Dear Stewart I think all your replies are very reasonable, so just quickly: >Even if a database "improves" to the point where 90% of the pages are reasonable and 10% of the pages are nonsense, that is still pretty bad, especially when claims of "accuracy" are badly overstated. I do not disagree. I have not argued that all projects eventually need to be big. Actually, I think genealogy can benefit from small focused collaborations in critical ways, which large projects will always struggle with, for reasons like those you mention. You are right for example that Wikitree has that awkward thing about surnames. It is a special part of the design now, and is justified as making surname searches easier. I find it grating and I believe that the website should have a google-like search possibility, rather than a surname one. I would say though that Carolingians are a particular challenge for this type of project. The sources are not simple to use, as you know. I think it can and does do better in the 1300-1500 area which is better covered by easy-to-use sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage. If someone to ask me of an online collaboration which shows what can be done in a more focused way I would point to the Henry project. Projects like the Henry project can also help improve other online collaborations as a source itself (properly cited and all that). Regards Andrew

On 3/07/2016 7:15 AM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Dear Stewart > > I think all your replies are very reasonable, so just quickly: > > >Even if a database "improves" to the point where 90% of the pages are > reasonable and 10% of the pages are nonsense, that is still pretty bad, > especially when claims of "accuracy" are badly overstated. > > I do not disagree. I have not argued that all projects eventually need > to be big. Actually, I think genealogy can benefit from small focused > collaborations in critical ways, which large projects will always > struggle with, for reasons like those you mention. > > You are right for example that Wikitree has that awkward thing about > surnames. It is a special part of the design now, and is justified as > making surname searches easier. I find it grating and I believe that the > website should have a google-like search possibility, rather than a > surname one. > > I would say though that Carolingians are a particular challenge for this > type of project. The sources are not simple to use, as you know. I think > it can and does do better in the 1300-1500 area which is better covered > by easy-to-use sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage. > > If someone to ask me of an online collaboration which shows what can be > done in a more focused way I would point to the Henry project. Projects > like the Henry project can also help improve other online collaborations > as a source itself (properly cited and all that). This misses the point that the value of the Henry Project is largely that it does not rely on "sources like Richardson and Complete Peerage". As for the alleged "challenge" of the Carolingians, secondary works by Werner and Settipani are every bit as easy to use (and at least as likely to be misleading) as Complete Peerage, while they usually make their primary sources much easier to identify than Richardson. The second-last paragraph in the post above is the sort of statement that exasperates and discourages the conscientious genealogists whose co-operative efforts are being solicited for the proposed wiki. Peter Stewart