On Sat, 11 May 2002, Dennis Muncrief wrote: > We are talking about the entire usgenweb project, not Oklahoma. There have > been many across the U.S. that went into a tail spin and just deleted their > entire archive or moved submitted data from other people without permission > from the submitter. That is what I'm talking about - the entire U.S. > > Dennis Two ladies in GAGenWeb deleted everything from THEIR OWN SERVER because of the Rootsweb/Ancestry merger, wiping out 4 GAGenWeb counties. Those were county web sites, not the archives. If you wouldn't call it archive whenever someone deletes their county genweb page, it would not be so confusing. Do you really think you can prevent that? David > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David W. Morgan" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 6:46 PM > Subject: Re: [OK-Coordinators] #14 > > > > > > Dennis, how long were you an archivist? > > > > It is hard to figure out what you are talking about, and what > > specific incident you are talking about. I don't know of any > > archivist going off the deep end. > > > > People get mad and quit, but that is not the same thing as going > > crazy or going off the deep end. > > > > As for changing the password for the archives, I request a > > password change whenever it is necessary, for the TXGenWeb Archives. > > Since we only have one password for 254 counties, sometimes we have > > to ask for a password change more than we'd like. Most of the people > > that work in the archives are not going to delete everything when they > > leave. If that is what you are working on with the bylaws committee, > > to tell the USGenWeb Archives how to protect the files, you are just > > wasting your time. Find something more productive to argue about. We > > are going to ignore you, anyway. (I speak for myself) > > > > As for the county web site, I have my data in the archives, plus I > > have it in the the search engine on the county web side, plus I have > > Google blocked from archiving my site. Just in case I get mad and > > leave, nobody is going to harvest it, except for the queries, which > > were there before I was (1997) and the others which are on the > > GenConnect/Ancestry boards. I also got a password change for my > > Rootsweb site, so it would no longer have one of those easy to > > guess passwords. It is my web space, and I plan to keep it. > > > > I haven't done all this for my county web space in TXGenWeb. I > > am under no pressure there, and we let the SC in Texas know that > > we want NO NEW RULES loud and clear! LOL What is more, he listened > > to us! > > > > David > > > > On Sat, 11 May 2002, Dennis Muncrief wrote: > > > > > Things are a little different now that the internet has exploded on the > > > scene. There is a new definition of "copyrightable" data. Facts, > names, > > > dates are "facts" and are not copyrightable. If a volunteer submits a > > > cemetery registry, for example, the "facts" of the registry are "up for > > > grabs", it is that simple. However if there are any photos, narration, > > > "unique" organization of material, that is copyrightable. The trouble > with > > > "rogue" archivist is that they can go "off the deep end" any moment. > > > > > > It is my thought that any submitter MUST make sure that their data is > > > correctly posted at the time of submission. It is their responsibility > as > > > well as the archivist to give credit where credit is due. There is no > way > > > to "idiot proof" the world. It is the responsibility of the State > > > Coordinator or Archivist to police these people on the "fringes of > reality" > > > who begin to believe the data is theirs personally. The SC or SA could > go > > > in and change the password or something to prevent the rogue archivist > from > > > deleting or moving the data. > > > > > > It is my understanding that the submitter will be contacted if the > material > > > is to be REMOVED. Any submitted data belongs to the website (archive) > and > > > not the individual archivist. > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Ron" <[email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 5:03 PM > > > Subject: [OK-Coordinators] #14 > > > > > > > > > > I have a real problem with amendment #14. As it is now, when a cc > leaves > > > all > > > > material not supplied by that cc stays with the site. Under the > proposed > > > > amendment, all contributors/submitters have to be contacted before > their > > > > material can continue to be used. The problems I have are: (1) That's > > > going > > > > to be a nightmare to implement, and (2) All a cc has to do is not > indicate > > > > and/or remove the submitter's contact information and all the material > > > will > > > > be forever lost as it can't transfer without being able to contact the > > > > submitter. > > > > > > > > Dennis, if you see this, what is the rationale for this proposed > > > amendment? > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > Ron Henson > > > > Choctaw Co. Coordinator Oklahoma GenWeb > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~okchocta > > > > Yahoo IM okchocta > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] David W. Morgan Honolulu Hawaii > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm > > > > > > [email protected] David W. Morgan Honolulu Hawaii http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm