On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:21:00 PM UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 6/30/2016 5:02 AM, WJH via wrote: > > > I think we can all agree that most Wikis are rubbish in the medieval period, that this is due to poor "management" and too many "copiers without understanding and "importers of gedcoms". > > This statement is very misleading, unless you replace the word "most" by > "all". I used "most" because I believe I can support it based on my personal knowledge and experience, whereas I can't use "all" because I don't have experience of all Wikis. > If you disagree, it would be interesting to know of a genealogy > Wiki that is not rubbish for the medieval period. Personally, I would be > unable to identify an example even if the qualifying words "in the > medieval period" were removed. > > > The question is whether the response is to create a new "pure" wiki > > project or to try and improve one or all of those already available (in > > which case there's the question of "which one?"). > > > > My basic hypothesis is that for those who are interested in sharing what > > they know (i.e. not Denis by the sound of it), the second route makes > > more sense. > > In my opinion, it is unlikely that the second route will ever lead to > anything better than "not quite as bad as it used to be." Even if it > were possible (which would require a method that corrects errors faster > than they are being introduced), the labor involved in cleaning up these > messes would be much more than just starting from scratch. > See below > > Of course, no large project could ever be error-free. However, the only > reasonable way of producing something of real value is to keep the > number of errors to a minimum from the very beginning. Whether a new > VERY strictly managed "wiki" or something else is the best way of doing > this is unclear. Again, see below > > As has been pointed out, any such project would need to attract > knowledgeable genealogists. In my experience, the better genealogists > do not particularly care for the "cleaning up other people's messes" > approach to genealogical research. > > > This is not to denigrate those who want to retain control / ownership of > > "their" work, merely saying that almost by definition, they are not > > likely to find the wiki ethos of "intellectual commons" congenial. > > > > Having said that, the history of trade and intellectual property rights > > shows that generally knowledge expands fastest when barriers are lowest, > > which brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. > > > > I assumed when I joined the group that its main reason for existing was > > to share knowledge: something I'm all for. In that regard it's ironic > > that the two posts I've made asking for information / guidance on > > specifics have not received a single post in reply... However, this > > thread seems to be generating more heat than light. > > > > So, to turn Denis' question round: why would anyone outside its existing > > "community" want to contribute to this board? > > Its not just about "ownership" rights, but also (and more important to > me) in taking pride in one's work. I don't think it's fair to suggest that only experts take pride in their work > I have already seen too many cases > where someone has copy-pasted my work and then butchered it in various > ways. So a good Wiki will have rules (created by users) to reduce this. As I said these are already emerging and my guess is that the more the better genealogists get involved, the faster the rules will evolve > People doing higher quality work might be less reluctant to > contribute material to a project managed by individuals competent to > deal with such material. The whole point of a Wiki is that it is essentially self-managing, although one of the interesting things about familysearch is that it's a wiki with an invisible big brother overseeing it, which does set rules on some things, even if they're hidden in the algorithms employed e.g. for identifying possible duplicates. My view is that at present, familysearch is getting better, the myriad copies of the medieval individuals that sit behind the trees I'm looking at are being reduced to a handful as both the management and individuals like me spend time merging obvious duplicates, so that in many cases it's now at the stage where the decisions that need to be taken are genealogical and will only be answered by good genealogical research tied to records / sources outside the software: i.e. by people like the members of this group. Yes there will be debate and familysearch needs to get better at managing that debate: e.g. it should be possible to create alternatives for dates when merging individuals, who are obviously the same even though there are discrepancies. However, that's my point about the genealogy as both a hobby and an academic study having reached a particular point in its development, which means that the landscape is likely to be very different in the next ten years. My feeling is that the subject as a whole will be in a better place if "good" genealogists contribute sooner, but that by not contributing they will essentially end up talking to themselves, because no-one else will be listening. Which is almost where I've got to! I find it fascinating that no-one has actually addressed my requests for information (my suspicion is that that's because the people I've asked about fall outside the group's sweet spot of finding royal descents), or tried to explain why a newbie would want to get involved with this board... However, the combination of the two outcomes does rather suggest that, apart from the thrill of a good argument like this one, I'm not actually going to get much benefit by contributing further... Although I very much hope for some evidence to the contrary! Regards James

On 7/1/2016 7:40 AM, WJH via wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:21:00 PM UTC+1, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: >> On 6/30/2016 5:02 AM, WJH via wrote: >> Its not just about "ownership" rights, but also (and more important to >> me) in taking pride in one's work. > I don't think it's fair to suggest that only experts take pride in their work My statement was not meant to suggest that. I think that most genealogists, at all levels of experience, take pride in their work. In a way, that is part of the problem. Some of the less open-minded genealogists get extremely offended when anyone suggests that they have made an error, even when the evidence against their opinion is overwhelming. The more aggressive ones are sometimes able to change the minds of more talented novices who have not yet gained the necessary confidence or experience. I confess that I am often unsure of the approach to take when I need to tell a correspondent of a serious error in their research, and I often don't know what reaction to expect. Some are happy to have the correct information, some are offended that I had the nerve to suggest that their information might be wrong, and others, while not offended, try to come up with some sort of argument (often outlandish) to "save" the line. Some genealogists seem to form a sort of emotional attachment to their newly found ancestors (an understandable reaction, at least for the more recent ones), and this can be difficult if the information turns out to be wrong (especially if it has been believed for some time). Also, some may regret the "wasted" time spent researching people who were not their ancestors. >> I have already seen too many cases >> where someone has copy-pasted my work and then butchered it in various >> ways. > So a good Wiki will have rules (created by users) to reduce this. As I said these are already emerging and my guess is that the more the better genealogists get involved, the faster the rules will evolve None of the genealogy wikis I have seen seem to have such rules. >> People doing higher quality work might be less reluctant to >> contribute material to a project managed by individuals competent to >> deal with such material. > The whole point of a Wiki is that it is essentially self-managing, although one of the interesting things about familysearch is that it's a wiki with an invisible big brother overseeing it, which does set rules on some things, even if they're hidden in the algorithms employed e.g. for identifying possible duplicates. > > My view is that at present, familysearch is getting better, the myriad copies of the medieval individuals that sit behind the trees I'm looking at are being reduced to a handful as both the management and individuals like me spend time merging obvious duplicates, so that in many cases it's now at the stage where the decisions that need to be taken are genealogical and will only be answered by good genealogical research tied to records / sources outside the software: i.e. by people like the members of this group. Yes there will be debate and familysearch needs to get better at managing that debate: e.g. it should be possible to create alternatives for dates when merging individuals, who are obviously the same even though there are discrepancies. Some merges are completely routine, such as when the information is identical, one having been copied from the other (or both from the same source). However, merges involving overlapping information can cause serious problems. A huge number of nonexistent individuals exist in these databases, created by the combination of careless guesswork and careless merges of previous genealogists. Further merges can easily result in the creation of additional genealogical fictions, unless the primary evidence is being carefully consulted at the time of the merges (which I doubt is occurring). Also, too much merging of such information will sometimes remove clues that might be useful in tracking down the primary sources, or even unintentionally produce red herrings that will lead such researchers down the wrong path. There also seems to be a great reluctance to abandon "information," even when it is smothered by "red flags." Some genealogists seem to use "not yet conclusively proven to be false" as their standard of proof, perhaps including an inappropriately weak qualification like "possible" or "probable" with the "information" (words often routinely removed by some amateurs). I have even seen it suggested that such disproof, once found, is not valid until it has been published in print! All genealogists struggle with how to deal with information that looks plausible enough but has not been backed up by any evidence by the individuals claiming it. The approach I often use is to bury the unverified claim in a footnote, with a remark that no known evidence supports it (partly as a challenge to those who might have such evidence to produce it). In some cases, amateur genealogists have played mix-and-match with certain families in so many different ways that the fill-in-the-blank approach preferred by most databases simply will not work. A similar thing often happens in medieval genealogy when several different scholars have used the same primary evidence to present different scenarios. Wikis usually make a complete mess of such situations. The writers of such wiki pages often seem to be unaware of the fact that no intelligent synthesis can be made in a case like this by someone who is not familiar with the underlying primary evidence. Another point worth mentioning here is the treatment of common errors. When there were long threads in this group during the late 1990's and early 2000's regarding the possible creation of a cooperative medieval genealogy database, someone mentioned the idea of including the mention of common errors. I wish I could remember who first suggested this so I could give them credit for it, but when I created the Henry Project in 2001, I took that idea and ran with it, making a point to mention common errors along with an explanation of WHY the information was wrong. Although the genealogical literature and the Internet have many such discussions, I have not seen any other online database giving a systematic coverage of the major known errors relevant to the individuals in question. (Of course, the Henry Project does not discuss ALL errors. There are far too many.) It would be nice to see more of this. Perhaps some project managers are reluctant to tell people that their research is incorrect, but the supposedly "democratic" idea that uninformed opinion counts the same as uninformed opinion guarantees lack of quality. > However, that's my point about the genealogy as both a hobby and an academic study having reached a particular point in its development, which means that the landscape is likely to be very different in the next ten years. My feeling is that the subject as a whole will be in a better place if "good" genealogists contribute sooner, but that by not contributing they will essentially end up talking to themselves, because no-one else will be listening. Is is unfair to suggest that the good genealogists are not contributing. You can find their work in journals like "The American Genealogist" ("TAG"), "The Genealogist" ("TG"), and the "New England Historical and Genealogical Register" ("NEHGR"), and in many other high quality books and journals. The "payment" that these authors receive is a free copy of the issue in which their article appears. Given a choice between submitting their research to a place where it is likely to be butchered and a place that will respect it, is it that surprising that they choose the flatter? Yet the managers of wiki websites either routinely ignore the scholarly genealogical literature, or cite it indirectly (i.e., without reading it) or out of context. One final point: Reconstructing medieval family groups from scratch using primary records might seem like reinventing the wheel to some, but in addition to helping prevent errors (and identifying places where additional documentation is needed), it can also be an important learning experience. Any project director wants to pass judgement on the work of others ought to demonstrate first that they are capable of doing such research themselves. Stewart Baldwin