>there's a different type of perceived elitism between traditional genealogists and the professional software people. I do hope the perception is not too grounded in reality because synergy between those disciplines is the way of the future. It is not productive for software people to criticise genealogists for their lack of understanding about issues with storage, data modelling, globalisation, standards, etc. Nor is it productive for genealogists to criticise software people for their lack of knowledge about research methodology or real-life scenarios. In reality there are many people who have a foot in both camps. Tony, your observation made me smile. In 1988, the late, great, and beloved Dick Pence--one of the pioneers of "computer genealogy"--wrote an article he titled "Them vs. Us." The thrust of it was this same "perceived elitism." The "elite," he pointed out, expected software designers to {shudder, please} provide documentation on family group sheets. They did not understand the issues that software engineers dealt with but they felt superior because they cited their sources. In all his years of publishing his genealogical findings, he swore, no one had ever asked him for the source of anything he wrote; but, if they were to do it, he could go to a drawer and retrieve it. &c &c &c. Dick had the courage to write his views and they led to useful dialogue. Actually, we should say that the pair of "elite" genealogists to whom he was reacting--Dave Greene at TAG and the late Marsha Rising--also displayed courage in expressing *their* views in the NGS conference panel that upset Dick. The years since then have shown the value that can come from that open dialogue, when genealogists from different background and experiences help each other understand the other point of view and work together toward solutions that bridge their perceived "divide." Those years, in fact, have seen phenomenal advancement in the capability of genealogical software. They have seen wonderful advancements in the *mindset* of genealogists who now realize that identifying their sources isn't some mechanical act they have to do because somebody says so--but, rather, a powerful tool to help them analyze their findings and solve their research problems. No, the differences of opinion over software capability vs. meticulous research practices haven't gone away. The differences of opinion over what constitutes reliable research haven't gone away. Nor opinions as to whether everyone even needs to employ the standards that help to guarantee reliable research. Nor opinions as to how long a "grace period" beginners need before they make the effort to "learn what they are doing." We've made great progress, but education is a process that's never done. There's always a new influx--and for that we can be grateful. Tony has pointed to the most productive future, IMO: >"Criticising individuals is not the way to solve that situation though. ... For instance, many Web sites and books try to educate, but most people who are just starting will be unaware of them. ... The information on the Internet is there but there's probably too much of it, and its uncoordinated and opinionated content would give most newbies "information overload". The industry should be able to help solve these issues but we're very fragmented - especially across the globe. We are all part of that *industry,* even those of us who have been "perceived" as "elitists." Perceptions are hard to break, on both sides. But, as in politics, so long as we rally behind the "them vs. us" mindset, we accomplish little. When we (as Dick went on to do) make the effort to understand where others are coming from, this field moves forward. (Just my 2 cents worth--or should I say: 2 pences' worth? :) Elizabeth --------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained