Harold, I should say that I didn't necessarily felt left out of the community but a couple of people certainly made me feel like being a newbie was a terrible thing. I was a but put off by not feeling welcome, especially when the people in question didn't know my background. I do cringe when I consider the few missteps along the way. To correct a few things, I have put my Ancestry trees in private mode but will share the information with full disclosure about the source material, and whether I have confidence in the material as a whole. I have reached the point where I have moved beyond the basic "dates, names and places" to include "context, background and community", which seems a more satisfying pursuit. I realize that the article was in fact relatively neutral in tone. The discussion surely indicates some vulnerabilities and insecurities within the field. I also realize fully that we are trying to be academic while helping out the curiosity seekers. ~Kim >________________________________ > From: Harold Henderson <librarytraveler@gmail.com> >To: Kim Ostermyer <kim_ostermyer@yahoo.com> >Cc: Transitional Genealogists forum <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:20 AM >Subject: Re: [TGF] Bad Karma, newcomers > > >Kim -- > >Thanks. Your path sounds a lot like mine. (It really was fun being a name collector!) But I never had much of a feeling of being put out of any club that I wanted to be a member of. If and when I received criticism I tried to make use of it . . . when I understood it at all. These days, the judgments I see made are not exclusionist -- they're made not because people are not certified or accredited, but because they just aren't doing good work. > >The article that started all this discussion named no names, but did name some basic standards, and left it up to the readers to decide where they fit in. Nothing elitist about that in my book. (Plus, anyone who is certified or accredited knows good and well that it does not in itself prevent them from making mistakes or having bad judgment.) More at http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com/2012/11/misteaks.html. > >Harold > > > > >On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Kim Ostermyer <kim_ostermyer@yahoo.com> wrote: > >I have a confession to make-- >> >>I used to be one of those genealogists mentioned. I was a genealogy greenhorn at one point and it was a lot of fun. I had adrenaline rushes when I was doing my drive-by genealogy. I enjoyed the casual aspect of the hunt. I've matured a lot in my ten years of researching--what I am capable now is a wholly different level than what I did even five years ago. I've become more technical and more deliberate in my research, and certainly more analytical. >> >>I don't have credentials but I am fully aware that I am not a hobbyist, amateur or hack. In the view of some, no credentials would seem that my abilities are mediocre at best, which is a slippery slope to be on. Drawing a line in the proverbial sand and casting out potential clients, colleagues and fellow seekers because of their inexperience is unkind and counter-intuitive to say the least. I think it's important to have standards to aim for, but not to such a degree as to dissuade the curious. >> >> >>I have always had a concern over the undertow of the elitism that I was exposed to early on. For someone new to the field, it certainly would seem a bit daunting and disconcerting. While I understand the desire to have a field full of academic types with credentials and licensing, I feel it is unrealistic to expect this of lay genealogists. I wonder if the advocates for these standards quantify their everyday conversations with sources. I don't mean to imply citing sources while chit-chatting, but having a realistic expectation that a conversation is based on what could be considered facts and not the further repeating of the opinions of someone else. >> >> >>I'm not on the restricting lay genealogists from joining the party, nor will I join up. Even as I am aiming for certification myself, I know that such a level of scholarship is atypical. If we assume that Malcolm Gladwell's theory that it takes 10,000 hours to master something, then most lay genealogists will never reach that point. This is what Bill Gates has to say on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsGihiSE6sM. I know that I am beyond the drive-by genealogy because when I tell people what I am researching, I have to break it down into simpler terms. >> >> >>Just a few thoughts. >> >>Cheers, >>Kim Ostermyer, futurecertified genealogist >>The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. >>------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > >-- >Harold Henderson            midwestroots.net >Research, Writing, and Brickwall Dismantling from Northwest Indiana >Regularly Researching at the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center > >Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 >Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks >of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the >Board to identify its program of genealogical competencyevaluation >and used under license by the Board’s associates. > > > > > >

Everyone was ______(insert appropriate term here)__________ in the beginning. For fifteen years I was alone in the wilderness and I did not understand source, much less evidence, but I had a lot of facts. But my house was built of cards on a foundation of sand. And then I learned that there were rules, but they were funny rules. They were rules you could chose to adhere to, or not. At first I stumbled among the petunias, but I found faith in myself and my ability. Misplaced as it might have been at the time. And then I gained courage, and I presented myself to the special people. And I found that my fear of them was misplaced. That they welcomed me, even with my arrogance and my bravado. And they helped me. And it was good. And I learned that genealogy is like the world, everything, almost, is a normal curve. That there are angels on one end and donkeys on the other, but that generally in the middle are people that help me and I help them, as I can. I avoid donkeys. They tend to be stubborn, kick a lot, and believe they are the angels. But you know the angels. The angels have a funny thought. They think we all should be angels. The donkeys, they are afraid of you. You are competition. The angels love competition, because it makes us all better. So when you think someone is being a donkey you have to examine the situation. Because what you think might be a donkey, really might be an angel helping you to become an angel. None of us is perfect, not even the angels. If you think you are perfect in your genealogy you might be a donkey in the making. You have to look at your palace and see if it really is a house of cards. Genealogy is a wide field of endeavor with millions of people with opinions about things. Among them are people with badges. The badges are unimportant to you. A badge does not grant anyone special powers. A badge does not make a donkey anything other than a donkey with a badge. Angels don't need badges, but they like to test themselves and keeping a badge is a good way to do that. But it does not make them a better angel. They are just an angel with a badge. And by definition, an angel does not know they are an angel. If they think they are an angel, by definition they are not. So my advice is that if you pay attention to the first two chapters, live by the words source, evidence and fact, and recognize the relationship that exists between them you will be fine. And the next time you are at a conference and you see a group of people that you think are people that understand the first two chapters really well, sit down and talk with them. And if they aren't having a meeting, you will be welcome. That meeting part is always a problem. But you will figure it out. This is by far the easiest group in the world to join. It let me be a member in 1985 and it helped to make me a better genealogist. So evaluate the criticisms. If they are donkey, chalk it up to mean spirit and move on. Dwelling on it just foolish, donkeys are every where. But if you can see their point then learn from it and move on a better genealogist. And that is what really counts, becoming a better genealogist. C. On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Kim Ostermyer <kim_ostermyer@yahoo.com>wrote: > Harold, > I should say that I didn't necessarily felt left out of the community but > a couple of people certainly made me feel like being a newbie was a > terrible thing. I was a but put off by not feeling welcome, especially when > the people in question didn't know my background. > > I do cringe when I consider the few missteps along the way. To correct a > few things, I have put my Ancestry trees in private mode but will share the > information with full disclosure about the source material, and whether I > have confidence in the material as a whole. > > I have reached the point where I have moved beyond the basic "dates, names > and places" to include "context, background and community", which seems a > more satisfying pursuit. > > > I realize that the article was in fact relatively neutral in tone. The > discussion surely indicates some vulnerabilities and insecurities within > the field. I also realize fully that we are trying to be academic while > helping out the curiosity seekers. > > ~Kim > > > >________________________________ > > From: Harold Henderson <librarytraveler@gmail.com> > >To: Kim Ostermyer <kim_ostermyer@yahoo.com> > >Cc: Transitional Genealogists forum < > transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:20 AM > >Subject: Re: [TGF] Bad Karma, newcomers > > > > > >Kim -- > > > >Thanks. Your path sounds a lot like mine. (It really was fun being a name > collector!) But I never had much of a feeling of being put out of any club > that I wanted to be a member of. If and when I received criticism I tried > to make use of it . . . when I understood it at all. These days, the > judgments I see made are not exclusionist -- they're made not because > people are not certified or accredited, but because they just aren't doing > good work. > > > >The article that started all this discussion named no names, but did name > some basic standards, and left it up to the readers to decide where they > fit in. Nothing elitist about that in my book. (Plus, anyone who is > certified or accredited knows good and well that it does not in itself > prevent them from making mistakes or having bad judgment.) More at > http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com/2012/11/misteaks.html. > > > >Harold > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Kim Ostermyer <kim_ostermyer@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > >I have a confession to make-- > >> > >>I used to be one of those genealogists mentioned. I was a genealogy > greenhorn at one point and it was a lot of fun. I had adrenaline rushes > when I was doing my drive-by genealogy. I enjoyed the casual aspect of the > hunt. I've matured a lot in my ten years of researching--what I am capable > now is a wholly different level than what I did even five years ago. I've > become more technical and more deliberate in my research, and certainly > more analytical. > >> > >>I don't have credentials but I am fully aware that I am not a hobbyist, > amateur or hack. In the view of some, no credentials would seem that my > abilities are mediocre at best, which is a slippery slope to be on. Drawing > a line in the proverbial sand and casting out potential clients, colleagues > and fellow seekers because of their inexperience is unkind and > counter-intuitive to say the least. I think it's important to have > standards to aim for, but not to such a degree as to dissuade the curious. > >> > >> > >>I have always had a concern over the undertow of the elitism that I was > exposed to early on. For someone new to the field, it certainly would seem > a bit daunting and disconcerting. While I understand the desire to have a > field full of academic types with credentials and licensing, I feel it is > unrealistic to expect this of lay genealogists. I wonder if the advocates > for these standards quantify their everyday conversations with sources. I > don't mean to imply citing sources while chit-chatting, but having a > realistic expectation that a conversation is based on what could be > considered facts and not the further repeating of the opinions of someone > else. > >> > >> > >>I'm not on the restricting lay genealogists from joining the party, nor > will I join up. Even as I am aiming for certification myself, I know that > such a level of scholarship is atypical. If we assume that Malcolm > Gladwell's theory that it takes 10,000 hours to master something, then most > lay genealogists will never reach that point. This is what Bill Gates has > to say on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsGihiSE6sM. I know > that I am beyond the drive-by genealogy because when I tell people what I > am researching, I have to break it down into simpler terms. > >> > >> > >>Just a few thoughts. > >> > >>Cheers, > >>Kim Ostermyer, futurecertified genealogist > >>The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > >>------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > > >-- > >Harold Henderson midwestroots.net > >Research, Writing, and Brickwall Dismantling from Northwest Indiana > >Regularly Researching at the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center > > > >Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 > >Certified Genealogist and > CG are proprietary service marks > >of the Board for Certification of > Genealogists® used by the > >Board to identify its program of > genealogical competencyevaluation > >and used under license by the > Board’s associates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Craig R. Scott, CG President & CEO Heritage Books, Inc. 229 Danagher Ct. Holly Springs, NC 27540 800 876-6103 919 363-6218 Fax 410 558-6574 crscott@HeritageBooks.com Visit www.HeritageBooks.com Blogs: As Craig Sees It Stump Craig http://www.facebook.com/pages/HeritageBookscom/40913510672 CG (Certified Genealogist) is a service mark of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office.

Every time that this discussion comes up, I am reminded that genealogists do not live in isolation in a bubble. Every profession, every avocation, every fraternal organization has some version of these ongoing discussions. best regards, Dee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig R. Scott, CG" <crscott@HeritageBooks.com> To: "Kim Ostermyer" <kim_ostermyer@yahoo.com> Cc: "Transitional Genealogists forum" <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 8:31:46 AM Subject: Re: [TGF] Bad Karma, newcomers Everyone was ______(insert appropriate term here)__________ in the beginning. For fifteen years I was alone in the wilderness and I did not understand source, much less evidence, but I had a lot of facts. But my house was built of cards on a foundation of sand. And then I learned that there were rules, but they were funny rules. They were rules you could chose to adhere to, or not. At first I stumbled among the petunias, but I found faith in myself and my ability. Misplaced as it might have been at the time. And then I gained courage, and I presented myself to the special people. And I found that my fear of them was misplaced. That they welcomed me, even with my arrogance and my bravado. And they helped me. And it was good. And I learned that genealogy is like the world, everything, almost, is a normal curve. That there are angels on one end and donkeys on the other, but that generally in the middle are people that help me and I help them, as I can. I avoid donkeys. They tend to be stubborn, kick a lot, and believe they are the angels. But you know the angels. The angels have a funny thought. They think we all should be angels. The donkeys, they are afraid of you. You are competition. The angels love competition, because it makes us all better. So when you think someone is being a donkey you have to examine the situation. Because what you think might be a donkey, really might be an angel helping you to become an angel. None of us is perfect, not even the angels. If you think you are perfect in your genealogy you might be a donkey in the making. You have to look at your palace and see if it really is a house of cards. Genealogy is a wide field of endeavor with millions of people with opinions about things. Among them are people with badges. The badges are unimportant to you. A badge does not grant anyone special powers. A badge does not make a donkey anything other than a donkey with a badge. Angels don't need badges, but they like to test themselves and keeping a badge is a good way to do that. But it does not make them a better angel. They are just an angel with a badge. And by definition, an angel does not know they are an angel. If they think they are an angel, by definition they are not. So my advice is that if you pay attention to the first two chapters, live by the words source, evidence and fact, and recognize the relationship that exists between them you will be fine. And the next time you are at a conference and you see a group of people that you think are people that understand the first two chapters really well, sit down and talk with them. And if they aren't having a meeting, you will be welcome. That meeting part is always a problem. But you will figure it out. This is by far the easiest group in the world to join. It let me be a member in 1985 and it helped to make me a better genealogist. So evaluate the criticisms. If they are donkey, chalk it up to mean spirit and move on. Dwelling on it just foolish, donkeys are every where. But if you can see their point then learn from it and move on a better genealogist. And that is what really counts, becoming a better genealogist. C.