wiki
A Methods Reader
Please, dear list administrator. Has this subject not run it's
course?
Thank you
[ I stripped off the poster's name and approved this to the
group. There may still be some useful things to say about
wikis, but let's try to move beyond some of the "It is.
It is not. It is. It is not." discussions that we've been
having ... ;) Thanks, Mod ]
"A Methods Reader" <nos...@address.com>
singhals
As I've said /repeatedly/ -- my issue is not with the format (i.e.,
wiki vs non-wiki).
I firmly believe there is a limit, probably in the single digits, to
the number of places any specific piece of info or data _needs_ to
be, on-line. Others appear to be arguing that the limit -if there
is one- is closer infinity.
Looking strictly at the US --
each of the 50 individual states maintains an official website; and
on each of those the name of the capital city is given.
The same info (name of the capital city) is given on at least 5
other sites, PLUS the official county-government website. For some
states -- say West Virginia? -- that's more than 60 entries for the
same bit of data.
Moving into the originally-digital arena, the names of the states
and their capital cities, and their counties and each of their
seats, is on Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, USGenWeb, yahoo maps,
teraserver, google-earth, mapquest...
For West Virginia, we're now over 67 depositories for the same bit
of info.
On the USGenWeb, every state links to neighboring states.
There is little reason to believe that the data on any new site
(wiki or not) is likely to be more reliable than the state's own
official government site. I don't believe West Virginia needs a
100th site naming Charleston as the state capital (as it has been
since the 1870s). What it was before it got to Charleston is
interesting trivia which fails to affect the fact that ALL
government docs that survive are currently *IN* Charleston (NOT
Charles Town).
WHO is putting up the site is irrelevant. What method of
presentation or format they chose is also irrelevant.
It's like cars -- a person can drive only one at a time, so owning 3
is overkill.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Q
Hi Cheryl
Not to beat a horse that's not in a race, one of the advantages of
a wiki conversation is that when everyone else tires of the
conversation, you can take onto another page, an no one else HAS to
be annoyed---everyone can still read the conversation if they want
to, but its not in their face all the time. We can do that in this
format only by going off line---but then, those (few in number
perhaps) who are actually interested in the question, are cut out
completely.
But that said, and if the list mistress would prefer to see this
thread killed, AND you'd like to continue the discussion---I can
make a nice home for it as a forum on a wiki (G).
That said, I understand your issue here. There is, in fact mammoth
duplication on the web. Wiki's per se have nothing to do with that,
It is the nature of the beast. So let's not talk about wikis. Lets
focus on the actual concern. Rampant duplication of information on
the web.
I don't agree that "duplication" is necessarily its a bad thing. To
use your analogy--yes its true that you can only drive one car---at
a time. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have two cars. And
there are probably very good reasons why you might want to have
access to a pickup truck, and still make use of the Chevrolet
Malibu, or the BMW, or the SUV. All do essentially the same thing,
but they do it differently, and serve different purposes. Some do
it better than others.
And in any case, there's simply no hope of eliminating such
duplication. But like cars, web sites that don't work very well, or
don't serve the needs of the community, are not going to thrive.
Unvisited sites are eventually going to die off. And the first site
up is not necessarily going to be the site that survives. Poorly
implemented sites are a bit like Yugo's. After awhile, you don't
see them around anymore.
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
singhals
Thank you, no, I can't say I'm interested enough to go to the
trouble of a blog.
Even if there is little hope of eliminating duplication, one can
still deplore it. I'm not sure any state's official site is ever
going to be unvisited, nor will the teraserver (or is it
terraserver?) languish in wall-flowerdom. OTOH, I'm not at all sure
I quite grasp why the background goings on of presentation would
affect the bare fact in my illustration: the words Capital and
Charleston do tend to just sit there whether they got there by HTML,
JS, Java, XML, Active-X or some yet-to-be-invented system -- unless
of course someone ijit wanted to animate the word Charleston with
appropriate music and movement (come to think of it, that might be
entertaining enough to go see).
It strikes me as all-round better for genealogy-on-the-web for new
sites to stick to new data, new documents, new info, rather than to
present common info in a new format.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Debbie Freeman
Hello All,
Speaking for myself I find wiki's such as Werelate to be valuable.
There are some location's that are historical that wiki's work well
for.
An example is Kentucky County, Virginia.
Or obscure subjects like religions, etc.
My two cents
Debbie Freeman
"Debbie Freeman" <free...@comcast.net>
Bob Melson
> > > As I've said /repeatedly/ -- my issue is not with the format (i.e.,
> > > wiki vs non-wiki).
> > >
> > > I firmly believe there is a limit, probably in the single digits, to
> > > the number of places any specific piece of info or data _needs_ to
> > > be, on-line. Others appear to be arguing that the limit -if there
> > > is one- is closer infinity.
> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread any more than I
already have, but I just can't help myself.
Time, Newsweek and US News all report the same information in much
the same format, week after week after week. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC,
CBS, NBC all report the same news, in very much the same way, day in
and day out. Even the daily newspapers report the same national and
international news from day to day. Would you then suggest that we
combine'em all into one super newsmagazine, one mega-newspaper and
one universal news broadcast? After all, they're all doing the same
thing in much the same way and, by your logic, there's no need for
redundancy.
I agree that there's a finite limit to the number of places one is
ABLE to go for some information. At the same time, though, I don't
believe there should be a limit on the number of places one CAN go.
Yeah, there's only so much that can be said about Charleston, only
so many variations on the theme. But how many of those sources have
a different slant, some tidbit the others don't? I really think
that's the fallacy of your argument: while there's almost infinite
repetition of the basic information on any given topic, it's always
possible to find some place where that odd, seemingly unimportant
tidbit is lurking that'll make all the difference. One size
definitely does not fit all.
Swell Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford
Bob Melson <mel...@earthlink.net>
singhals
>>>>As I've said /repeatedly/ -- my issue is not with the format (i.e.,
>>>>wiki vs non-wiki).
>>>>
>>>>I firmly believe there is a limit, probably in the single digits, to
>>>>the number of places any specific piece of info or data _needs_ to
>>>>be, on-line. Others appear to be arguing that the limit -if there
>>>>is one- is closer infinity.
>
>
>>Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>
> I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread any more than I
> already have, but I just can't help myself.
>
> Time, Newsweek and US News all report the same information in much
> the same format, week after week after week. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC,
> CBS, NBC all report the same news, in very much the same way, day in
> and day out. Even the daily newspapers report the same national and
> international news from day to day. Would you then suggest that we
> combine'em all into one super newsmagazine, one mega-newspaper and
> one universal news broadcast? After all, they're all doing the same
> thing in much the same way and, by your logic, there's no need for
> redundancy.
>
> I agree that there's a finite limit to the number of places one is
> ABLE to go for some information. At the same time, though, I don't
> believe there should be a limit on the number of places one CAN go.
> Yeah, there's only so much that can be said about Charleston, only
> so many variations on the theme. But how many of those sources have
> a different slant, some tidbit the others don't? I really think
> that's the fallacy of your argument: while there's almost infinite
> repetition of the basic information on any given topic, it's always
> possible to find some place where that odd, seemingly unimportant
> tidbit is lurking that'll make all the difference. One size
> definitely does not fit all.
>
Good point, Bob.
Let me come at it this way --
An unadorned statement of the name of the Capital of West Virginia
is an uncopyrightable statement of fact. Regardless of where one is
in the world, the bald fact is Charleston is the Capital of WVa.
There hasn't been much argument about it since the 1870s and no way
to slant it.
At least with the newspapers and news mags, there is local content
added and one highlights a point the others downplay. The fact that
one includes details or slants not in the others differentiates them
from the type sites I'm on about.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
STAFA
>> > > As I've said /repeatedly/ -- my issue is not with the format (i.e.,
>> > > wiki vs non-wiki).
>> > >
>> > > I firmly believe there is a limit, probably in the single digits, to
>> > > the number of places any specific piece of info or data _needs_ to
>> > > be, on-line. Others appear to be arguing that the limit -if there
>> > > is one- is closer infinity.
>> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Folks;
Genealogy is a very living field (take as a pun or not, it is a
fact). I consider myself a baby in the field (only been researching
since 1964) as our collective genealogies go for hundreds of
generations. I have been watching the many messages flowing on this
subject. There are novices and experts on the pro's and con's, now
for my two cents on the subject, I welcome more sources. It is true
that a lot is the same data presented over and over and I, many
moons ago learned that the smallest snip of data can open a whole
new avenue. One example is my great uncle Thurman Smith. I had
spent many hours in courthouses and libraries, then the internet
came along and I found many references on the internet, much that
was what I had posted and other folks had utilized (that is the
reason for posting on the internet, pass the information). I read
all instances of the subject of any search.
To make a long story short - I got a hit that was oblivious to me,
data that I had posted. A snip of data popped out at me "HE SERVED
ON THE LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY POLICE FORCE". New data eureka. I had
an old picture from grandma's papers, but no one knew who it was
(grandma had passed over 40 years prior.
I made contact with the historian of the Louisville, KY police
department, I provided the badge number in the photograph and
learned that it had been assigned to my great uncle, however very
little data was gained, except he had resigned after serving less
than 2 years on the force and accepted a better paying position with
the Artic Ice Company of Louisville.
If you like a good book, normally you read it several times, I do
the same for Genealogy Data.
Repetition is one of the greatest learning tools.
Charles
"STAFA" <st...@bellsouth.net>
Donna (History Buff) M. St. Felix
> > > > As I've said /repeatedly/ -- my issue is not with the format
> > > > (i.e., wiki vs non-wiki).
> > > >
> > > > I firmly believe there is a limit, probably in the single digits,
> > > > to the number of places any specific piece of info or data _needs_
> > > > to be, on-line. Others appear to be arguing that the limit -if
> > > > there is one- is closer infinity.
> <snip>
> > Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>
> have, but I just can't help myself.
>
> Time, Newsweek and US News all report the same information in much the same
> format, week after week after week. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC all
> report the same news, in very much the same way, day in and day out. Even
> the daily newspapers report the same national and international news from
> day to day. Would you then suggest that we combine'em all into one super
> newsmagazine, one mega-newspaper and one universal news broadcast? After
> all, they're all doing the same thing in much the same way and, by your
> logic, there's no need for redundancy.
>
> I agree that there's a finite limit to the number of places one is ABLE to
> go for some information. At the same time, though, I don't believe there
> should be a limit on the number of places one CAN go. Yeah, there's only so
> much that can be said about Charleston, only so many variations on the
> theme. But how many of those sources have a different slant, some tidbit
> the others don't? I really think that's the fallacy of your argument: while
> there's almost infinite repetition of the basic information on any given
> topic, it's always possible to find some place where that odd, seemingly
> unimportant tidbit is lurking that'll make all the difference. One size
> definitely does not fit all.
>
Our media is now owned by only six corporations.
They get the news off of the news wires.
A lot of the news you hear on the various newscasts are actually Press
Releases and they have to be paid for.
Example: When you hear something about a smoke study, they are all
financed thru the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, formed by Johnson
& Johnson who owns at 260 pharmaceuticals (makers of the no smoke
products). The financing is done in the form of grants to
organizations ALSO formed or funded by grants by the same. The
press releases or news goes to the wires and the media outlets pick
up the most social issues and only QUOTE what was wrote in the press
release. Your newscaster does not rewrite them.
Here is one of a few of where your news and press releases begin at.
It is NOT free.
[ All, this has the potential for digressing into a political
discussion. Let's not go there. ;) I'll silently drop any
posts that don't bring this back to genealogy ... - Mod ]
"Donna \(History Buff\) M. St. Felix" <dstf...@erinet.com>
D. Stussy
I am not saying that they should be combined. What I am saying is
that the search should return the original, not the copy, when the
original is available. However, wikis have been used to usurp
original information in search engine results - thus returning the
wiki with a higher ranking than the original it is identical to,
even when it is clear that the wiki has copied the text from (and
hyperlinks to) the original web page. It is abuse if not a
copyright violation or outright plagiarism.
"D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
singhals
> They get the news off of the news wires.
> A lot of the news you hear on the various newscasts are actually Press
> Releases and they have to be paid for.
>
> Example: When you hear something about a smoke study, they are all
> financed thru the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, formed by Johnson
> & Johnson who owns at 260 pharmaceuticals (makers of the no smoke
> products). The financing is done in the form of grants to
> organizations ALSO formed or funded by grants by the same. The
> press releases or news goes to the wires and the media outlets pick
> up the most social issues and only QUOTE what was wrote in the press
> release. Your newscaster does not rewrite them.
>
> Here is one of a few of where your news and press releases begin at.
> It is NOT free.
>
> http://www.prnewswire.com/
>
> [ All, this has the potential for digressing into a political
> discussion. Let's not go there. ;) I'll silently drop any
> posts that don't bring this back to genealogy ... - Mod ]
>
Awwwww, Brian!!!
I'd _pay_ to see someone tell Dan Rather or John Chancellor they did
rip'n'reads...or tell Helen Thomas or Gwen Ifill (sp?) they write
press releases. Some charity could raise 16 tons of money selling
tickets to either event!
Cheryl {My GF had emphysema when he died of liver cancer, and my GM
his wife smoked for 75 years and died of CHF.}
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Bob Melson
On Saturday 24 May 2008 15:31, Donna (History Buff) M. St. Felix
(dstf...@erinet.com) allowed as how:
<snip>
>> Time, Newsweek and US News all report the same information in much the
>> same
>> format, week after week after week. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC all
>> report the same news, in very much the same way, day in and day out.
>> Even the daily newspapers report the same national and international news
>> from
>> day to day. Would you then suggest that we combine'em all into one super
>> newsmagazine, one mega-newspaper and one universal news broadcast? After
>> all, they're all doing the same thing in much the same way and, by your
>> logic, there's no need for redundancy.
>>
<snip>
>
> Our media is now owned by only six corporations.
> They get the news off of the news wires.
> A lot of the news you hear on the various newscasts are actually Press
> Releases and they have to be paid for.
>
<snip>
>
> "Donna \(History Buff\) M. St. Felix" <dstf...@erinet.com>
Donna,
I really do think you've missed the point I was trying to make by my
analogy.
Recall that folks on t'other side of the discussion are saying that
the new wiki being fielded by the LDS' Family Search organization is
unnecessary because it's redundant and bound to repeat information
found on, say, Cyndi's List or in other wikis or blogs or <insert a
place of your choice here>. I contend, however, that regardless of
the potential for duplication and repetition, that one more place to
look for information is a plus, not a minus, and tried to illustrate
that using the similarities between news mags, netword/cable
newcasts and the daily paper of your choice as an analogy: let's
have just one mega-newscast, one national news paper, one news mag
because all the current crop duplicate one another and repeat the
same "news" in very much the same terms. Combining'em, y'see, will
eliminate duplication and repetition.
But, sez I, there's always that one obscure place we stumble on
that, though duplicating everybody else, manages somehow to have a
unique point of view or an bit of hitherto unseen or unheard
information about the very thing you're interested in. And THAT's
my point: by discouraging new and possibly innovative wikis or
blogs or websites because "it's already been done", we may be
limiting what we can learn about Charleston, WVa, or Austin, TX, or
good ol' Uncle Mortimer who, y'know, they kept locked in the attic
because ... [Mod: my bow to getting back to genealogy.]
And now, as the sun sinks slowly in the West, we bid farewell to
this tropical paridise and ...
Snappish Ol' Bob
Bob LeChevalier
> I am not saying that they should be combined. What I am saying is
> that the search should return the original, not the copy, when the
> original is available. However, wikis have been used to usurp
> original information in search engine results - thus returning the
> wiki with a higher ranking than the original it is identical to,
> even when it is clear that the wiki has copied the text from (and
> hyperlinks to) the original web page. It is abuse if not a
> copyright violation or outright plagiarism.
>
> "D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
That is the problem with the search engine, not the wiki. The
people who operate the search engine can prioritize things however
they like (probably to make more money faster). They have no
obligation to point to an original for the limited number of fields
like genealogy where people care.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org