Talk:WikiTree

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maintenance tags[edit]

By now we have articles by the NYT and USA Today that (rather shortly) cover WikiTree; that's probably enough to make it scrape by the general notability guideline. DissidentAggressor, what do you think? The general tone probably could be improved, and the reliable sources made the basis of our content over the blogs and their own website, but I've seen far more promotional articles. Huon (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you've probably established the notability of the site. Are you editing on behalf of them? The Dissident Aggressor 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parent company[edit]

As WikiTree is wholly owned by its parent company, more information is needed about the owner and the relationship between the entities. 128.95.217.149 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy Software[edit]

Why not included in Genealogy_software page? Fbax (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would find a comparison very helpful[edit]

Can a comparison be made with FamilySesrch and Geni.com ? Ricko2001 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Wikipedia has pages for FamilySearch and Geni.com already; those might help you as a starting point for creating a comparison section. Velocitay (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source of 150/100 years rule?[edit]

Can somebody found out sources for this 150 years or 100 years rule? From where they appeared? From which State and when first? NB! This rule is not related to EU GDPR or US CCPA (as both are related to privacy of persons still alive; and can regulate via other rules only privacy of delicate data up to 10-30 years after death). Currently most of Online / Web-based genealogy sites (WikiTree, Geni etc.) are using such rule: Profiles of people who were either born more than 150 years ago or who have been deceased for more than 100 years are open (Public Profiles or Open Profiles) for editing by any member. All other shall be Private Profiles or Closed Profiles (owner and owner’s family group only). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauriKreen (talk • contribs) 07:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is based on the majority of BDM registries being set to that date. (Marriage dates vary as to cutoff point, even within a country.) AmaranthIianthe (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - I was meaning the 100 years as a basis, not the 150. AmaranthIianthe (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not many reliable sources? No criticisms?[edit]

Not many reliable sources? No criticisms? Without doing detailed analysis of the cited sources (why bother?), few seem to from objective, widely available and reliable outsiders. The only two which might scrape into that category are from the New York Times on 18 May 2011 and USA Today on 3 June 2011, both over eleven years ago and the closeness of the dates suggests that both originate from the same PR handout. The rest of the material is solipsistic and wholly flattering (PR handouts, or sympathisers?). If the site has been going for 14 years (an age in the digital world), shouldn't it have attracted some balanced comment from reputable media by now, and should its claims have been subjected to some scrutiny? Belle Fast (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Belle Fast your right, it seems to be an issue. the majority of online discussion about the site also takes place within the sites G2G forum, allowing for censorship and deletion of criticism.
However, as it keeps growing at a solid pace of 10k profiles a day/3 million a year journalists will eventually take a closer look.( or so I hope) Gerdolfo (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerdolfo Thanks for your comment.
Not sure how reliable an indicator the growth statistic is when profiles cannot ever be deleted, whether just inaccurate or in a lot of cases totally fictitious, and many are duplicates, often masked by different spelling or dates. The widespread absence of reliable sources means that additions may be sincere but are nevertheless suspect. Claimed ancestors from countries or communities with few surviving records may be genuine tradition, or just wishful thinking. Belle Fast (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Belle Fast that might just be the nature of a shared genealogy platform. Gerdolfo (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The site has aggressive sysop behaviour that is not "wiki" like so i believe they misrepresent the name wiki. They are not inclusive and often racist. It is interesting that you post this critical discussion so close to when i discovered issues with the sites sysops. I do not believe they should be allowed to call themselves a Wiki since their ban hammer is so aggressive regarding disagreements. If the bans were for vandalism i could understand that but simple disagreements are met with aggressive and racist behaviours. Deathmolor (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also adding the entrenched system operators are also aggressive about the concept of citing Wikitree as its own source. They seem to have applications which create citations for DNA to dead links that are not proper citations and thus Wikitree becomes its own source. They seem to believe this is proper citing of sources. When challenged the project coordinator indicated in the end he was the source and approved it himself thus didn't need external sources. Deathmolor (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course sites must be moderated, to protect both data and users. But in WikiTree you have to kowtow to people whose qualifications for the post are unclear and who often know less about a subject than you. A very eminent admin, when asked how one could gain such extensive privileges as his, replied: “By invitation only”. It is a group closed to outsiders.
Yet these unelected administrators hold the power of life or death over material submitted and over continued membership. Data you have put up may be trashed by an admin, but if you challenge stuff that they have put up you are at best ignored or at worst marked as disruptive. And those tagged as disruptive soon become blocked. Belle Fast (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the time has come to have Wikipedia officially ask them to drop the wiki name. They are not wiki like in any way. They can exist as a site but not as a wiki. Deathmolor (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe the Wiki name is being used to lure unsuspecting users into their network. Deathmolor (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem wikitree admins classify trying to have discussions as vandalism. The issue is wikitree uses wiki terminology but for actions that are aggressive and liable. Deathmolor (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it interesting they avoid coming here, a neutral ground to have these discussions, they prefer stomp around on a site they have 100% control over and can stop those discussions at will. It seems to be more about power then it is about genealogy. Such sites should be avoided. Deathmolor (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Belle Fast Deletion is possible, and in most cases is accomplished by merging. Outright deletion for legit privacy reasons is also possible, but only admin staff can do it.
The emphasis on quantity at the expense of quality, and the "widespread absence of reliable sources" are major points of contention between conscientious genealogist members and WikiTree leadership. WikiTree has essentially zero sourcing standards for profiles of people born after 1700. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources_FAQ#Why_are_unreliable_sources_allowed_for_post-1700_profiles.3F WikiTree's owner and employees insist adamantly on maintaining this "low bar," believing that wiki magic will eventually rectify any problems that result. MundoMango (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't come here and try to pass off the controlling nature of Wikitree as real administration. The admins are racist and discriminatory and ban people from the site for pointing out the racism. The top 20 contributors are all exclusive to one culture, and that culture is white culture. Once someone disagrees with them they exclude with racist aggressiveness. Deathmolor (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathmolor The dark underside of Wikitree occasionally shows its face. Here are two comments posted by members on their internal G2G forum on 29 June 2022:

“… in a public forum people need to be able to point out mistakes made by people in positions of power, such as Project Leaders and the WikiTree Team, without feeling that to do so would be to put themselves at risk. That kind of environment only becomes a breeding ground for distrust and avoidable criticism.”

“I fear that some people feel slightly intimidated on G2G these days, due to the seemingly large number of flags, hidden posts, and sometimes even MIRs and expulsions when people speak their minds.”

I think MIRs are compulsory mentoring, when your contributions are monitored by admins who may reverse them. What kind of culture is it where the management do not allow dissent and summarily expel critics? Belle Fast (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another look at their internal G2G forum shows that at least one member of WikiTree management has been making a number of edits to this page in Wikipedia and is proud of the fact. Not illegal perhaps, but hardly ethical when they do it anonymously and, even if their text is objective, present only a positive view of the site? Belle Fast (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When they can't control things through their site Wikitree tries to bring their cult here to make anonymous changes. They talk about vandalism, in this forum they are the vandals and it truly exposes the corruption in their site. They need to drop the Wiki name. They can rename their site to corrupttree, or something other then Wiki as they exclude others from participating if they don't like what they have to say. Deathmolor (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all: Please do not use article talk pages as a place to air your personal grievances and opinions. This is not a WP:FORUM nor a WP:SOAPBOX. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fact vs. Opinion[edit]

The following was removed as it is a statement of opinion not fact: "The Honor code is not followed by current administrators and they will issue bans for petty rationality. Vandalism for WikiTree admins is based on if they personally like someone not the content itself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turninghearts (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article text that you refer to (currently removed from the article) does appear to have violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR -- it is highly opinionated and it appears to be the personal opinion of the contributor. It is not neutrally worded information from reliable sources. The source cited for some of the same contributor's recent content, https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/wikitree.com, seems to consist of a few online reviews by anonymous Internet users, which does not fit the definition of a Reliable source. Orlady (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we must now remove all critical response categories from games or movies or everything. Now lets be honest you wikitree people are used to being able to silence people. This is not one of those places where you can silence critical response. If it is properly labelled as such, it is asking for fact based critical information. Please take the racism elsewhere. Deathmolor (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again the racists from Wikitree are coming here to edit, because i emailed them and called them racists. They do reject people who are not white from their site, this is fact. When does opinion become fact? I believe when they keep banning people with different opinions over and over again this is when it becomes fact. The fact based accounts of the Wikitree policy of rejecting other racial opinions is now becoming fact. These are fact based accounts. In the same vain discussing the the use of an Honor code is opinion since the honor is racially bias. Deathmolor (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new topic do dodge the previous topic, removal of critical response[edit]

It would seem a new topic was created in talk just to avoid why critical response was created. Dodge avoid tactics to stop the public from being informed about wikitree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmolor (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't WP:BLUDGEON the process by creating frivolous section headings / new discussions. Please cease all WP:SOAPBOX activity. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that was what I was objecting to by example. So the very thing you are asking me not to do is also the very thing TurningHearts had done. I glad you brought it up. I wont do it again but I will insist that turinghearts does not do that either. There already was a topic covering what he was talking about but he wanted to distance himself from others. And again the people editing my entries out are WP:SOAPBOX activity as well. Just cleverly disguised. If you issue the accusation you must accept that others involved are also doing the same. Deathmolor (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note WP:POINT that you should not do things that disrupt wikipedia to make a point.
Feel free to bring your concerns up at the WP:ANI thread regarding you. I realize there many be more issues here than I addressed. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Response and Vandalism by Wikitree[edit]

Let's bring this back on topic. Deathmolor (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Deathmolor is indefinitely blocked[edit]

By me for personal attacks, lack of good faith and disruptive editing. He responded with a long personal attack against me which led to his talk page access being removed. A UTRS appeal in the same vein failed. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss possible improvements to the article, based on what reliable published sources say about. WikiTree. It is not to complain that WikiTree is a bad product or to complain about their administrators. This talk page is not a soapbox nor an open forum. One editor active here has been indefinitely blocked. Other editors should heed this warning. Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTree's funding model[edit]

WikiTree is 100% Free https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:The_Free_Family_Tree

How Is It Free? "Expenses can then be covered by modest advertisements on public pages." To understand this better, WikiTree posts advertisements which can only be seen by visitors or members not logged in to the site. These advertisements are primarily to other paid Genealogy sites and appear on profile pages. To get the visitor to click on the advertisement (and make money for WikiTree) there needs to be as little information as possible on the profile page except the most basic information to get the right person on the paid genealogy site. Basically, WikiTree just wants to be an index and that index needs to be correct or the person clicking on the advertisement won't be happy with the click through. When there is too much good information on the profile the visitor will stay and join WikiTree.

The above situation is reflected in the way WikiTree operates and is the source of most of the bans of people who criticize WikiTree Management. Lets first look at membership. WikiTree has more than 1 million signup members now https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1572820/the-one-million-member-pool-when-will-cross-million-members?show=1572820#q1572820 But only about 220 000 signed the honor code to move forward to become a full member https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Badges&b=genealogist When we look at the reward badges https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Badges_and_Points We can se that there are only about 3000 active members counting more than a 100 contributions per month by looking at the 1000 and 100 contributors. This will indicate that WikiTree has a low retention rate of members.

The main drive on WikiTree is to create profiles with as few sources as possible, but to reflect an accurate index. All the thons are geared towards this and members are rewarded for the number of profiles created in for example thons, whether this is the Source-a-Thon (not really sourcing but adding profiles), Connect-a-thon Not really connecting unconnected profiles, but creating more profiles with as few sources as possible because members are rewarded for the number of profiles they create. I can say that is not how those Thons started out but that is what they became.

The reason why so many members actually gets booted of WikiTree is when they start complaining about the state of profiles with little or no sources and management does not like that because this dissents from their aim of being an index to get clicks on their adverts. NoNoddy (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source-a-Thon only aims at adding sources to profiles that only have no sources. Adding profiles during Source-a-Thon doesn't generate points. --Flominator (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was under "References" for some reason[edit]

If they are meant to be references, use them as references.

Cited as source:

  • Gorman, Daniel, Jr. "Abner Woolman's Colonial World: Quaker Politics and Literature Before the American Revolution." Quaker History 107, no. 2 (2018): 19-61. doi:10.1353/qkh.2018.0007
  • Forbush, Bradley M. "The 13th Massachusetts on July 1: The Repulse of O’Neal’s Brigade on Oak Ridge." Gettysburg Magazine 55 (2016): 2-24. doi:10.1353/get.2016.0022
  • Vandivere, Julie. "The Bastard's Contention: Race, Property, and Sexuality in Virginia Woolf's Orlando." Modernism/modernity 28, no. 1 (2021): 91-116. doi:10.1353/mod.2021.0012
  • Wildenboer, Liezl. "The judicial officers of the Transvaal High Court, 1877- 1881" Fundamina : A Journal of Legal History (Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd (Juta's Law Journals))Nov 2019 Volume 25, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-7870/2019/v25n2a9
  • Thackeray, J Francis. "Doubling the age and size of the universe at the IAU in Rome in 1952" South African Journal of Science Jan 2020 Volume 116, Issue 1-2 https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1c0438e6c0
  • Smith, Joseph H. “A New Voice for Old Helvetia: Introducing the Descendants of Swiss Settlers.” Swiss American Historical Society Review 59, no. 2 (June 2023): 27–33
  • Burlibașa, Mihai, Radu Cătălin Costea, Irina Adriana Beuran, Ioana Maria Stoica, Bogdan Alexandru Dumitru, and Nicoleta Măru. “Femei Celebre În Stomatologie – Secolele XVIII-XIX.” ORL.Ro, no. 58 (January 2023): 37–43
  • Nault, Derrick. “Louis Riel, Wahkohtowin, and the First Act of Resistance at Red River.” Prairie History, no. 8 (Summer 2022): 5–16
  • Burton, Lynn. "Looking back: KDNK’s 16th birthday sure was sweet" (https://soprissun.com/ : accessed 7 Aug 2023) The Sopris Sun Wednesday, April 12, 2023
  • General Aviation News Staff. "Six little-known pioneers of aviation" (https://generalaviationnews.com/ : accessed 7 Aug 2023) General Aviation News Saturday, December 24, 2022
  • Wanner, Dick (16 Jul 2022). "Historic Black Inventor Made Grain Harvest Faster, Safer for Famers". Lancaster Farming. Vol. 67, no. 42. Ephrata, Pennsylvania: LNP Media Group. p. B19. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
  • Thompson, Donna. "STONE BARN AT BEARDSLEE FARM OFFERS NEW VENUE FOR WEDDINGS AND EVENTS", (https://mylittlefalls.com/ : accessed 7 Aug 2023) My Little Falls (Little Falls, New York) Wednesday, March 30, 2022
  • Tapscott, Rebecca. "From Home Security to VoIP: Honoring Black Women Inventors of the Last Half-Century" (https://ipwatchdog.com/ : accessed 7 Aug 2023) IPWatchDog Sunday, February 28, 2021
  • Cavanaugh, Ray. "Window on the Past: Stampede of a New York Cowboy" (https://www.irishamerica.com/ : accessed 7 Aug 2023) Irish America Magazine October 2019
  • Momodu, Samuel. "ALFRED L. CRALLE (1866–1920)", (https://www.blackpast.org/ : accessed 7 Aug 2023) Black Past Sunday, December 31, 2017

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I restored the events section as that was needed and sourced. We can talk about the projects, though as that is a functional part of the website and should be discussed in this page. Cferra (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I removed it again before I noticed the talkpage activity. The issue [1] remained. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Template:Refideas exists if anyone wants to use it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Projects and events section[edit]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:: I don't agree with wiping projects and events completely from the article. The latest additions to projects were for sure too much, I agree, but I consider it important to mention, that there's not only "my ancestors" WikiTree, but also people/structures that work around certain topics, locations and events, which is something completely different than on FamilySearch, for example. Did you have a problem with the information itself or only with the style/length? (written before the events section removal was reverted and independent of it!) --Flominator (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section cites no independent sources to indicate its 'importance'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what sources would be useful as the events section is important to understanding what is done at Wikitree. Not to mention the projects section. There are videos on the Youtube channel. Would those be sufficient? Cferra (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume those videos on the WikiTree YouTube channel would not count as "independent sources to indicate its 'importance'", since "This policy also applies to material published by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook." --Flominator (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All that kind of thing should be omitted. No idea why this article is attracting so much ham-fisted (to be blunt) editing, I would almost suspect people who work on this commercial site are also editing this article and serving to promote it. Verges on COI territory if not outright COI. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not actual COI, WP:ADVOCACY, which can have similar effects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the WikiTree YouTube channel is not independent of Wikitree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to me it seems the right thing to do. Consensus will be what it will be. My problem was the sourcing, such as it was. Also, to me, onsite events seems relevant onsite, not here with ABOUTSELF sources, and language like "rally the project's members together" and "encourage" inches into PROMO territory (fairly mildly compared to other things I've seen on WP) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that in this [2] version, the ref added is a WP:BLOG and it doesn't support the text it's cited for, for example nothing about Wales, Gates or Moore. This is not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please give us a chance to work on the article instead of cropping things out? We are working on it as best we can. Give us some time. Thank you.
Additionally, would outside Youtube videos count as sources for the events page? We have our own videos of Cece Moore and Henry Louis Gates on the channel, by the way. Cferra (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is often WP:SPS, see also WP:RSPYT. Wikitree's YT-channel is as useful as its website in the WP-context. And if WP:BLOGs is the only thing to be found, it probably doesn't belong on WP. Just because something is online, doesn't mean it's useful on-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also should be noted that Wikitree's friends and fellow world trees like Geni and Familysearch have virtually the same types of sources: Genealogy blogs, videos, articles and interviews. They are all world tree sites. It would be most helpful if users on Wikipedia allowed edits to proceed without conflict. Thank you.Cferra (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That implies that those WP-articles also need improvement from the WP-POV. Perhaps interested editors will take a look at some point. See also WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:SPA, and if you are looking for "role-models", WP:GA and WP:FA articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "us" and "our" btw? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Us" refers to myself and a few other people who are working on the page. We are working as quickly as possibly to get this page up to Wikipedia standards. Don't mind the mess. Cferra (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you persist in adding promotional content sourced only to WikiTree and to blogs, you may very well find yourself blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the section so that it can be worked on. The blogs sourced are from accredited genealogists who work outside WikiTree. If you go to the pages for Familysearch and Geni, you will find similar blogs used as sources. They are not promotional in the slightest and help to explain what WikiTree does and has done in the past. Cferra (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Find WP:RS-compliant sources first, and then add content that can be directly supported by it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accredited professional genealogists who spent decades doing family history aren't WP:RS compliant? Cferra (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No source is WP:RS compliant when being 'cited' for content it in no shape or form supports. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 2021, WikiTree created a "challenge" (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree_Challenge_2021) in which professional genealogists were recruited as subjects. It seems to be a mutual pat-on-the-back exercise. 2600:1010:B185:2B97:3C2B:83EC:2521:4820 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flominator and User:Cferra, if y'all can't even follow what's in WP:RS, this is going to be very difficult. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me out of this, Drmies, I was just asking questions and trying to understand the problem and did not edit the article since then! --Flominator (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct minor error regarding WeRelate's relationship to the Allen County Public Library[edit]

WeRelate's own website says: WeRelate is a free public-service wiki for genealogy sponsored by the Foundation for On-Line Genealogy formerly in partnership with the Allen County Public Library. It has pages for over 3,070,000 people and growing. WeRelate is supported by volunteers and your tax-deductible donations. 2600:1010:B158:C72D:718D:216A:A266:D865 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why WeRelate is discussed at all. The last sentence of the lede, which mentions it in passing, looks off-topic to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested replacement of inappropriate sources[edit]

I suggest references 12 (Buch) and 13 (Sheppard) be replaced by simply citing the WikiTree.com home page. Both citations consist of WikiTree members reporting on G2G (the WikiTree in-house discussion forum) information obtained from the home page and (in Buch's case) several other WikiTree pages. The G2G posts are neither independent nor more reliable than the home page (no editorial oversight, for example), and citing them rather than the home page might create a false impression of secondary sources. If the original and only source of this information is the WikiTree home page, then the source citation should be the home page. If the ancillary information from other WikiTree pages is relevant and necessary to the article, then that information should be presented and sourced to the appropriate pages. MundoMango (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one is a primary source and the other is a blog/forum of a primary source. Perhaps just removing per WP:ABOUTSELF? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, but if you continue with that reasoning, there might not be much article left. On the other hand, a case might be made that the statement of membership and database size meets the five conditions to allow self-sourcing. Condition #5 might be a bit sticky. Please note also that neither forum post supports the details at the end of the sentence, about "people who share...." MundoMango (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF #1 can be seen as a bit iffy here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The "million registered members" might be considered an exceptional claim. Certainly the only data to support or refute the claim would have to come from WikiTree. Here's where I struggle with WP:RS: it seems that if a reporter or author gets the information from the subject, then repeats it uncritically, it becomes "reliable." I don't understand that logic, so on WP:ABOUTSELF #1 I defer to Wikipedia experts. MundoMango (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the "million registered members" is to be kept, I think it should be qualified in this way: Of those, roughly a quarter have become “Wiki Genealogists” by signing the “Honor Code,” enabling them to edit profiles on the site beyond their own close relatives. Management estimates and WikiTree “badge” statistics suggest that several thousand of those Wiki Genealogists are currently significant contributors to the site. Sources are the WikiTree Honor Code badge list (https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Badges&b=genealogist), a Whitten G2G post (https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/351001/how-many-genealogists-have-contributed-to-wikitree?show=351276#c351276), and the Club 100 and Club 1000 badge lists (https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Badges&b=2307_club100 and https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Badges&b=2307_club1000). 2600:1010:B11C:2B94:A484:FB2E:7301:CD74 (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gamification[edit]

How about a few sentences about the employment of gamification in the article? Everything is counted and ranked: the forum posts, the contributions, the number of thank you's received, the connection level of your profile etc. Then you receive badges if you do 100 or 1000 contributions a month. Together with Connect-a-Thon, where you're supposed to add as many profiles as possible within 48 hours, this is a huge difference compared to geni or the FamilySearch tree. I'm fully aware that this reddit thread is no usable source, but I would still like to see this aspect mentioned somehow, also because it's not entirely positive one. Any ideas on how to go on? --Flominator (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My knee-jerk reaction: Most of the stuff under "Features" is WP:ABOUTSELF as it is, and adding more of it is not obvious improvement from the WP-perspective. So as I see it, independent RS who bothered to notice is the key. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I get WP:ABOUTSELF right, it states that it's ok to use self-published sources if [bulleted list of five requirements]. Are you considering some of those bullets not fulfilled or do you consider describing features simply irrelevant? --Flominator (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO point 5 is problematic since so much in the article is wikitree sourced already. Adding more of it, in "Features" or where you may be thinking of, seems a bad idea to me. If people want to read about wikitree inner workings, they can go to the website. We're not here to repeat their views/descriptions of themselves. On "huge difference compared to geni or the FamilySearch tree", this sounds to me like approaching WP:FANCRUFT territory. It may be quite interesting for users of these websites, but less obviously so for general WP-readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for your reply. Currently almost 2/3 of the references are external sources, so I'm not completely convinced about point 5. Thanks for linking WP:FANCRUFT. I'm not even sure if what I want to put in the article is going to be that positive in general, so FANCRUFT might not be the right term. I wanted to underline that there's a huge focus on numbers on the site, with many things being counted and turned into a contest, such as user contributions in total and per month, sent and received thank-yous, posts in the forum and people connected to your profile within a range of seven steps. This extreme I didn't observe it at the competition. --Flominator (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WikiTree&oldid=1210753761"