On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 5:32:06 PM UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: Thanks Andrew It always amazes me how frequently things boil down to a matter of definition! > I disagree with James that familysearch is a wiki. I think that is a > confusing and unconventional way to use the word, but of course you are > free to try this usage out and see if it sticks. Thanks! For me the "wiki" bit of wikipedia and wikitree refers to the underlying process by which they operate rather than the software. In both cases, the process features: a single, publicly available output, editable by many people (who may be otherwise unknown to each other), subject to community rules regarding their eligibility to edit, and viewed as a common good (i.e. contributors waive their copyright). As such they are the product of (usually) large-scale collaboration on the internet and I agree would be impossible without the software. However, I'd say it's the process rather than the software that is definitive. > If wiki means any group > of people working together on the internet then it includes 3 people > making a google spreadsheet together. In my mind, only if their work is publicly available and for the common good > I personally think if the wiki > software is not involved, it is not a wiki. Not sure I agree. For me software is a tool that meets a need or want. By analogy, I'm an accountant and my profession was preparing spreadsheets (albeit relatively small and simple ones, frequently in pencil) long before we had software to help us. Oh happy days when you had to stick pages of "14-column" together to get beyond column "N"! > And I think I am right to > say that this is the convention followed by most people. > Don't know, I hadn't really considered the point before... > > It is true the word can also be used to refer to one wiki, and by > extension the people working together on one wiki site, using wiki > software, the “community”. > > Obviously any community should ideally have some sort of shared aim, but > I am also not sure I agree with James’ words “essentially a wiki since > it shares a single view of "the truth" to which all members contribute”. > If this means a wiki is any joint effort (and that the shared truth is > just whatever the texts in the wiki end up saying) then I find this to > be a similar mistake to saying familysearch is a wiki. (Definition too > broad). See above. The big problem with the "pure" wiki approach (i.e. all editors are equal) is that objective truth will always be subject to corruption by those who believe differently, based on subjective influences be they religion, hearsay, the newspapers, politics or whatever. > Why use the word that way? If it means that people in a wiki all > agree with each other, well then I think such things do not exist. > (Definition too narrow.) I actually think (like a good Marxist) that a good wiki will almost by definition reflect debate and difference in its framework and editing rules and I'd be the first to say that the structure and processing assumptions of familysearch don't always facilitate the fact that some facts may be uncertain e.g. dates or place of birth for individuals, especially in earlier periods. > I think neither definition is pointing at what > is distinctive and recognizable in a wiki. It is not just any online > collaboration. I agree see above > It is not a form of collaboration where there is a lot of > unanimity. I agree, see above > It does not have to be large scale collaboration. Less convinced about that > Again I > think it is much more meaningful to say that the defining characteristic > of wikis is the software platform, however it us used. There can be 2 > people active on a wiki, or 2 million. Hmmm. > The English language has other > terms for other kinds of online editing. Please educate me! What term would you use for what I've defined above? BTW, while dealing with this topic, the familysearch "wiki" appears to be a subset of wikipedia (i.e. a collection of articles) which may use wiki software, but to my mind lacks the element of common purpose that part-defines a "wiki". Instead it's a supporting tool for their true "wiki" of creating a single family tree for humanity (unrealistic and unobtainable though that may be...) *********************************************** > > > James, concerning the pre-1500 certification on wikitree (it is not on > wikipedia) Sorry, my mistake, I meant wikitree! > there is also a pre-1700 level. Both involve answering some > questions about things like how to name a source properly and so on, and > then having someone approve you. While fairly nominal, this has had a > big impact on the pre-1500 editing quality. It will not be obvious yet, > because this policy is only a few months old. Probably much more > important was the decision to stop the possibility of editing en masse > using large gedcom files. Now, in pre-1500 profiles you have to edit one > person at a time. Just making it less interesting to the less-focused > editors has a big impact. (Human nature, you know.) But you can see that > these policies could be set much stricter in a really quality-focused wiki. > Which I think brings me back to the point that we are at a particular point in the early stages of the development of on-line genealogy, where the focus for most people like me is the processing of the enormous amounts of new data that are now available to ensure that their personal tree is as accurate as possible (and in my case help identify far-flung cousins). Alongside this is the move from personal storage of information to shared, online storage, best represented by the growing realisation that personal gedcoms are not a valid source for online databases... Once that stage is over and as I think I said in an earlier post I can see it taking several years, the focus will shift to quality and accuracy (and the associated debates - and so the rules for managing those debates, controlling editing rights etc.) but these will relate to a much wider group of people than the medieval English gentry / aristocracy. In fact I'd probably say that from the evidence presented in this thread and my experience on Familysearch, that process has already begun... Regards James

Sorry, on a practical note If I wanted to get a particular individual's details right in Familysearch e.g. Sir Richard Conyers of South Cowton, last of his line who was active in the 2nd half of the 19th century, married to Alice Wycliffe, either the son or grandson of Sir John Conyers, general to Henry VII, and father of a raft of daughters plus possibly another Richard who must have died young since the estates went to the girls. Where should I look for the latest / best research? Regards James