David, I have read your, et al., comments... You make some crucial points, and while I was surprised at the callousnous of some, the belittling of the problem, the gloss-over solutions... Fact is, you describe the problem-- any solutions, besides "Now children, stop it?" The idea to only submit what you know to be documented fact would work-- 99% of the time. But documents are sometimes in error, and I'd rather have a GB of "maybes" than a database someone has climbed onto a stack-of-Bibles with that has an error-- somewhere. There have been times when I accepted documentation as gospel-- for a year or two, until there was overwhelming/sufficient indication otherwise, that "that just can't be so-- it doesn't fit with all this other." Point is, I could have submitted, confidant that it was incontravertable fact. I like your depiction-- "I used to prowl around courthouse attics and weed covered graveyards to uncover a choice treasure now and then with great anticipation and joy." Why did you stop? I just described to my (extended) family how I often claw a mile to get a foot. Why not take those leads and determine if they are are fact or fiction-- whether they indeed fit into your tree? At 09:39 AM 4/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >To all genealogists, > > I have been very concerned lately about the destruction of our hobby. The >fate of genealogy is being written as we speak and it is in your hands to >stop it. > >WHY THIS SUDDEN ALARM? > > Our data is being destroyed by two cancers known as "CUT AND PASTE" and >"MERGE". > >ONLINE GENEALOGY > > I began my online genealogy in 1981, the reason for purchase of my first >computer. Soon after I reasoned that if I could just afford that 3MB hard >drive at Radio Shack for only $5000.00 my problems would be over, now at >6GB I am running out of space. I used to prowl around courthouse attics and >weed covered graveyards to uncover a choice treasure now and then with >great anticipation and joy. Now I can get a hundred times more info in an >hour or two. So much so I haven't even had the time to read most of it, let >alone put it into my own database. Which leads me to my point. > >CUT AND PASTE > > Being involved in keeping a Family Website, I get many requests for >information, and some criticism as well. There are two camps. One thinks >every fact needs to be on the Two Tablets Moses brought down from the >mountains. The other thinks that if it is in ASCII it's proof enough. I >have submitted my own tree to the WFT Project, most of which was my own >work. Hoping to find corroborating works I check other trees often, only to >discover my own work pasted into someone else's tree. > >THIS PRACTICE IS DESTROYING ONLINE GENEALOGY. > >FIRST, it gives undue validity. When one piece of erroneous information >becomes 1000 pieces of the same erroneous information, it takes on a life >of it's own and an enearned "truth". >SECOND, it clutters up the internet search engines with hundreds of links >to the same bogus info. When someone does try to verify a fact, they can't >wade through the countless references. >THIRD, file sizes are increased to the point of unmanageablility with the >same, tired, redundant information, even when true. This makes sharing >impractical. >FOURTH, it discourages people with genuinely obtained first generation info >from releasing it. >FIFTH, if carried to it's logical conclusion, everyone will have the same >file. All of them wrong. >SIXTH, it makes compiling huge trees all too easy. >SEVENTH, it makes it impossible to tell whether you are seeing a >corroborating opinion of your data or a repeat of it. > >EXAMPLES > >Great database services, like GENSERV and the World Family Tree project, >although well conceived and of great potential, are being ruined by well >meaning genealogists who seed them with redundant information gathered from >those very same databases. > >Private websites, including my own, have been swamped by large file sizes >which are largely repeat information. (This was a result of my own policy, >which I have rethought, so no criticism intended) > >Believe it or not I have been offered "Family Trees" in excess of 75 MB and >over 125,000 names. I foolishly submitted some trees to add to this pile of >spaghetti. > >WHAT CAN WE DO? > > I propose creating a guide for online genealogists. A compilation of >voluntary "rules of the road". Netiquette for the Genealogist. > > To this end I am offering a few sample suggestions of my own to get the >ball rolling. Please send your comments, criticisms, suggestions, pros and >cons to me personally. (I do not subscribe to ALL the lists above) After >compilation of the ideas, I will submit them for a vote. Success will be >determined by the level of participation. Please submit ideas by April 24th. > >SUGGESTIONS > > If you have undocumented info to share, state that it is speculation. If >you receive that information, paste it into your own file if you choose, >but DO NOT redistribute it with your file. Instead, keep it as a separate >entity. > > As a general rule, do not combine other people's data with your own files >that you redistribute. Keep a file for your eyes only and another for >distribution. Distribute only work which you have done yourself from >primary sources, or have independently verified from primary sources. Do >not simply pass along someone else's data because they have it documented >either. > > Do everyone a favor and pass along transcripts of primary documents. > > If you find documents or trees on a website, download and keep it because >it may evaporate unexpectedly, but do not redistribute it. Instead, if >someone asks for it, check on it's availability and send them a link. > >SAMPLE SUBJECTS AND CATEGORIES > > Etiquette; File contamination avoidance; Source Documentation; Passing on >other's data under what conditions; Submission to databases; Merging trees; >Merging scraps of data; Requesting info; Providing info; Submissions to >redundant websites or databases; Should we pass secondary info at all or >just the source?; How about an unlinked but searchable family group sheet >database, each submitted sheet required to be nearly complete and well >sourced, and containing parents and children of the husband and wife? Any >interest in an online index of primary documents with the cost of >membership being to submit one? > >SEND ME YOUR IDEAS > >Thank you for your time, >Dave > >THE KEYSTONE PROJECT - A PENNSYLVANIA CARD CATALOG of GENEALOGY FILES >In it's infancy, please help! http://www.stonecabin.com/keystone >__________________________________________________________________________ >David H. Smith, Sr. Bensinger Family Genealogy >[email protected] http://www.stonecabin.com/bensinger > >----------------------------------------------- > Lost your welcome message? >Send GET PENNSYLVANIA-ROOTS-L WELCOME to [email protected] for another copy. > > "Water simply flows around obstacles it encounters." "Chance favors the prepared..." FROM: Michael Milton Mason <[email protected]>