On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 9:09:05 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart via wrote: > Perhaps it would be worthwhile to do some more rigorous thinking about > what a 'wiki' is - here you have made it into some kind of syndical > entity with a will of its own. > Dear Peter I thought I'd posted a reply yesterday but it seems to have got lost en route. Essentially I was making a similar point about the difference between familysearch (which I would say is essentially a wiki since it shares a single view of "the truth" to which all members contribute) and ancestry.com (which is more of a collection of individuals' work). I am certain that the familysearch platform could be improved in many ways, and its reasons for wanting such a unified view of history may not be shared by everyone including me, but that doesn't stop it being a useful tool... On the question of theft, I agree with you about the importance of citations and also with Stewart's point about some people mis-using sources, but to some extent that's why I hold by the main point of my posts, which is that wikis will always be rubbish if the people who have the knowledge and experience to make them better don't get involved. In which regard, prompted by this thread I did some exploring on wikipedia and discovered that they have a special group of people who are "pre-1500 certified" so you can't make changes unless you've been approved. I didn't look to see what the entry hurdles were since there is no way that I'd qualify but I thought that it shows what can/could be done. James