I have a gripe about so-called "Sourcerers" that add meaningless gobbledy-gook and call it a "Source" [closed]

Question

Look, I understand that some people on here get a kick out of running up their scores on the Sourcerer's challenges. I work on them myself, and enjoy doing so.

HOWEVER!!! Adding gobbledy-gook under the <references /> and calling it a "source" and then removing the Unsourced tag is bone-headed and just plain wrong.

After this is done, it doesn't show up on any unsourced list, and may go forever without any true sources.

If you want to work on the Unsourced profiles I manage, I'm fine with that, and appreciate the help. But if you're going to do it, do it right or don't bother. I add an entire family group at a time, and then go back and add sources. Sometimes it takes a while to get them all done, because not only do I try to use proper sourcing style, I also try to write at least a decent mini-biography about the person. Even on the random Unsourced I work from the wiki-wide unsourced.

I'm adding a link to just one of many that have been messed up for me, so you can see what I mean. I THINK the non-Sourcerer was giving F-A-G data, but does not say so. Does not format it to make it readable. And doesn't even put it in the right place under the <references />, but rather between that and the ==Sources== line. (Not even gonna mention that, generally, F-A-G isn't considered a true source unless it has headstone photos or other verifiable sources ---- Ooops, I did mention it. Oh well!)

Rant over. Carry on. Sorry. I know, DWWA.

Comments

Kathy, if my OP was the cause of your "irkdom", I am sorry. I have seen you say this before, and for the record, I think what you do is great. You'll notice that in my OP I did specify "F-A-G isn't considered a true source unless it has headstone photos or other verifiable sources". Your work at FAG would obviously not be under that "blanket".

Again, thank you for reading my rant and commenting.

---

Hmm. So taking the long way around, FAG IS a source but FAG IS NOT a source.  FAG isn't good enough to rank but it's better than nothing?  

I'm looking carefully around and not seeing any WT policy agreement here ... eh. Where's Chris W. when you really NEED him? 

Okay, agreed, when WITH a photo of the headstone which shows the date(s) -- but then you do NEED the death record (county or State) to verify the date(s) on the headstone, so of course while you have the photo of the headstone, it's not a valid verified source for DOB/DOD -- 

Sometimes you get together four, five sources with DOB/DOD on them and any two of them don't agree with the others. 

And if you USE FAG you run a much higher risk of being SUGGESTED by the Ankle Biter than you would otherwise with some other source. 

---

Thank YOU, Ros, for URL on that page, I found it fascinating and truly designed to be helpful

---

Of course, a headstone alone is not definitive proof of anything other than, 99% of the time, an actual burial site.

Dates of birth and death on a tombstone can be incorrect, but the same thing can be said for almost any record, such as a census. But at least it's an actual record, not simply random dates and places with nothing to back them up.

Truly, I'm only 100% satisfied if the source is a birth or baptism record for birth, and a death certificate for death. Original documents only. I use obituaries quite often, with the understanding that not everything in them is guaranteed to be accurate, but are great starting points.

To make a long point short, if there is nothing at all to point to, then it is not a source. It is merely myth/legend/fantasy/story-telling. A headstone can be pointed to.

---

Well, Ron, I don't disagree with you -- it's just that this debate over FAG and its value (source, not source) has been settled about as well as the debate on whether a couple is married or not -- which is to say a lot of IMO and IMHO thrown out ... and never mind what the laws of the land say

I myself look around the for document that has the earliest creation date on it and use that as my baseline ... LOL. Well, it's better than no baseline at all.

And I still say that if you use FAG as a source you run a much higher risk of being SUGGESTED than you would with any other item you use as a source

---

Birth and baptism records can be wrong. Clerks make mistakes.

---

Yes, Stu, and you and I and dozens if not 100's of us could go on at some length about the errors committed by the informant who originated the document. We are well acquainted with all that.

Regardless of all that error committed by all those informants (or clerks with bad hearing, etc) I have my method, which is to go for the earliest dated document and USE it as a baseline.

FYI, folks, by baseline I mean it is the minimum or starting point used for comparisons.

---

I just going to assume I can ask a stupid question here. Would you look at say this profile: [[Brinkley-973]] and tell me if I am doing it wrong. Just something you said in you comment about putting the references between ===Sources== and </references> makes me fell I am doing something wrong. When I view it. I see my sources each are numbered, and then below the references it gives each source and numbered automatically by the site. It looks neat an clean to me, but If I am doing my sources wrong, I don't want to wait until I have 10,000 only to have to go back and change them.

---

I have moved around the profile; you can see the edits I have made if you look at the Changes log.

Much of the info you had put below the ==Sources== header, when it needed to be below the ==Biography== header.

<references/> needs to be directly beneath the ==Sources== header.

You need not have all those bullets, unless of course you like them.

---

Doesn't look bad to me, at this point. I would maybe suggest one thing: join the Profile Improvement Project, and take their "Voyage". I did that last year, and learned a whole lot about things that can be done to improve the profiles you write or edit. But, although things could be done to make this profile a little easier to read, and to make the sources a little more in line with "acceptable" styling, it is not bad as is, not at all, once Ross helped out with the way the bio and sources were formatted.

Answer 1

Herbert Bennett's profile is not open, at least, it isn't open now. The sourcing must have been done by the original person, I am assuming. since I can't see the changes log.

We always have problems after the Source A Thon, Connect A Thon, and other similar events.  Suggestion list increases drastically and incorrect connections and sources are made, but I guess we have to assume and hope that the majority are being done properly.

Comments

I changed the privacy level after my own editing because some family members are still living. The problem "source" was added by someone else before I  changed it.

Thanks for responding.