Talk:Rodovid Rules Beta 1 first proposition

From Rodovid Engine
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Too formal?

Though there are a lot of good questions in this proposition, I think (IMHO) it is too formal, and not simple enough.

I know, but rules are rules They must be formal. In other case it's just recommendation.:)--Igor 00:05, 30 July 2010 (EEST)
Huh. You're wright... Sorry... --Christophe Tesson - talk.

Good question:

  • Who is, and who shall be (in future development) the owner of the database, and the owner of the software?

IMHO we can not answer unless we decide what we are allowed to write or not in the database. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 23:40, 29 July 2010 (EEST)

Let's talk about now. User:Baya are owner of this project and hardware for it. It's about owner. He granted to us administrative right and obligations. We're all administration. Some active users are advanced users or helpers or staff - call it how you want.

Main problem - who're active or not. Maybe if not active more than 6 month such privilege must be cancelled.

We allow write all except:
  • home telephone and address (house, street, apt..)
  • number of passport, ID ant the other documents which identify living person
  • hate speech
  • personal info without permission of living persons
  • trash
--Igor 00:05, 30 July 2010 (EEST)
  1. Of course Baya is owner of the software, and it's well-founded he continues to be the owner.
  2. We have to ask the question about the datas. We have a lot of potential users who don't begin any tree in Rodovid, because they can not save their work on their own disk, and because their datas are somewhere in Ukraine, they can't save them.
    • Agree - it's problem, but problem in fact in money, cause to work on Rodovid Yaroslav needs some compenstaion.
  3. My opinion, is that we need a Rodovid Foundation (with what form? I don't know), which have to be the owner of datas. Then this foudation could pay Baya to improve his software. It's obvious he had no time to do it for several years.
    • It might be, but there are questions about office, staff and money for it. I have no answer at this time.
  4. But we can not create any foudation, if the database is known to be full of fairy tales, like controversial records. This foundation won't group enough users, won't be able to find partners etc.
    • I think - the best way that trees of database aren't connected to real trees and marked with special template.
  5. So we can not allow these controversial records. In my opinion, this is the major point, and the beginning of a full process. This is the rule n°2 (in alpha 3 release).
So the small desagreement we have is: I'm affraid your text is hiding this rule in too much details.
You know, if user read rules - he read them all. If not - it doesn't matter how you write it. Thus I made so much administrative templates in uk and ru localization, e.g. "Welcome" template with short rules description. Users are lazy. Thus we can go such way - strong rules by style of mine present and some information blocks with your short rules in templates or on edit form. It increase possibility that they will see it and read.
But I agree with you, rules need to be formal. How can we write this text? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 12:46, 30 July 2010 (EEST)

--Igor 13:01, 2 August 2010 (EEST)

Corrections and additinal rules

I think this beta-1 version can be a good base for final rules.

Few comments:

1. I remarked that some newcomers do not understand well the notion of localization, so to be clear better say "language localization" and replace 4.1.1. by "One person can be connected only with one record. Through all language localizations."
  • Good idea!--Igor 13:09, 2 August 2010 (EEST)
2. I propose to replace 4.5.2. by "If more than one theory are present for connections, the administrator choose the most probable by quality of the sources on consensus or strong majority. If there is no consensus or strong majority on the most probable connection, such resources connection aren't desirable, but alternative relations can be indicated as detailed information and links in the notes".
  • maybe "administrator CAN choose". It might be right nor obligation.--Igor 13:09, 2 August 2010 (EEST)
  • not so bad. We could ad Each person must have no more than one mother and one father in the family link. right here. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 19:35, 3 August 2010 (EEST)
3. I think we need to add also "common sense" rules which would limit the introduction of mythology and fantasies into normal historical Rodovid tree:
4.3.4 Each person should have no more than one mother and one father in the family link. In case of multiple candidates the most probable is choosen and all other candidates are indicated as links in the notes. In case there is no agreement on the most probable father or mother no family link is given, all potential parents are indicated as links in notes.
  • Might be. --Igor 13:09, 2 August 2010 (EEST)
4.3.5 The maximum age of the person is 130 years. Only administrator can grant the exception under strong arguments and sources.
  • Agree, but Why 130 - can you give source? --Igor 13:09, 2 August 2010 (EEST)
Such a trick should be inserted in the software and not in the admin's work. Idem for other rules like that. --Christophe Tesson - talk. 19:35, 3 August 2010 (EEST)
4.3.6 The age of the mother at birth of the child should be 12-60 years. Only administrator can grant the exception under strong arguments and sources.
  • Mmm not less that 10 (in Ukraine was such situation. About 60... Maybe 65. More arguments is needed. --Igor 13:09, 2 August 2010 (EEST)
4.3.7. The age of the father at birth of the child should be 12-100 years. Only administrator can grant the exception under strong arguments and sources.
  • Ok --Igor 13:09, 2 August 2010 (EEST)
4.3.8 Each person born before 1900 should have the estimation of the date of the birth or death. It can be very approximate estimate, in the GEDCOM format there is special "EST" case for it. This estimation allows to check the rules 4.3.5-4.3.7
  • I dont' understand. What's the aim of this rule.
4.3.9 The only exception of the rules 4.3.4-4.3.8 can be mythological persons, which do not have any relationship with historical persons and should be explicitly included in the cathegories "Mythology" or "XXXXX mythology".
  • OK.
4.3.10 Each person should have the same mother and the same father in all language localizations.
  • Agree. Ok. --Igor 13:09, 2 August 2010 (EEST)

I had already to correct manually the violations of the rule 4.3.10, see discussion with Almoustine. --Alexandre 01:58, 31 July 2010 (EEST)


Igor, concerning the values of the limits i do not insist on these exact values. These values come from my experience in the genealogy research in the sense that i have not seen well documented sources violating these limits. But i would agree to different values. For example to change 130 years to something in the range 120-140 years, 12 years to 10 years, 60 years to 65 years. The most important is that there will be consensus among the users on these rules.--Alexandre 13:15, 3 August 2010 (EEST)

I think for some period we can put it as recommendation. If we'd have founded that it's not working they become as new part of rules.--Igor 11:06, 20 August 2010 (EEST)


Igor, concerning the rule for estimation of the person date of birth or death. I see that most of the fantasy persons do not have any estimations of the date of birth or death. They are very confusing as the reader of Rodovid has difficulty to understand if they are living in XIX century or X century or 3000 years BC. To handle this problem the GEDCOM format and also in Rodovide engine one can give "estimated" date of birth (or death) which the user calculate based on the sum of all informations he has on the person. It can also be the range "from xxx to yyy". Once this estimation is given, one can easely check the person with "common sense" rules. We can not force the users to put the birth date in case of privacy concerns. That is why the proposal is to apply this rule for persons born before 1900. Another variant could be apply this rule for all deceased persons.--Alexandre 13:34, 3 August 2010 (EEST)

Ok. Let's write that Records about persons born or died more that 100 years must contain exact year (date) of their birth or death or, if there is no information of exact date - estimated year or some period, when such occasion could happen should be specified.. --Igor 11:06, 20 August 2010 (EEST)

Global feeling

Igor, I tried to use my brain this week, and I think I was wrong and you are wright, rules need to be formal... :-( But we do have to take care about one thing: these rules need to be simple (because of translation).

We still have 2 minor disagreements:

4.4 Users are not allowed to write anything in the name of any corporation, association, group or other entity. Users are only allowed to write in their own name.

I was not talking about ads. Let's have an example

  • Igor Roz co-founder of MLI has the right to write in rodovid
  • MLI doesn't have the right to write in rodovid (even by the hand of Igor Roz)

Am I clearer?

  • But of course Igor Roz is allowed to talk about MLI on his user page.

Let's be more simple:

  • Almoustine have the right to contribute in rodovid (if she respects rules)
  • DFA project does'nt have the right to write anything in rodovid. Because DFA project is (supposed) to be a corporation.

If we don't have a rule looking like that, we allow sects or any commercial structures to write something in Rodovid. Sects will write propaganda, and commercial structures will write what they sell: glorious genealogical trees, and try to use Rodovid as a source.

We already have found such a case on Rodovid.FR. Guess who did that? DFA project trying to sell a tree to Utah Fencing Association. How did DFA? Connecting trees arbitrarily... See this page :

Wikipedia has the same problem (political parties trying to write about political men, etc...)

Ok. Let's try.
Users or third parties, which are connected to them or without it have no right to publish on Rodovid pages, any commercial or any other promotional information, e.g. religious, political and any other dogma without special agreement with administration.--Igor 11:37, 20 August 2010 (EEST)

5.2 Place must be fully based on historical boundaries and not modern political boundaries.

That will be really hard and boring to do in Rodovid.FR because people have built a complete system without possible ambiguity. And really boring. For instance, the place where I was born should be noticed:

  • Cherbourg, Normandy, France

from the XIVe century... so the boundaries have no interest in almost whole France.

But I do understand, this method for naming places is accurately interesting in Ukraine. Shall I have to tell to French speaking users:

-OK folks, we just have to correct 44000 records because of this rule... Let's go!

I will write a page in engine about tips and tricks we use, and about this problem.

But OK I trust you, you are the lawyer. I can't help. But try to write a readable text, where major rules are at the major place.

I mean : 4.1 - 4.3 - 4.4 should be 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3. May be it's impossible? --Christophe Tesson - talk. 20:21, 3 August 2010 (EEST)


Christoph, i am afraid that there is some misunderstanding of the rule 5.2 proposed by Igor (which I support). In my interpretation this rule means that one should give the name of cities and countries as they were during the life of the persons and not actual names of cities and countries. This means that 99% of your french records can continue to have the same names of places. And in your case you can perfectly give your place of birth as :

  • Cherbourg, France

skipping Normandy which is no more independant (or autonomous) state in XX century. But for the person born in Chambery in 1820 you should write:

  • Chambery, Savoie

not France. The same for persons born in Middle Age in Provence, Navarre etc before these states were included into France. This rule is interesting not only for Ukraine, but also for France. So you do not have to correct 44000 records to comply with this rule. Only few records in the Middle Age and close to France borders.--Alexandre 21:29, 3 August 2010 (EEST)

There was no misunderstanding. So then 99% of french speaking records won't respect this rule! ;-) --Christophe Tesson - talk. 11:49, 4 August 2010 (EEST)
Christophe, please, explain your point in more details and with examples. I looked into many french records and it looks difficult to find those which do not respect this rule.--Alexandre 12:16, 4 August 2010 (EEST)


Christophe, i probably can guess your worry about this rule. In many of french records the country name "France" is not given. Is it that ? If yes, for me this is not a problem, because it is very natural that the default country in the French localization is "France". To be more precise we can add to the rule 5.2 the following extension:
Place must be fully based on historical boundaries and not modern political boundaries. In the specific language localization one can tolerate the attribution of the country name by default without typing it in the place field. For example, France for french localization, Ukraine for ukrainian localization, Russia for russian localization etc.
This means that in the French localization you can have your place of birth:
  • Cherbourg (NN)
but if you also add the translation of your record into English localization, you should give the country name inside English localization:
  • Cherbourg, France
--Alexandre 12:57, 4 August 2010 (EEST)
Good idea! In fact, this is what we are doing. Outside france places are (more or less) written with historical boudaries. And we do have categories for these boudaries (e.g.: Russia, USSR, Imperial Russia etc.) --Christophe Tesson - talk. 23:43, 4 August 2010 (EEST)
Dear friends, let's I describe you the aim of this rule. This rule has several aims. First of all - as you know we planning by some time to develop new Geoportal system. It will makes a possibility to collect information about every village or city - when it was founded, which archives contain info about it, so on. It might be unique database which helps users to found their roots.
Second. We have de-facto a lot of different ways how users write the same place, which crate a lot of trash in database. Thus we need to make in more stronger. In uk locale year ago I provide rule that user must put historical place - Lviv, Galicia, Austro-Hungary empire or Kyiv, USSR. For us it gave "canonic" record for Geoportal database - for user - new knowledge about place his ancestry lived and some impetus for studying history of this place. All old places will be connect to new - Kyiv, Russian empire will be redirected to Kyiv, Ukraine. But page of some person will contain country and place where he lived. --Igor 11:36, 20 August 2010 (EEST)
If it so problematic for France - we can provide locale-depend rules. Every locale decides ho to organize this system.--Igor 11:36, 20 August 2010 (EEST)
My proposal - Place must match to historical administrative-territorial division
Retrieved from "https://engine.rodovid.org/wk?title=Talk:Rodovid_Rules_Beta_1_first_proposition&oldid=24345"