A simple 20 minute interview over Skype can dismiss flakes. Dabblers will not show up and flakes will be more obvious. I once was given a job (volunteer, mind you) copy-editing for a multi-lingual database, where I had to interview so I do not think it unreasonable in 2016. Dina On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Stewart Baldwin via < gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> 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". 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. > > 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. > > 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 have already seen too many cases > where someone has copy-pasted my work and then butchered it in various > ways. People doing higher quality work might be less reluctant to > contribute material to a project managed by individuals competent to > deal with such material. > > Stewart > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >