Dear James >More practically, one of the advantages of the big sites is that they charge a subscription which does act as a de facto filter for idiots, although I agree not all of them. Wikitree.com seems to be the "big-site" with the momentum right now and it does not charge. It has over recent years brought in various barrier and impediments to editing in certain ways. >What I was wondering was whether someone who has a small well-documented tree might be persuaded to upload that info on one / all of the big sites in a deliberate experiment to see how quickly the info became degraded, or putting it the other way round, how heavy the workload was to keep it accurate. On Wikitree it happens every day and I think in recent times I have seen no pre 1700 profiles get worse. In post 1700 profiles, not so much our topic, people still upload their gedcoms, do crazy merges living in different countries, and so on. But in the medieval profiles the initial chaos is now definitely trending towards better. And it should be said that anyone who wants to put better medieval genealogy somewhere on the internet, can already work on one of the big sites, like you mention, but not all require a fee. I do also respect the fact that some of best people don't want to do that, though they do want to work in small teams. It is a win-win if they do it as well as possible because the big sites work better when their are better sources online such as the Henry project. (With full respect to MEDLANDS, I do think it is wrongly understood by many people, and used as a fixed point when it is actually a work in progress. So it has not been perfect for wikitree people to use. A better way to see it is as a structured collection of sources to help work on genealogy. The genealogy itself provides structure but is constantly changing and full of problems, and Charles does not defend it himself any time I've contacted him.) Regards Andrew

On 6/16/2016 11:10 AM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > On Wikitree it happens every day and I think in recent times I have seen > no pre 1700 profiles get worse. In post 1700 profiles, not so much our > topic, people still upload their gedcoms, do crazy merges living in > different countries, and so on. I decided to test this by checking out wikitree on a few of my immigrant ancestors, and saw no evidence of any convergence toward something acceptable. From what I can see, some editors seem to be paralyzed by any sign of disagreement, and given the choice between two different parentages, one in a completely worthless GEDCOM file and the other in a well-documented article in a high-quality journal, will list both as options. In another case, involving my ancestor George Maris, an immigrant from Worcestershire to Chester Co., PA, some poorly done early genealogies had made him the son of a Richard Maris. In 1997, I had an article published in The Genealogist proving that he was a son of George and Alice (Collier) Maris, giving several generations of ancestry on his mother's side. Information on George Maris apparently came to wikitree via some careless merges between someone who had used my article and the previous undocumented garbage, naming the immigrant as "George Edward Maris" and his father as "Richard George Maris." (Sloppy merges have given a number of my ancestors "middle names" which they would not have recognized when they were alive.) The only "fact" for which my article is explicitly cited is the marriage of the immigrant George Maris to Alice "Wellsmith" (or "Wilsmith"), a maiden name which my article in fact disproved. So, the person who cited my article apparently did not actually read it. Some other pages I saw had information from the 1600's "proven" by a citation which said something like "personal knowledge of compiler." Unless people like that are eliminated from the process completely, there is little hope for significant improvement. > But in the medieval profiles the initial chaos is now definitely > trending towards better. And it should be said that anyone who wants to > put better medieval genealogy somewhere on the internet, can already > work on one of the big sites, like you mention, but not all require a fee. I looked at some more pages from the early medieval period that interests me, and it still looks pretty bad to me. Many of the pages seem to have a large number of "profile managers" (too many cooks spoiling the broth?). It isn't so bad in cases where there is no major disagreement, but the minute you get to a case that is complicated, the quality drops through the floor. In many cases, there is no indication that the profile managers have even looked at the underlying evidence. The citations given indicate that for the most part, the profile managers have little idea how to distinguish good and bad scholarship, and in most cases have not bothered to do a reasonable bibliographic search. Wikitree's apparent policy of using Medieval Lands as some sort of standard does not help, for Medieval Lands is at its very worst on the more difficult cases, where the failure to consult the literature causes the most damage. > I do also respect the fact that some of best people don't want to do > that, though they do want to work in small teams. It is a win-win if > they do it as well as possible because the big sites work better when > their are better sources online such as the Henry project. But I don't think that "big" sites are ever going to have an acceptable degree of quality if they have the grandiose idea that they are going to be big right now this very minute. The idea of starting with a big mess and then trying to clean it up is bad enough, but in my opinion, trying to clean up a mess while there are more people still making a mess than there are cleaning it up is a fool's errand. Also, it is sad to see so many "newbies" who have the potential to become good genealogists spreading themselves thin on big projects when they would learn the ropes much better by first concentrating on getting more complete documentation on a smaller group of individuals. If there ever is a top quality "big" genealogical database in the future (and I hope there will be), I think that it will "start small" with strict quality control from the very beginning, and grow gradually over time. Stewart Baldwin

As the discussion has now reached a point where people are starting to discuss other projects and their platforms. I wonder if I can call on listers to suggest a good platform for the creation of the List initially proposed? I have examined Wikitree to some extent and have some initial impressions. One is that the certain vs uncertain button for asserting that something is sure is not helpful unless there is some control over its use. As with any statement about which one can claim certainty there is the vexed question of opinion which some sort of table of authorities might go some way toward addressing. The example I noted was that of the style HRH associated with HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother (RIP). To that erroneous style the valuation of certain was ascribed on no authority. This is just the sort of unsourced and erroneous I would want to guard against in any List of Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families. Suggestions? Thank you, in advance, for any your help and interest. Richard Richard Carruthers-Zurowski

Dear Richard You are mixing two questions a bit in my opinion. 1. In terms of software platform, wikitree uses its own, which they developed from the more standard ones, and I don't think anyone else can use it for free. There are specific things they have developed like the uncertain option, which are not standard on a wiki. There are also things they removed from the standard, such as talk pages. Wikipedia is the standard format of software available, even if not necessarily the type of editing community you are looking for. If you look at Wikipedia you'll see how the talk pages are like articles attached to articles which record any discussed needed between editors. (Wikitree have pushed all discussions to either small text boxes for comments on each article, or separate forums which are not so simply connected to individual articles.) 2. The quality of editing, and of editors, is not connected to the software. Your remark below is a bit like saying that you saw spelling mistakes in an example of a Word document, so now you are concerned about using Word? :) Basically in the end wiki software is just like Word or Google Docs or whatever: a platform for typing into. Specifically it was designed to help groups work on something which is going to be in discrete inter-linked articles, when the work will be done by multiple editors who want to be able to work online and at the same time. Here is the Wikipedia article for Wikis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki It links to a list of typical software used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wiki_software The best known software is Mediawiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki If you don't want to set-up a server yourself there are options like Wikia ("wikifarms"). I notice that these days the mass of wikis using this are connected to fan movements, like for example wikis about fictional worlds in games, movies and books. (But that is clearly not going to mean that any wiki using that software will become like a fan wiki.) Here are more wikifarms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_hosting_services Best Regards Andrew On 19/06/2016 4:26, Richard Carruthers wrote: > I wonder if I can call on listers to suggest a good platform for the creation of the List initially proposed? > > I have examined Wikitree to some extent and have some initial impressions. One is that the certain vs uncertain button for asserting > that something is sure is not helpful unless there is some control over its use. As with any statement about which one can claim > certainty there is the vexed question of opinion which some sort of table of authorities might go some way toward addressing. > > The example I noted was that of the style HRH associated with HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother (RIP). To that erroneous style the > valuation of certain was ascribed on no authority. This is just the sort of unsourced and erroneous I would want to guard against in any > List of Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families. >