Dear Peter > This misses the point that the value of the Henry Project is largely that it does not rely on "sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage". No, in fact I think you might be missing the point I was making. I am saying that something like wikitree is not aiming at the same thing as something like the Henry project. I am trying to say there is an apples and pears problem in the discussion, because there is assumption which keeps slipping back between the lines that there is only one worthwhile aim in online genealogical collaboration. Works like Complete Peerage are useful to even the best genealogists for example, because of how much they bring together. Most genealogists are unable to achieve anything like the Henry project's aims, or to find flaws in Complete Peerage, but many try to perform more menial tasks that they would think still achieves something positive. The aim of the most massive online collaborations is to organize pre-digested information, which is largely having to come from somewhere else. Wikitree and similar projects often describe themselves as having the aim of putting together in one place, with all the software tools, a single family tree which links all family trees. As information is accumulated on to such a platform it can be played with (read and absorbed) in ways that were not possible before computers developed to the level existing today. You are correctly pointing out that any such project will never be better than whatever other sources it cites. Right. That is why, once you solve the various other problems we have discussed such as proper citations, no gedcom uploads, such projects can be better or worse in different periods and different families depending on what types of sourcing is available, and indeed what types of volunteers are available. (You keep asking for an example of a good wikitree article for example, but in a way the question is meaningless, because you or me can literally go and make what we consider to be one right now and say "look". The more interesting questions are what that SHOULD look like, and whether it will stay that way. Any project can set whatever aims it wants. Some might have silly aims, and some much more impressive.) But, just in case you are wondering, Wikitree does not forbid original research like Wikipedia does. It is possible to cite primary documents and "correct" a respected source. Richardson and Complete Peerage are respected partly because they also explain their sourcing (maybe not always perfectly), which is as we all agree very important for such large scale collating work. Best Regards Andrew