Without any connection to this case I want to mention that I am arguing for removing all Curated By names and make Master Profiles a shared responsibility for all curators, making some minimum agreements on what classifies to be a Master Profile and have a contact curators link which gives all curators an option to respond making it easier for a curator to take a break and even quit as a curator.
I often will make a profile MP after merging multiple profiles, and then want to prevent future erroneous merges. These can come up quite frequently, faster than cleanup can be done. After we get a handle on all these duplicates floating around, focus can then be put on cleaning up the ones that were missed along the way.
I think that is a fair comment Ric and Bjorn, pardon me for being so forthright with you but perhaps you need some of your own medicine, I think you need to be more forgiving of other curatorial methods than your own. Sometimes it is more efficient to create the MPs and then at some future date make the MP'd profiles a perfect example with sources and a full about me. This example is not one of my MP'd profiles however I think regular users need to realise that the Big Tree is still very much a work in Progress and that not all MPs will be perfect yet.
Many curators MP profiles that are not fully documented nor even perfect. They do so because they have mostly gotten the Basic Data correct and want to have that particular profile serve as a "Merge Guide". They do it because there are 50+ profiles with the exact same name (such as "John Baldwin") and in that area of the tree there are a lot of incorrect merges that are a waste of time and mess up the tree. They do it because they plan to work more on the profile as part of an overall project on that family or branch and it's a "placeholder". As Terry said, MPs are often a Work in Progress. I personally do my work iteratively, in several phases, and fully documenting the MP and beautifying the About Me comes in a later stage.
There are many different reasons to MP a profile. If you asked 40 curators, you would get 40 slightly different answers. You actually know that Bjorn, so you are being disingenuous in this discussion. And unnecessarily critical. Instead of wasting our time posting criticizing others Bjorn, pay attention to your own profiles.
Well, go back the the first post on this topic.
We have curators misusing their curator powers to lock out users from their own profiles "just because they are duplicates" and I can also confirm that we have MP collectors. This is one of the specific reasons why I want MP's to be a shared resource without any specific curator mentioned.
My number if MP's is very low and I would never MP an empty undocumented profile unless there is a specific reason for that like stating that a parent is unknown, but in such instances I always make a curator note about it on the profile, so it is not empty..
I think it's a responsability of curators to give the impression they use their special possibilities for good reasons. If there are too many MP-labels it's of no use either. And what is then the responsability of the family and direct descendants? Curators are not the governement of GENI, but sometimes they think they can do without explanation what other geni-users can't. If I can't find documentation of a profile on the internet and it has a MP here, I think there has been made a mistake. But some curators make more mistakes than others? It would be wise if it's not only ONE person -curator or not- that make decisions like this. And do you ask direct descendants or managers what their opinion is about a MP-decision? Would be polite.
I currently have 1500 MP. Well over half represent my own work, my own research. A few have come from requests from members, asking that a profile be made into MP, either through the public discussion for that purpose, or after helping the member clean up mismerges of that profile. The rest of my MP are multi-managed.
There are many reasons to have MP profiles. The best reason is to show that this profile is well researched and reasonably complete.
The next reason is because the profile is subject to frequent vandalism. We lock those, either the entire profile or the specific facts. Curators can only lock a profile when it is an MP.
The third reason to MP a profile is when there could be confusion about the profile. John Doe had a son named John Doe and a nephew named John Doe. John Doe the son had a son named John Doe and nephew John Doe had a son named John Doe. In that case, I make MP of ALL the profiles and I add curator notes at the top of each profile.
The last reason I would MP a profile is if someone has reported to me serious errors in the profile. I will MP and lock it until I can research it. Again, a curator note at the top,explaining that there are problems with the profile and to contact me.
jMu, - NO! Curators are not required to consult managers on profiles before making the MP. We are selected to be curators because we have critical thinking skills and can make these decisions. We MAY consult the managers and/or family members when we need to clarify something.
If you feel I have ever made an error in creating an MP on a profile that YOU manage, you are welcome to send me an inbox message with a link to the profile and what your concerns are. I am happy to discuss them with you and to make any corrections that we agree upon.
Private User - I agree 100% with Maria Edmonds Zediker in what she stated about MPs.
Perhaps we should start another discussion to clarify the various reasons to make a profile a "Master Profile"?
You are encouraged to email any curator who has an MP that you have questions about, as has been pointed out now by Erica, Ashley, and MEZ. That includes me as well.
Perhaps rather than start another discussion,
could be enhanced. Maria's input would do very well on that Wiki page - or even better a sub-page on why a profile might be MP.
Noah Tutak, CEO of Geni, invited me to curate and make as many MPs as I could. This is in line with the vision of a single profile representing everyone. They are - at least mine are - works in progress. All collaborators are invited to improve them.
I don't actually find further explanation necessary.:)
Erica. I suggest you re-read the announcement of Master Profiles.
It has been clear all the time that it should be a quality, not quantity something the Wiki have been clear on all the time. The only thing that should be fixed on the Wiki is the sections on information in the About Me.
Of course you should link to "private" web pages if that is the source you used because it can give us a chance review the source and look for links to primary sources. Any source is better than no source, and we should not favor any source like the uncritical favor of FMG as it is the truth and nothing by the truth and never ask questions if it is correct even if it is "official":
As an early curator I feel a little history in the creation of MPs would be helpful at this point. Before the instigation of curators a small group of 'super-users' suggested that in order to rectify what was then a *huge* mess on the Geni Historic Tree a group of Curators be selected and perhaps given some special tools that would be useful in sorting this mess out. They also suggested that there should be 3 levels of attainment on each profile: basic, in progress, and complete. Geni in their wisdom and probably something to do with the technicalities implemented the Curator scheme and with it MPs i.e. only one level. This has lead to the plethora of ways that curators use the function. I think we all agree that the ultimate aim is that MPs will be a mark of excellence and will clearly mark out the 'Historic and Celebrity's Tree' but at the moment they also serve all these other purposes and it is important that users realise this. At the moment there are almost as many different uses of MP as there are curators but we are all striving for the end aim of one name one profile, mastered.
In the example I gave -and I have seen more like this one, but don't like to act as someone to search for strange things- there wasn't ANY problem with too many managers. The person who added the profile was also the manager AND the curator. It looks like he made it a MP from the beginning, without any problems with merging..... I still don't see any reason for this 'quality' nor 'quantity' stamp. Maybe every user should get this privilege, for I see a lot of people that give importance -and marketing possiblitys- to geni.
Maybe the descendants should have a voice in this matter too, for now it's just 'at random'.
I have read the idea of MP and think the word MASTER -like a painter can be a master- is totally wrong. It gives the suggestion that it is a special profile, but it seems only a label to announce that curators think all the information is good enough and even better than any other profile with the same name. Is this a correct understanding? I think they should give it not such a stamp, for it communicates a total different thing. Is there a possibility for me to get this label for the thousands of profiles I added correctly?
I would also like to add that my critics are NOT for all curators and I agree that it is useful to have a tool to avoid misuse of all your good intentions to merge duplicates. But make agreements about it !!! For it must be possible for users to disagree with a MP where there is no need at all to emphasis on your ancestors where there isn't any good reason for that. And your invitation to communicate about it is always from curatores who do communicate, but NEVER of the ones who walk their own way to collect as many MP's as possible. Even the curator of the profile I gave as example didn't have the courage to explain his strange moves on the tree. And I know other curatores too who don't respond on an invitation to collaborate and be in touch about the way they care for my and other's ancestors. Some seem to work only for their own joy and that gives me an strong alibi to use geni my way...