On 7/4/2016 6:56 AM, WJH via wrote: > Never one to refuse a challenge, here are some starting thoughts. To my mind these could apply to any genealogical "wiki" more-or less irrespective of its specific purpose. Obviously, most of your items have the potential to generate long separate discussions. I will make some brief comments on a few of them and some general comments. > b. multiple alternates for elements such as dates, places, names etc. (FS - P) I'm not sure exactly what this means. If it means that alternate spellings, etc. should be indicated, then there should be an effort to keep it from cluttering things too much. If it means providing alternates in cases of genuine controversy, then I believe that the entry should be "unknown" ("uncertain", etc.), with a separate discussion of the issues. > d. merging that preserves data as alternates (FS - N) If done right to begin with, there should be little need for merging. When necessary, merging should be done with extreme care, one individual at a time, with reference to the primary sources in case of conflict. In cases of controversy, reasonable merging cannot be done reasonably by someone unfamiliar with the primary evidence, and any data that is clearly wrong should not be kept (or should be placed in a clearly marked "trash bin"). > e. bitlock style data history to ensure auditability (FS - P) I have no idea what that is. > f. data deletion to require justification (FS - P) "No known source" should be sufficient reason for deletion (or temporarily placing in a "trash bin"). > i. provision for alternate "universes" where data is capable of more than one interpretation, ideally with ability to view side-by-side (FS - N) Maintaining data structures and allowing the flexibility needed for specific cases are in clear conflict here. I'm not sure how you could do this, as the presentation of complicated issues almost always needs to be organized by some creative process if it is to be comprehensible. > j. automatic recognition / translation of old and new style dates in appropriate periods (FS - N) Clearly, it is a good idea to have a O.S./N.S. label, but in my opinion, "translation" from O.S. to N.S. is almost always a bad idea, except where some sort of chronological discussion is necessary. (Conversions from other calendars, like the Islamic or Jewish calendars, are another story). Enough flexibility has to be left for unusual cases. Before, after, and "boxed-in" (between) dates need to be supported. Dates obtained by calculation should be clearly labelled, e.g., b. ca. 1535 (calc.), or b. ca. 1535 (aged 26 in 1561 [with source]). A clear distinction needs to be made between approximate dates (dates proven by known evidence to be close to the indicated date, usually indicated by "about" or "circa/ca.") and estimated dates (dates estimated by more general considerations, such as generation length or typical age at marriage, usually indicated in the scholarly genealogical literature by the word "say", e.g. "b. say 1520"). > 4. data elements to be colour-coded according to source: e.g. reddish - no source; orangey - secondary source; yellowy - primary source transcription; greeny - primary source viewed; bluey - primary source image attached. Fixed formats for sources defined by moderators. (FS - N). In my opinion, including any unsourced information in the principle account of an individual is a very bad idea, especially for medieval individuals. If you really want a color scheme, how about reddish for a secondary source which does not cite primary evidence, and "orangey" for a secondary source which gives the primary evidence (preferably cited indirectly). In the medieval period, if you can't find a pre-Internet published source for some information in somebody's GEDCOM file, then it is almost certainly bad information, and one of the points of such an exercise is to help prevent the spread of bad information. If you want to keep the information as a potential clue, why not have a separate "scratch-paper" page for the individual (preferably with a prominent in-your-face dire warning that the information might be false) containing unconfirmed information that might be used as a finding aid (and perhaps as an incentive for those who do have the proof to produce it). Such a page (or a separate page) might also include disproven or discredited information on the individual, perhaps with a "red flag" attached to data that is suspicious but has not actually been disproven. However, in the medieval period, unsourced dates of birth or places of birth or death are usually just guesswork, and should just be scrapped to start with, unless there is some indication that the data might provide a useful clue. > 5. A separate place name database, subject to similar rules as regards sources, with different matrices e.g Saxon shires & hundreds, Domesday, English historic, English administrative pre-1973, registration districts etc. with relevant dates. (A particular bug-bear of mine stemming from being a Geographer at heart) (FS - P) And if you are going to do this, separate lists of office holders, with appropriate links, seems like a good idea. > 6. ideally linked archive of sources in public domain to permit internal rather than external links. (FS - P) A huge project in itself. However, as appealing as items 5 and 6 are, spreading the efforts too thin seems like a recipe for disaster. If high quality is the main goal, it is best to start small. One additional issue that is unavoidable in genealogy, and especially difficult in any thinly documented period or place, is the problem of identification. Many (probably even a majority) of the errors which occur in genealogy are due either directly or indirectly to the incorrect identification of individuals of the same (or similar) names appearing in two or more different records. When genealogists are trying to verify research done by others in the primary sources, the step that they are most likely to overlook is verifying that the John Smiths appearing in two different records were in fact the same man. When genealogists are researching a large number of individuals with the same surname, one of the problems they face is sorting out who was who, and even when the identifications are all correct, the reasoning behind them is not always adequately spelled out. Even for the experienced genealogist writing up his/her results, deciding how much discussion to devote to identification of individuals can be difficult. Some such discussions would amount to "beating a dead horse" (e.g., a man with an unusual name appearing in many records in a given location, with no indications of a namesake in the area), and sometimes the identifications are clear from the other evidence presented (at least to an experienced genealogist), even if they are not explicitly discussed. A good "reference" website would need a reasonable way of dealing with the identification of individuals. If an identification is well documented, but not reasonably clear in the context of the evidence mentioned (e.g., in cases of significant geographical moves), there should at least be a comment to see such-and-such a source for proof that the John Smith in record #1 is the same as the John Smythe in record #2. Cases involving significant disagreement among scholars regarding identification are much more difficult, and extremely numerous in medieval genealogy. See, for example, the page on Hunroch, count of Ternois, in the Henry Project. Some way needs to be found to deal with such difficult situations, preferably without catering to the fill-in-the-blank mentality of many amateur genealogists. The more that amateurs are forced to think independently about such issues, and the more they are led to the better sources which allow them to do so in an informed manner, then the more they might become experienced enough to make worthwhile contributions to such a project. There is one obvious question that hasn't been mentioned yet. Who would host such a website and provide the necessary funding? Who would have ultimate control? Any profit-based website is likely to eventually get corrupted by forces that are more interested in profit than in accuracy, and any genuinely high-quality genealogical website is going to have to reject the work of many amateurs, some of whom would not be happy that their "ancestors" were rejected (i.e., "angry customers"). I think that some sort of academic-based support would be necessary to ensure the necessary quality. Stewart Baldwin