The references to "GMI contributors concerned about someone stealing all their work" may sound as if the Guild is being held hostage by a few possessive or neurotic members. Anyone who questions the current policy and believes in full access might like to consider the following questions: 1. Which other member has a legitimate interest in accessing ALL the information you have synthesised from data about "your" name? 2. What is to stop someone (acting as an individual or acting on behalf of an organisation - commercial or otherwise - perhaps even a competitor) joining the Guild and lifting ALL of EVERY contributor's information, and doing with it whatever they like? Looking outside the Guild, "stealing the work" is shorthand for a package of concerns about making information available on the internet before a study is complete. It is impossible to conduct a comprehensive surname study without contact with living relatives. Only they can know the more recent life events in their extended family, and they are usually glad to provide that detail in exchange for help with their earlier lineage. Anything which discourages such contact seriously damages the study, and that is what online availability threatens. In today's online world, it is possible for people to collect huge amounts of data without lifting a single book from a shelf and searching it, and without contacting the person whose analysis transformed the data into information. This drive-by data-gathering discourages the contact we need. Further, online databases encourage people to go fishing for their ancestors. A person may or may not have done good research leading them to be looking for a particular ancestor. The person they find in an online database may or may not be the searcher's correct ancestor, but too often they will seize that name and add it to their tree, and later on they will publish that tree online, adding another mythical tree in cyberspace. It is folly for us to contribute to these bad habits. We need a RELATIONSHIP with anyone doing family history research on "our" name. We want to examine the research they have done so far, partly to assess their thoroughness, and partly because we can learn from their material, especially about more recent life events. And we want to gently correct any errors we see and offer suggestions, free of charge, of what their correct ancestry may be, with suitable qualifications or warnings. We may try to recruit the enquirer to our DNA project. We may even get an ongoing collaborator. This way, everyone wins, and the integrity of the data we have collected and synthesised is protected. I do understand the feel-good factor people may experience by publishing their work-in-progress (hopefully having due regard to privacy issues) but it is wise to consider all the possible consequences. Of course, those who publish will say that they still get contacts, but how does one know how many other people did not make contact because they thought they had found what they wanted, or didn't find it and went elsewhere? When the study's data gathering and synthesis is complete and there is no need for new contact, that is the time to consider publication. In the interim, scattering juicy lures everywhere one can is perhaps a wiser choice. And of course we should remember that, once published on the internet, material can never be unpublished. Dick Chandler in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada

> In the interim, scattering juicy lures everywhere one can is perhaps a wiser choice. And of course we should remember that, once published on the internet, material can never be unpublished. Dick Chandler in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada< My study is my juicy lure - I have a website that is as open as I can make it on the site hosting it and still be included in their onsite search. I invite people to contact me with corrections and additions. It seems to work quite well for me and I have gotten some very valuable help over the years. ANd we have resolved some very major issues to the satisfaction of all concerned though some of us were surprised how things turned out. A lot of legends have had holes shot in them. And we are still collecting data. BUt I know when I land on a website that requires registration before I can see anything - I usually leave. I don't think I am atypical. I like the fact that the new website search is giving teasers of the kind of thing GUild members do by having numerical results of the index searches and a direct jump to the profile page if it exists. I would like it even more if at least one index was not behind the pay wall - I of course suggest my 'baby' the WWM but the truth is - it was designed for just such a duty - it does not give complete data on a marriage - it only requires the two names, year and country - just enough to wet the interest ----and if you want more there is a member number for contact. And I see no reason that members without studies could not contribute - as lang as they are prepared to respond to questions about the entered marriage. They have a member number. Marie (GOONS 5318) Bringing the world together one surname at a time. 'A Pepler Name' http://pepler.tribalpages.com 'Hedgerow - the Ancestors' http://cranberry.tribalpages.com Pepler DNA Study http://www.familytreedna.com/public/pepler-ow/ 'Scroops, Scropes and Scroopes' http://dentonlk.tribalpages.com ________________________________ From: DickChandler via <goons@rootsweb.com> To: goons@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [G] profile page references to Index records The references to "GMI contributors concerned about someone stealing all their work" may sound as if the Guild is being held hostage by a few possessive or neurotic members. Anyone who questions the current policy and believes in full access might like to consider the following questions: 1. Which other member has a legitimate interest in accessing ALL the information you have synthesised from data about "your" name? 2. What is to stop someone (acting as an individual or acting on behalf of an organisation - commercial or otherwise - perhaps even a competitor) joining the Guild and lifting ALL of EVERY contributor's information, and doing with it whatever they like? Looking outside the Guild, "stealing the work" is shorthand for a package of concerns about making information available on the internet before a study is complete. It is impossible to conduct a comprehensive surname study without contact with living relatives. Only they can know the more recent life events in their extended family, and they are usually glad to provide that detail in exchange for help with their earlier lineage. Anything which discourages such contact seriously damages the study, and that is what online availability threatens. In today's online world, it is possible for people to collect huge amounts of data without lifting a single book from a shelf and searching it, and without contacting the person whose analysis transformed the data into information. This drive-by data-gathering discourages the contact we need. Further, online databases encourage people to go fishing for their ancestors. A person may or may not have done good research leading them to be looking for a particular ancestor. The person they find in an online database may or may not be the searcher's correct ancestor, but too often they will seize that name and add it to their tree, and later on they will publish that tree online, adding another mythical tree in cyberspace. It is folly for us to contribute to these bad habits. We need a RELATIONSHIP with anyone doing family history research on "our" name. We want to examine the research they have done so far, partly to assess their thoroughness, and partly because we can learn from their material, especially about more recent life events. And we want to gently correct any errors we see and offer suggestions, free of charge, of what their correct ancestry may be, with suitable qualifications or warnings. We may try to recruit the enquirer to our DNA project. We may even get an ongoing collaborator. This way, everyone wins, and the integrity of the data we have collected and synthesised is protected. I do understand the feel-good factor people may experience by publishing their work-in-progress (hopefully having due regard to privacy issues) but it is wise to consider all the possible consequences. Of course, those who publish will say that they still get contacts, but how does one know how many other people did not make contact because they thought they had found what they wanted, or didn't find it and went elsewhere? When the study's data gathering and synthesis is complete and there is no need for new contact, that is the time to consider publication. In the interim, scattering juicy lures everywhere one can is perhaps a wiser choice. And of course we should remember that, once published on the internet, material can never be unpublished. Dick Chandler in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Canada _____________________________________________ RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message