Kiwitrees on Twitter

    request, Export/Import, partner, administration pages, access level, ASSO, .mo, prison, statistics, data errors, BURI, 7.2, GDBR, design, webtrees, menus, survey, shared note, getClientIp, Extra menus, zend, 3.3.1, contacts, locked out, immigration, CHR, F.A.B., 3.2.2, gender change, time, formatting, Advanced search, media, login upgrade, family facts, danish, login, dropbox. token, last change date, redirect, 7.0, add_asso_facts, DSGVO, 1939 Register, inactive, clipboard, errors, merge, xenea, set link, performance, zoom, Favourites, I18N, sanity checker, support, installation, new feature, Histo, family fact


    1660 posts


    Actually thinking some more about this, you can’t even do what I was suggesting.

    The application of privacy is a bit more limited. You can privatise level 1 objects (INDI, FAM, MEDIA, SOUR, REPO, NOTE), in which case they are hidden wherever they would appear.

    You can privatise facts (for specific individuals), like birth, death, marriage etc. But you can’t go done to the next level, so you can’t for example privatise a source just from a birth.

    I would challenge your basic concept though, if you don’t mind. Is it actually good, or useful, to display ANY source data to casual visitors? Its far easier to just suppress all source details.

    The arguments against showing sources are are generally two:

    1 – “Tree farmers” who visit just to “steal your data” will seldom credit you with all the hard work you have put into quality research, full source referencing etc, so don’t give them any more than you need to. They are going to take it anyway.

    2 – Not putting it there might encourage visitors to start a dialogue with you (“Where did you find that fascinating fact?”) and thereby hopefully add to your data.

    Just a thought?


    My personal kiwitrees site is