Similarly, if The Team chose to do so, there should be a relatively easy way for Aleš to use his 'bot to clean up most of the existing errors. When entering DNA test information, we're presented with a pulldown list showing the Big 5 testing companies plus the "Other" categories. None of the Big 5 existed before 2000. The first to sell an autosomal test was 23andMe in November 2007. All tests for someone who died in 1999 or earlier, and all autosomal tests for someone who died in 2006 or earlier, could be programmatically removed. If a suggestion has been marked as false (e.g., valid ancient remains testing) it could be left alone.

---

Mary: Peter beat me to it while I was (interminably) spouting words in my other reply. 

But doing a quick look through WikiTree+, you manage no profiles that carry a suggestion of either Error 151 or 152. Which tells me that you did everything correctly!

As anyone who may have unfortunately bumped into any of my 1.4 million words written on G2G (ahem) can tell you, I'm kinda sorta passionate about genetics, genomics, and their use in genealogy. If you've been adding information and/or discussion about DNA findings to ancestral profiles in the Biography box, you get my unofficial, unrecognized, and unsought Gold Star. That's exactly what should be done...and I'm guilty of not doing enough of it myself.

DNA data beyond immediate family isn't simple or easy to evaluate. It isn't like citing a reference to, say, a census enumeration or a birth certificate. And per the Genealogical Proof Standard, that analysis and evaluation needs to be described and documented. WikiTree gives us that free-text Biography box in which to do that.

If we have DNA information pertinent to an ancestral profile, we should add it. Some folks use the Research Notes major heading for that, while others create a subheading, something like "=== DNA Information ===". Even if we aren't offering an analysis ourselves, having the information there for others to include in an evaluation is important...and something extremely valuable in a public, shared tree.

As Peter succinctly put it, the folderol I started here is only about entering that an ancestor, himself or herself, actually took a DNA test before DNA testing ever existed.

Answer 4

I agree with this 100 percent. Do you think any of the "Lazarus" kits from GEDmatch (or similar pseudo DNA kits) may be responsible for part of this? I think that should be addressed in any rewrites of the help files.

Comments

I would think that undoubtedly at least some of them are. I don't know how to sort the WikiTree+ output by death date, and following an export of the data there's no easy way to sort by date; the date fields are dependent upon what the WT member entered and show only a decade for Private profiles. What seem to be clearly erroneous entries range from a death date of 1731 to an infant who died right after birth in the 1970s. Of the 626 active Error 151 suggestions, 28 of them belong to the same profile manager. Of the 23 suggestions flagged as "temporarily hidden," only one specifically notes a GEDmatch pseudokit as reason for a false suggestion.

I know we've had the pseudokit discussion on G2G before, and this thread quickly become unexpectedly complex and thrown into tangents. Maybe we should separate the issues into separate conversations, but I firmly believe that they are not appropriate as a surrogate for a test actually taken by an individual. They have definite research value, but there's a reason GEDmatch automatically excludes them from appearing in searches performed by other users.

For both "phasing" and the Lazarus tool, GEDmatch uses simple arithmetic logic to construct the pseudokits: any locus allele that isn't a specific mismatch from among the source kits will be included in the pseudokit.

But GEDmatch works only with their proprietary "slimmed" set of uploaded SNPs. On average, GEDmatch removes 35% of the total uploaded SNPs from the set they ultimately use for comparisons and matching. Compounding that reduction is that the entire genome of a parent is almost never passed down; it takes, statistically, seven children to approach a 99% inheritance. So in essence a GEDmatch member creating a "missing parent pseudokit" is using only somewhere around a third of the known parent's genome (50% of the slimmed 65%), which leaves substantial room for error. One of the best results I've had personally was parent/child AncestryDNA v1 tests with 701K SNPs each resulting in a "missing parent" pseudokit of 324K SNPs.

For a bit of reference, some informal work at GEDmatch comparing results from a whole genome sequencing "superkit" to 11 of our standard microarray tests indicates that even "slimmed" kits using over 400K SNPs will return a high number of false-positives below minimum segment sizes in the teens, call it 16cM to 18cM. A brief summary is in this read-only Google Sheet.

The net message from that is the total number of SNPs available for comparison makes a difference. In order to accommodate the small amount of SNP overlap we saw with previous tests when the Illumina GSA chip came out, GEDmatch, moving the Genesis beta into production, on two different occasions lowered their default matching minimum thresholds. The data in the Google Sheet would indicate that the standard microarray test (a version that's currently being sold) that performs worst against the WGS superkit may report as many as 1 in 3 segments of greater than or equal to 10cM as being valid when they are, in fact, false.

And that's a complete microarray test that had the average of 0.9% no-calls corrected (that's roughly about 5,500 SNPs per microarray test), so had a more complete coverage than the actual spit-test results.

Ergo, GEDmatch pseudokits can be extremely useful as research kits to help evaluate other results, specifically helping to pseudo-phase (how many times have I written "pseudo"?) a test-taker's genome, but they can't be valid surrogates and serve as if ancestors had taken tests themselves. I'd say add that information to the Biography box as desired, but not as being a test actually taken.

---

Edison - just a question, why do you focus on the differences in 'genome' vs 'haplotype/haplogroup'?  Descent doesn't require the whole genome or anything close to it. The science of course is that other than haplotype the 'genome' is recycled every 5 to 7 generations. So no, we don't have the same physiology as distant ancestors but we do carry the same haplotype (excepting NPEs). Why genome?

---

You've lost me again, Leake. The term "haplotype" is actually a contraction of "haploid genome" and is used to refer to a distinct set of specific markers--be they polymorphisms, short or long tandem repeats, or structural variations like indels--that tend to be inherited together. A "haplotype" can refer something as minimal as a 9-marker Y-STR panel, CODIS data, or to something like a WGS VCF.

So, no, you do not carry the same haplotype as your distant ancestors. You will carry certain subsets, depending upon what "haplotype" is actually being measured, but even with low-level Y-STR panels we routinely see things like back mutation and convergence.

The genome is the entire set of nuclear DNA as well as the mitochondrial DNA molecule. It's all ~3.1 billion base pairs of nucleic acids. Each individual genome is unique; even monozygotic twins have slight differences. Please show me a credible reference that states an individual genome "recycles" every 5 to 7 years.

I suspect we aren't quite yet as advanced in DNA analysis for genealogy as you seem to believe. The NIH's dbSNP database, the curated catalog of identified human variants, currently has 1.12 billion items on file; a total 671.4 million of those classified as SNPs (meaning that they are estimated to appear in at least 1% of the population globally); and 26.2 million of those are classified as "common." The smallest autosome, Chr 21, alone contains over 22 times the number of confirmed SNPs than our inexpensive microarray tests target across the entire genome. And there's approximately 8% of the genome that the tests can't even attempt to access; we didn't have that sequenced until May 2021 as a result of hybridized techniques used by the Telomere to Telomere Consortium.

As evidence that many of the SNPs targeted by microarray testing are nothing special in the way of AIMs (ancestry informative markers), in fewer than five years the dominant manufacturer of the microarrays the genealogical testing companies use changed 82% of those targeted SNPs. And over 18% of the SNPs are targeted specifically for their clinical relevance, the vast majority of which are not pertinent to genealogy at all.

Our microarray tests are very low-resolution products compared to what other technologies are now routinely available at consumer costs around $200. They rely on a technology invented in 1995, and the reporting we use for genealogy uses a genome reference assembly (or map), GRCh37, that was published in 2009, retired as of December 2013, is now 14 step-versions out of date, and is known to contain errors and omissions. The Human Genome Consortium has forestalled indefinitely the release of GRCh39, originally planned for last year, because new discoveries are leading to the conclusion that the days of a single genome reference (most of which, BTW, was derived from one man who lived in Buffalo, NY) are numbered and that we should be moving to a pangenomic model to better describe and represent global genomic diversity.

Our microarray tests are quite prone to error when it comes to small segments. Because the targeted density is so sparse--somewhere around 1 position in every 4,200 base pairs (1 in every 8,400 nucleic bases) that can be read--and the tests never examine contiguous SNPs (instead the goal is greatest overall coverage) an interpretation error called haplotype switching is common (Chiang, et al., 2016; Durand et al., 2014).

Further, the ubiquitous centiMorgan is a handy estimation of genetic relatedness, but it is a coarse, imprecise estimation whose math hasn't really changed much since 1944, is solely dependent on the aforementioned genome reference assembly for its base data, and never measures anything...it only provides a probability estimation of what might happen during any independent meiotic event. And of course for genealogy we only use sex-averaged values, even though the "calculated" female genome is about 70% larger in centiMorgans than the male: the genomes are, with the exception of the XX XY difference, the same physical size, but meiotic crossover occurs at a frequency about 70% higher in the female than the male. This can absolutely have an ignored impact depending upon proportion and sequences of females vs. males in a given line.

Considering how far we've come in just 10 years, by 2033 we'll be looking back at today's $79 autosomal DNA tests and they'll seem as anachronistic as does my 12 Y-STR test at FTDNA in 2002.

---

All very interesting, technical detail that I am sure you are correct in reporting. And I really do understand where you are coming from. Certainly my blunt use of an admittedly loaded term (haplotype) was unintentional but on purpose to tease out the direction of your thoughts. And the history is, well just that. Would you extend the same arguments to 'haplogroup' then? What about BigY results? Is the Big Tree just a lie?

---

"... was unintentional but on purpose to tease out the direction of your thoughts."

Seriously? Play games much?

---

not really. this is all new to me and I wish (outside of the genetic forums I usually read) to understand Edison's point better. sounds like "state of current tech" and not much about the motivation of the Wiki user (mis-user?). if Wiki functionality is not the issue then we're back to user error and the state of the genetic tech overall. more user training etc. NGS is really what I'm curious about in that regard, and how these results are positioned to those test takers by the testing companies. Otherwise I might suggest surveying the users who are doing things wrongly so that the issue is understood from their point of view, instead of just another expert's (or producer's) perception of value,  still waiting for Edison's reply.

---

I don't think you'll be getting another reply from me, Leake, because I honestly can't figure out where you have been, and are, trying to take this.

The original Question regards a quick and easy option--just a minor text augmentation--to help prevent more of the Error 151 and 152 suggestion instances than we have already. That's it. That's all this topic was about.

But you steered it away from WikiTree Help pages to, "The whole area of DNA test result tracking with family tree data should be assessed for purpose and usefulness." From there to even more broad but non-DNA considerations dealing with LMS applications and that their "performance support, policies and similar approaches don't always anticipate how users wish to use these tools." Then we left WikiTree entirely and went into some misunderstandings about genetics from a general perspective, including the terms genome, haplotype, and haplogroup, and genome "recycling." Following that was evidently an intent to, with misprision, equate recombinant DNA with uniparental DNA. And finally we've looped back, somehow, to WikiTree functionality and a recommendation to conduct a survey of the members who are responsible for creating the Error 151 and 152 suggestions to better understand their perspective and rationale for--using the first item on the Error 151 list as an example--a WikiTree member adding their own 23andMe autosomal DNA test to a man who died in 1741 as being a test taken by the man himself. Which strikes me as not unlike a "lens of the customer" survey about using ancestral birth dates known to be incorrect by 200 years.

Goodness knows I don't shirk from adding word-count to a conversation, but I haven't been able to figure this one out, and I don't see it going anywhere.

---

ok - points taken. I guess this is not a forum for discussion after all. have at it, whatever you wish to do. I'm done ever participating in any manner based upon this reception. and I don't particularly care for being marginalized or scolded for presumably bad behavior. complexity is not necessarily anyone's friend in these matters....

---

Leake,

We are actually here to help. If you have actual questions about DNA, genealogy or Wikitree in general, please feel free to ask. But please try not to steer the conversation into a whole new arena.  The question here concerned the DNA Help pages and if they needed a change. If you have questions about other topics, then by all means ask the question, but don't try to take over a conversation.  Anyone (and especially Edison) who answers here is genuinely trying to help others.

Answer 5

There is a related issue on WikiTree and that many users are already confused by WikiTree's DNA capabilities and non-capabilities, and the WikiTree Help pages may not emphasize them enough. 

There has been a spate of postings of people asking how to "upload their DNA results to WikiTree". WT does not do this.

Many people are already confused about the "percentage of DNA match to other WikiTree users", thinking that somehow DNA test data (that can't be uploaded) has already been compared to other WT users (impossible due to data can't be uploaded). So it has to be explained, again, that those are only estimates of possible relationships that have to be confirmed through outside tools.

It's almost as if the WT Help pages are insufficient in helping users fully understand what WT is capable of, what WT is not capable of, and what WT is displaying and what it means.

OR.... WT is missing out on a great opportunity by adding those DNA capabilities that users think it has! I mean, wouldn't it be great if one could upload DNA test data to WT? And do some simple comparisons (like GEDmatch)?