Thank you for a common sense answer. Jan T ---------- > From: CAhobbies@aol.com > To: GEN-NYS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Genealogy: Methods (internet & "otherwise") > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 12:35 PM > > I've just read several messages in response to the CNET articles on "internet > genealogy". Here are my 2 cents worth.... > > 1) These topics often turn into black and white discussions - an either/or > approach to internet or traditional research methods. Who said it had to be > a choice? I use "both" - and for different reasons. > 2) There are advantages and disadvantages of using "all" research methods. > 3) Personally, I "like" having options. (and we can all use all the options > we can get - especially for some of our more "hidden" ancesters!!) > > Guess the best I can share with you all is this. I love genealogy. (now, > "that's" profound, isn't it?) The hunt. The stories. The people I meet. > The history I learn. And more.... > > The problem with the CNET articles is not the online resources they > described. It was that it was not "balanced" with some common sense - to let > especially "new" family researchers know that it takes "checking, checking > and more checking" to get sometimes just "one, tiny detail" right! It didn't > point out the "buyer beware" part of "online trees" and what-have-you. So > while it might get some people excited to see all the things available - it > did so with no "safety net" of common sense..... > > Online access, however is a "big topic". Are we talking about access to the > IGI? A person's website and posted family tree? CDs? Tombstone > transcriptions? Census indices? Passenger lists? Surname discussions? > Mailing lists? Message boards? Lists of history links on the web? Library > or archive catalogs? > > Again, it is not the "content" that is the issue... Much like "what you find > at the library or town hall or funeral home" is not the issue. The issue is > "what methods" - and "what sources" we researchers use - for what reasons - > and how we balance the tools at our disposal. (and how we "judge" what > weight to put on what bit of information we find...) Shall I even go so far > as to say "what we do about the inconsistencies" we find? <g> > > I will say that online access to "people" yields things like this very list. > It allows a forum for fellow researchers to meet each other and collaborate. > There are volunteers all over the country - putting time into getting > databases of information online for all of us to access. I applaud their > efforts. I can share with others what I've found so far - what book or film > or archive I'm going to try next - and brainstorm with peers on "ideas" to > try out. This is wonderful!! > > Electronic exchanges of any type have also "sped up" our world. Thus, just > as "good things" happen and spread more quickly - so also do the haphazard > things! Thus, common sense. Plus, I tend to have a "cup is half full" > mentality, anyway - so prefer to "use the good parts" of any new tool I find > - and cut the wheat from the shaft as the saying goes... > > Know I rambled a bit here - but in the midst of wanting to see a balance of > old and new methods - understanding the good/bad sides of each - I'd also > like to see (in addition to the CNET articles of the world) - the message > conveyed to "folks out there" that "searching for your roots" can be a > wonderful & fun experience. Even - as in my case - a lifetime obsession!! > <g> And the "getting there" is as fun and meaningful as the results!!!! > > debbie > (telling myself to stop talking now... thanks for listening...) > CAhobbies@aol.com > > > ==== GEN-NYS Mailing List ==== > Have you considered joining the Rootsweb Genealogical Data > Cooperative? > http://www.rootsweb.com/