Talk:WikiTree

Maintenance tags

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)

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)

Parent company

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)

Genealogy Software

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

I would find a comparison very helpful

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

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)

Source of 150/100 years rule?

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)

Not many reliable sources? No criticisms?

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)

@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)

@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)

@Belle Fast that might just be the nature of a shared genealogy platform. Gerdolfo (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I do believe the Wiki name is being used to lure unsuspecting users into their network. Deathmolor (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Fact vs. Opinion

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)

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)

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)