This summary outlines a documented pattern of harm affecting Indigenous-descendant families, oral-tradition–based genealogists, and cultural-historical record-keepers on the WikiTree platform. These harms arise not from isolated user conflicts but from structural features of WikiTree’s gamified contribution system, which incentivizes behaviors that directly undermine cultural integrity, descendant rights, and genealogical accuracy.
I. Systemic Incentive Structure
WikiTree’s platform awards users with points, badges, rank status, challenges, and achievement-based privileges. These mechanisms prioritize:
-
volume of edits over quality of research,
-
speed of intervention over cultural competency, and
-
platform rank over lived descendant knowledge.
This reward structure functions as a gamified hierarchy that elevates high-activity users to de facto authority positions absent any credentialing in Indigenous studies, oral-tradition methodology, or cultural-heritage ethics.
II. Resulting Harmful Behaviors
The gamified incentives predictably produce specific behaviors that have already caused measurable cultural injury:
1. Premature or Unsupported Declarations of “Fictional” Ancestors
High-rank editors, rewarded for aggressive profile “cleanup,” frequently label longstanding Indigenous ancestors as “fictitious” or “invented,” even when those ancestors are documented in colonial records, military reports, diplomatic correspondence, family oral traditions, and established local histories.
2. Defamatory Categorization Practices
Editors routinely assign individuals—including respected family historians—to categories such as “Shawnee Heritage Fraud” without evidentiary basis, genealogical review, or cultural consultation. These labels constitute reputational harm, especially when applied against descendants’ objections.
* Hokolesqua (Chief Cornstalk) is well-documented - see his Wikipedia page
In addition to Chief Cornstalk the "fraud" category lists: Bluesky, Newa, Wissecapeway (Black Beard). All of these people are documented in spite of Wikitree's accusations.
This is just four. I have decided to crowd-source documentation of each person Wikitree claims is "fraud." Because I believe this is defamation and reputational harm and I will be submitting my list to my lawyer. The project I have named Reputational Harm List
3. Disregard for Oral Traditions and Elder-Sourced Histories
Because gamification rewards rapid editing rather than contextual understanding, platform incentives systematically devalue oral tradition and elevate uninformed editorial intervention. This constitutes a pattern of erasure of Indigenous narrative forms.
4. Overriding and Silencing Descendant Communities
Editors with high badge counts routinely override descendants’ corrections, remove culturally grounded information, and issue bans or blocks against those attempting to defend their own lineage. This produces an asymmetry of power where game points—not expertise or kinship—determine editorial control.
When I comment that what they do goes against their own policies my comment is deleted and my account is banned. I have saved all my public comments to archive.org
5. Use of Policy as a Mechanism of Suppression
Policies are frequently invoked selectively or inconsistently to justify removal, alteration, or suppression of Indigenous genealogical data, while similar practices by high-rank editors remain unchallenged. This reflects a pattern of misuse of platform authority.
III. Cultural and Community Impact
The above behaviors result in:
-
Cultural erasure: Deletion, alteration, or delegitimization of Indigenous ancestors and oral-historical narratives.
-
Reputational harm: Publicly branding historians and family elders as fraudulent without evidentiary review.
-
Emotional harm to descendants: Silencing familial knowledge, undermining ancestral identity, and disregarding community memory.
-
Distortion of the historical record: Allowing gamified incentives to drive genealogical conclusions rather than evidence and cultural context.
This constitutes a recognizable pattern under cultural-heritage frameworks of non-consultative interference, unauthorized narrative control, and platform-enabled erasure.
IV. Conclusion
The harm is not incidental. It is a structural outcome of WikiTree’s gamified design, which grants unqualified editors disproportionate authority and incentivizes behaviors that directly conflict with standards of cultural respect, genealogical ethics, and descendant rights.
Rectifying this pattern requires:
-
Review of gamification mechanisms and their impact on culturally sensitive histories;
-
Removal or regulation of defamatory categories;
-
Implementation of descendant-rights and cultural-consultation protocols;
-
Accountability measures for misuse of editorial authority.
This was written by Catherine dee Auvil with help from ChatGTP on December 5th 2025
