I believe my position is all too well known, Unicus. I will vote NO to any user who, in essence, takes a position which says it is so because I say it is so and provides no documentation to back up the claim PERIOD and ALWAYS. I PREFER to see some documentation that NameA=NameB as well, people who are relying on the only on the Variant Tool are setting us up for YEARS of additional work as we will have to unscramble the mess that they are making. This also relatres directly to those users whi insist on m,aking global changes to tiles which they do NOT own simply based on a single copy that they do, we know it is a false assumption to believe that all credits are ALWAYS the same, and this TOO is setting us up for YEARS of additional work when we begin to find that such data is not only tyheoretically but FACTUALLY incorrect as well.

I do not buy into the theories of those well-meaning, naieve and sometimes arrogant users who believe that they all they have to say is I extensively researched....or similar words. Nor d i buy into the theory of good enough is good enough. Good enough only fosters laziness in the Community, and sets the stage for all sorts of issues in the Online that will later have to be corrected. I will vote NO, and I am disappointed in the users that are willing to allow users to get away with some of the Contributions that they are allowing othersd to get away with.

I am absolutely certain that errors are being introduced into the database under the cover of such behavior bein permitted, I will only be able to fix them once my library comes out of storage, it took me three plus years, to finish the initial audits and my continues to grow so it will take many more years to re-verify, but I will do so.

I only wish that my library was not boxed and in storage, I would be checking every title against what is REAL, instead of against just my data.

Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
....
Something like "Bunny Speakman ["Bunny S."]" and "Doug Hubbard [Eugene D. Hubbard]", however, give me greater pause and I am not as willing to accept them because they are not as similar.

My question is this, for names like that, should we be asking for some form of documentation to prove that they are, in fact, the same person?

I would also like to see something from Ken on this particular situation. Personally... I agree with you. In this case I think there really should be more documentation then the CLT.

I also agree. With names so unsimilar (dissimilar?) i think asking for some documentaion is not unrealistic. While i don't think the contributor needs to write the mans biography in his notes a link or  2 would be needed.

Paul

Unicus, what you describe as tolerable and not tolerable without documentation pretty much mirrors my thoughts.  Those you question (like "Bunny S.") would receive a No vote from me because it is such a nonsensical leap to link them together that some documentation is required.  And Ken's constantly invoked note acknowledges that.

Quote:
"If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary."

Those that don't provide documentation don't seem to realize the benefit that can be gained from providing it (aside from avoiding No votes).  If i see a link being made and documentation is provided i might realize right then (or sometime later) i have another profile that would benefit from the information.  I can use the profile's documentation as a starting point for fixing more profiles.  Without documentation i may have neither the time nor the desire to chase it down myself...so nobody wins.

I don't think documentation should have to be requested, it should be required in every case, and if it is not provided every such case should be rejected PERIOD. What may be an obvious and well-known link to me, may not be so to you or some other users. From my viewpoint were I not to provide documentation or make some of the comments that I see being made, you could rightly call me arrogant. Sometimes all that is needed is to provide a link to the forum post which as already been dealt with, this also applies to BY data. Don't tell me that you researched it and so it is correct, show me your supporting documentation.

I don't need this to be in the Rules, like some, to me it is a natural course of events. If i am going to Contribute i am going to provide suupporting documentation as necessary, explaining what tools were used or how  a common name was derived and I will not simply fall on the sword of the CLT because I am too aware taht similar names are not the same person. I t5hink those who try to use the Rules to claim that they don't HAVE to do this or that are simply displaying both a level of laziness and a lack of concern for other members of the Community, along with a certain level arrogance in assuming that ALL users share the same level of knowledge and expertise that the user might have.

Skip

And Ken in this case is dead wrong, his statement violates the fundamentals of database construction, with all due respect to Ken. i do not promote laziness, nor am i EVER willing to accept it. I want reliable data, james. All too sadly i am increasing rejecting data that gets accepted from users just like yourself because you fail to provide documentation for what you do.

Here is an example, just because a BY has been accepted errtoneously should we allow it too be further propagated if there is no purpose for it per the Rules...NO...if it is entered erroneously then per the rules it should be REMOVED and not proopagated, we have all seen these instances.

If you will not at the very least provide CLT results, then you can expect that i will vote NO, and if I have any reason to suspect that simple (and in my mind simple-minded) use of the variant Tool is wrong then I will also vote NO.

That is my opinion and I will voice it...LOUDLY. I do not approve of that approach some users take in their notes, I will vote YES IF I can, but if you cannot provide adequate Notes then you can expect a NO vote from me.

Skip

Back on topic: Unicus, I think your stance is perfectly reasonable.

Quoting Ken Cole:

Quote:
If there is a dispute over whether the credit references the same person, documentation may be necessary.  However, in most cases it is not required.

It could be argued that if you disagree with the common name and the CLT doesn't support the change you could ask for further documentation that they are the same person. In the case Unicus mentions he can find no documentation that Bunny S. and Bunny Speakman are the same person so I think it would be reasonable to ask for further info.

However....

Quote:
I have notified the evaluators to disregard general demands for specific documentation of common name outside the use of the CLT.
Users who prefer more rigidly documented common names are free to enforce those rules on their local data.

People should bear in mind the above. Ken has ruled very clearly that voting no against such contributions will be ignored and is wrong.

Personally if I was to see 'John Hurt' credited as 'John Smith' I would be more inclined to question it than Bunny S. and Bunny Speakman. But that's just me.

Make the Credited as local please, Ken!