WIKIPEDIA vs "The Good Old Days" and Use of encyclopedias as a source Please note: The Genealogical Proof Standard http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html "Acceptable conclusions, therefore, meet the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS). The GPS consists of five elements:" FIRST LISTED: "a reasonably exhaustive search" A reasonably exhaustive search must now include WIKIPEDIA, because: (1) According to Alexa, it is Global #8 http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500 (2) Wikipedia Trend History is up http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 (3) For the United States alone, 12/10/07 - Nielsen Online Reports Topline U.S. Data for November 2007 http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_071210.pdf Wikipedia had a Unique Audience of 49,617,000, with average time per person 17 minutes 17 seconds. (4) Articles cited from the Internet must be credible, reliable and current. Key word: "current", makes Wikipedia indispensable. It is the responsibilty of the professional researcher to make proper "analysis and correlation of the collected information" and "bring to resolution" "any conflicting evidence". Cyndi's List.com is hurting bad, according to the recent information she sent out to her readers. RootsWeb.com is subject to the powers that be, changing all the time. On the other hand, there is Wikipedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy Wikibooks, at: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Genealogy Wikibooks is as "naked as a jaybird". http://www.answers.com/topic/naked-as-a-jaybird?nr=1&lsc=true Wiki, in its various forms, allows the genealogist and family historian to potentially create for free, an independent niche in the world, outside of being "the glove in the hand of the historian", as an auxiliary science thereto; with added access to a worldwide audience. We serve only those with whom we can actively communicate. If other current resources fail, what is next? ANSWER: Wikipedia (obviously); the hand that can honor the profession. I am not interested in nitpicking. Evaluate the Internet, re: professional genealogy, as a whole. I repeat: There appears a clear usage trend, indicating Wikipedia will over time, become central to higher education curriculum and teaching methods, in all language formats, worldwide. As an example of research potential, note: Surnames & Names http://academic-genealogy.com/archives.htm#Surnames Look For: SURNAME GENEALOGY SEARCH: . . . note: * Wikipedia(R) - Category: Surnames A to Z Sample: Mills (surname) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills_%28surname%29 English plurals http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mills mill - Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mill >From the List of most common surnames, I might find it of value, if family records indicated Hispanic connections, that: " Molina - 99,000 (0.25%) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molina (Mill, place with mills; toponymic) Elizabeth (Given Name) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth And of course, the research tool: Wikipedia articles: All pages beginning with Elizabeth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Elizabeth Let us try that with "genealogy" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Genealogy&namespace=0 Let us try that with "Mills" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=mills&namespace=0 Quite powerful if you are looking for a place and don't know the full location or setting. Perhaps the real problem is the fact that so many individuals on this list are biased, to the point that they have really not taken the time to find out what is available and how it can be used effectively. It would be wonderful to see some group take on the Wikipedia "elephant" and provide a state of the art, excellent serial article in "x" Journal(s). This could provide the future framework of integration into the submission process, bringing together societies and organizations, as well as individual professionals, for meaningful lasting contributions. With proper ongoing over site, the information will remain credible over time, from generation to generation. OBSERVATIONS ON CREDIBILITY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility . . . (a) perceptions of credibility differ across web site "genres": news organization web sites are rated highest in terms of message, sponsor, and overall site credibility, and personal web sites lowest; . . . http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/past_research.php This observation weighs heavily against the family history profession having online credibility, and should be a first area of change. . . . [Second, traditional notions of credibility as coming from a centralized authority (e.g., a teacher, expert, or author) and individualized appraisal processes are challenged by digital technologies. Electronic networks make it easier to rely on the collective to assess information. Credibility assessments as constructed through collective or community efforts (e.g., wikis, text messaging via cell phones, or social networking applications) emerge as a major theme in recent discussions, and phrases like "distributed" and "decentralized" credibility, the "democratization of information," and "collectively versus institutionally-derived credibility" are common. At core is the belief that digital media allow for the uncoupling of credibility and authority in a way never before possible. . . .] Please evaluate the real world, and stop attacking the information messenger. Respectfully yours, Tom Tinney, Sr. Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004 Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions] Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory http://www.academic-genealogy.com/