On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:10:13 PM UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Thanks Andrew > On Wikitree it happens every day and I think in recent times I have seen > no pre 1700 profiles get worse. In post 1700 profiles, not so much our > topic, people still upload their gedcoms, do crazy merges living in > different countries, and so on. > To some extent I feel that proves my point. On Familysearch the medieval families are still in flux although much better than they were (a few months ago you'd have >100 versions of the same person) but the natural tendency is for improvements to gradually spread. > But in the medieval profiles the initial chaos is now definitely > trending towards better. And it should be said that anyone who wants to > put better medieval genealogy somewhere on the internet, can already > work on one of the big sites, like you mention, but not all require a fee. In that case, why not agree that "experts" will use one of them (after a suitable debate) and focus on that. > > I do also respect the fact that some of best people don't want to do > that, though they do want to work in small teams. It is a win-win if > they do it as well as possible because the big sites work better when > their are better sources online such as the Henry project. People can still work in small teams and needn't publish their results online until they feel they're ready. > > (With full respect to MEDLANDS, I do think it is wrongly understood by > many people, and used as a fixed point when it is actually a work in > progress. So it has not been perfect for wikitree people to use. A > better way to see it is as a structured collection of sources to help > work on genealogy. The genealogy itself provides structure but is > constantly changing and full of problems, and Charles does not defend it > himself any time I've contacted him.) > > All the best James