FamilySearch.org now has wiki, forums
James W Anderson
FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
The wiki is in the second beta, and has a new URL from the first
one, and it is much easier to use now that they have moved from the
old software to MediaWiki software, which will be familiar to almost
everyone, since that is what Wikipedia is built on.
So think of this one as the 'Wikipedia' of genealogy and family
history. Alot of stub articles are up now all we need is the
content, and that content will include anything on how to find an
ancestor, emphasizing where records are at and how to use the
records.
If you don't find your county or province or whatever, create the
article. Here's the link.
Registration is free but is required to edit articles or post new
content. View some of the more fleshed-out articles to see what
they need.
The second one can be found at the 'User forums' link on the left
side of most pages. It is a forums site that is so new there are
not many threads yet, but it is expected to grow. This is going to
be the place where you can get problems solved in family history.
Registration is also free also, is needed so you can get off-board
replies to your questions from other users.
This one is locality based, right now it's just got larger regions,
but once it really gets going they will break it down to the state
or county level and eventually down to the county or other locality
level depending on user demand.
http://forums.familysearchsupport.org/index.php
James W Anderson <jan...@hotmail.com>
D. Stussy
> FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
>
...I'm not so certain that's a good thing....
bob gillis
> > FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
> >
Why not? Exlain year resasoning/reservations.
bob gillis
bob gillis <robert...@verizon.net>
singhals
> > > FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
> > >
> > > "James W Anderson" <jan...@hotmail.com>
> >
> >
> > ...I'm not so certain that's a good thing....
> >
> > D. Stussy
>
> Why not? Exlain year resasoning/reservations.
>
> bob gillis
I'm not D. Stussy, but I sort of agree with him.
For starters, it's duplicating the re-invention of the wheel.
Arranged by locale, it's pretty much duplicating the various GenWeb
projects, but with a big-tooth comb. Seems to me, contributing to
an already-existing project would be more cost-effective regardless
of whether you count costs as $$ or time or effort.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
D. Stussy
> > > > FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
> > > >
> > > > "James W Anderson" <jan...@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > ...I'm not so certain that's a good thing....
> > >
> > > D. Stussy
> >
> > Why not? Exlain year resasoning/reservations.
>
>
> For starters, it's duplicating the re-invention of the wheel.
> Arranged by locale, it's pretty much duplicating the various GenWeb
> projects, but with a big-tooth comb. Seems to me, contributing to
> an already-existing project would be more cost-effective regardless
> of whether you count costs as $$ or time or effort.
>
Misinformation, added by anyone, is reason enough. Just wait until
they get wikispammed. ;-)
Dave Hinz
> > FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
> >
> > "James W Anderson" <jan...@hotmail.com>
>
> ...I'm not so certain that's a good thing....
>
Nice thing about a wiki, is that it's a real-time manifestation of
the peer review process. Bad entries are improved, good entries
are improved, and vandalism is evident and easily corrected.
singhals
> > > FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
> > >
> > > "James W Anderson" <jan...@hotmail.com>
> >
> > ...I'm not so certain that's a good thing....
> >
>
> Nice thing about a wiki, is that it's a real-time manifestation of
> the peer review process. Bad entries are improved, good entries
> are improved, and vandalism is evident and easily corrected.
>
Uhhh, but whether one used a wiki or a guest book or something else
instead, the question of the necessity of the duplicative content
remains?
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Bill
> > For starters, it's duplicating the re-invention of the wheel.
The "re-invention" of the wheel?
Apart from that, please explain how it duplicates what has been done
on GenWeb.
> Misinformation, added by anyone, is reason enough.
Is the US GenWeb free of misinformation?
> Just wait until they get wikispammed. ;-)
And why is it that you think spamming is a particular problem on a wiki?
Bill <wmwi...@earthlink.net>
leoandlinda
I haven't done extensive exploring yet, but the FamilySearch wiki
seems to be mostly about research techniques, research in particular
areas, etc. Sounds like wiki-style 'peer review' should generally
work out.
I does somewhat duplicate efforts, though, with another wiki site
that has been developing for some time called WeRelate.org. They
may end up complementing each other, though. I suspect that the
FamilySearch wiki site will be more limited but very user-friendly.
The WeRelate wiki is extremely broad in potential scope, even
including individuals and trees if you so desire, but takes more
work to learn to use.
We probably will see links in particular subject articles leading
from one of these sites to the other........ That would be just
fine!
Linda S
leoandlinda <leoan...@provide.net>
D. Stussy
Yes, but not all wikis are good.
Although it concerned another topic (web sites and reviews),
about.com's wiki actually had a habit of usurping the search engine
ranking of the site each of its pages was reviewing. Google, when
notified of this, actually reprogrammed their search engine to
return the domain as the first entry when that domain is input as
the sole contents of the query string. I see NOTHING to stop that
sort of thing from happening with any wiki used as a pointer to
surname sites vs. the surname sites themselves. In this way, wikis
have been used to effectively steal content and page ranking from
primary sites - and that is the BAD/EVIL side of wikis.
Occasionally, I've seen generic genealogy sites rank higher in SERPs
than the specific site on that surname - where the surname is a rare
one where anyone who has it is related to the single family founder
(I know of a handful of these). Any genealogy-based wiki that has
surname entries is likely to do exactly the same thing, and that IS
bad - as the top entry should be the web site set up by the
descendants as a "one name study" type surname site.
...Well, you asked.
"D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
D. Stussy
> > Just wait until they get wikispammed. ;-)
>
> And why is it that you think spamming is a particular problem on a wiki?
>
> "Bill" <wmwi...@earthlink.net>
It's not, but it's easier to do with a wiki than some other bulletin
board.
Bill
> > > > FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
> > > >
> > > > "James W Anderson" <jan...@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > ...I'm not so certain that's a good thing....
> > >
> >
> > Nice thing about a wiki, is that it's a real-time manifestation of
> > the peer review process. Bad entries are improved, good entries
> > are improved, and vandalism is evident and easily corrected.
> >
> > Dave Hinz
>
> instead, the question of the necessity of the duplicative content
> remains?
>
Please explain why you think Wiki's duplicate content is any
different from the countless duplications that already exist.
singhals
Bill wrote:
> > > For starters, it's duplicating the re-invention of the wheel.
>
> The "re-invention" of the wheel?
First there was The Handy Book, and then the Redbook by Ancestry,
then LDS put out the Research Outlines, then the GenWeb -- all with
the same bare-bones grassroots info. Then LDS put the Research
Outlines on-line as d/l. IMO, that wheel doesn't /need/ further
refinement.
> Apart from that, please explain how it duplicates what has been done
> on GenWeb.
It points to local sources of info. The GenWeb points to local
sources. [EVEN if the LDSwikithingie points to film in the FHLC,
the SOURCE remains a local record.]
> > Misinformation, added by anyone, is reason enough.
>
> Is the US GenWeb free of misinformation?
No. I do seem to recall hearing though that two wrongs don't make a
right. Nor was that part of what *I* said; I quoted it by sloppily
not snipping.
> > Just wait until they get wikispammed. ;-)
>
> And why is it that you think spamming is a particular problem on a wiki?
Again, not /my/ remark. However, the GenWeb not being a wiki and
therefore only the county coordinator can post updates or
corrections, it would seem to be a lot less spam-able than any wiki
or similar reader-editable site.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
tgk...@aol.com
The most prevalent problem with wiki development is a lack of
"librarianship," if I can reuse a word with a variant of its
meaning. What I mean is that wiki can easily produce a wide number
of forums, often duplicating or nearly duplicating each others'
information. A strong editorial source --often a committee, due to
the relatively large volume of activity possible-- needs to be in
place to reign in duplications as they occur. ...To herd the cats is
a good metaphor.
What is good, though, is the FamilySearch requirement to register
and then log in prior to making entries. It remains to be seen if
the FS wiki pursues the continuing use of web-bots that help apply
publication standards to the articles on www.en.wikipedia.org (and
other languages that are part of the network).
I've seen more and more corporations assuming a wiki presence, at
least for their intranet activities, and the move has now come to
the online genealogy services. I guess it is about time, and it's
good to hear of a parallel from WeRelate.org. Eventually the WR and
FS wiki topics may mature into full articles that cross-reference
each other, more standard genealogy sites, and Wikipedia. (Perhaps
some of us have used and written for Wikipedia topics on genealogy,
and it may be the right time to start the cross-referencing
already.)
Thomas Kohn
Bill
> Bill wrote:
>
> > > > For starters, it's duplicating the re-invention of the wheel.
> >
>
> First there was The Handy Book, and then the Redbook by Ancestry,
> then LDS put out the Research Outlines, then the GenWeb -- all with
> the same bare-bones grassroots info. Then LDS put the Research
> Outlines on-line as d/l. IMO, that wheel doesn't /need/ further
> refinement.
I probably mis emphasized when I just pointed to "re-invention of
the wheel"---the full quote was "duplicating the re-invention of the
wheel".
But to address your final comment "the wheel does not need further
refinement", that might be true if you thought something like GenWeb
had perfected itself.
That's hardly the case---unless you are satisfied with folks placing
un-sourced information on its archives. Of course, that's also a
problem with Wiki's---genealogists being what they are, non-sourcing
is far more common than sourcing information---so bad habits common
to GenWeb, are also bad habits anywhere genalogy is done. But on
some wiki's there's a definite emphasis on pointing to the sources
used. Its a step in the right direction.
> > Apart from that, please explain how it duplicates what has been done
> > on GenWeb.
>
> It points to local sources of info. The GenWeb points to local
> sources. [EVEN if the LDSwikithingie points to film in the FHLC,
> the SOURCE remains a local record.]
I presume you mean local in the sense of "geographic". Somethings on
GenWeb are in fact sourced. But a lot of it is not.
>>> Misinformation, added by anyone, is reason enough.
>>
>> Is the US GenWeb free of misinformation?
>
> No. I do seem to recall hearing though that two wrongs don't make a
> right. Nor was that part of what *I* said; I quoted it by sloppily
> not snipping.
Well, if you want to trade quotes I seem to recall hearing something
about "the pot calling the kettle black".
> > > Just wait until they get wikispammed. ;-)
> >
> > And why is it that you think spamming is a particular problem on a
> > wiki?
>
> Again, not /my/ remark. However, the GenWeb not being a wiki and
> therefore only the county coordinator can post updates or
> corrections, it would seem to be a lot less spam-able than any wiki
> or similar reader-editable site.
Spam occurs on wiki's simply because they allows immediate and
direct access to virtually anyone.
Spam is mostly a problem on wiki's that are not active---and there
its a non-problem. In an active wiki, spam is typically detected,
reported, and corrected very quickly. It must be very frustrating
for the spammers to see their "creative efforts" turned into free
electrons within 30 minutes of posting. As a result spammers
usually tire of the game after a few rounds, and go looking for an
inactive wiki. That's no fun either because if its inactive, no one
see's it. Spammers are children (one way or another), and the
object is to be seen. No good at all posting spam where it isn't
seen---that's why its a non-problem on inactive wiki's---even if it
occurs, its not seen.
There are several thousand wiki's on the web. Most are tiny with
only a few pages. Typically, people get a great idea for something,
create a wiki (very easy to do---anyone can start one at no cost at
all)---but find that implementing that great idea is "a lot of
work"---and so abandon ship. There are at least four wiki's that I
know of which have substantive content, in addition to the LDS site.
The largest has approximately 2M articles, others are considerably
smaller, but still active. There are a number of other wiki's or
"wiki-like" sites which sometimes pose as genealogy sites, but their
main purpose is really something different (ie, they are really
social networking sites in one form or another--places to post
family photographs, family chat, etc.)
So, have you actually spent anytime working on a wiki?
Bill
Bill <wmwi...@earthlink.net>
singhals
>>>>>FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
>>>>>
>>>>>"James W Anderson" <jan...@hotmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>...I'm not so certain that's a good thing....
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nice thing about a wiki, is that it's a real-time manifestation of
>>>the peer review process. Bad entries are improved, good entries
>>>are improved, and vandalism is evident and easily corrected.
>>>
>>>Dave Hinz
>>
>>Uhhh, but whether one used a wiki or a guest book or something else
>>instead, the question of the necessity of the duplicative content
>>remains?
>>
>>Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>
> Please explain why you think Wiki's duplicate content is any
> different from the countless duplications that already exist.
>
Because it's (a) newer and (b) from an organization that ought to be
aware of the multiple other similar resources it's duplicating.
It's NOT because it's out of SLC. It would be needlessly
duplicative if it were from the DAR, the UDC, or the Mayflower
Society.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Q
> > > > > > FamilySearch.org has wiki, forums now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "James W Anderson" <jan...@hotmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > ...I'm not so certain that's a good thing....
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nice thing about a wiki, is that it's a real-time manifestation of
> > > > the peer review process. Bad entries are improved, good entries
> > > > are improved, and vandalism is evident and easily corrected.
> > > >
> > > > Dave Hinz
> > >
> > > Uhhh, but whether one used a wiki or a guest book or something else
> > > instead, the question of the necessity of the duplicative content
> > > remains?
> > >
> > >Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>
> >
> > Please explain why you think Wiki's duplicate content is any
> > different from the countless duplications that already exist.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Because it's (a) newer and (b) from an organization that ought to be
> aware of the multiple other similar resources it's duplicating.
>
> It's NOT because it's out of SLC. It would be needlessly
> duplicative if it were from the DAR, the UDC, or the Mayflower
> Society.
>
There is duplication all over the web. If it's an issue with a
wiki, it's an issue with lots of other places. Are you bothered by
that duplication, or is it only if it's done in a wiki environment?
Bill
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
singhals
D. Stussy
I'm bothered by wikis when the duplication they have causes them to
have a higher search engine page rank than the source they
duplicated.
Q
> I'm bothered by wikis when the duplication they have causes them
> to have a higher search engine page rank than the source they
> duplicated.
>
Please give us a specific example of this.
Of the four genealogy wiki's that I'm familiar with the focus in
each is on laying out family histories. (Of course, that's not the
focus on the LDS wiki where facilitating doing genealogy seems to be
the main point.) At anyrate, this is not at all dissimilar from
what's being done on Ancestry, GenCircles, etc, or on most peoples
personal family history web sites for that matter. I suppose when
they do a good job with their work, cite sources, quote passages
from wills, or a small section of a census record, a bible record,
etc. that this would generate some additional search engine hits in
addition to all those other folks citing those particular items.
Exactly how is it that this is a problem on wiki's and not in all of
the other places which are much more systematically duplicating
genealogical materials on their sites?
Q
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
singhals
The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
yet-another-central-depository.
The objection is not to the LDS doing it -- the objection is to
yet-another-central-depository.
The object is not to whether this is better'n that -- the objection
is to yet-another-central-depository.
Again -- the objection is to yet-another-central-depository.
Remember when Ancestral File was the *only* depository for GEDs?
Then along came the entity now known as Genealogy.Com, and the one
known as One World Tree, and the one known as WorldConnect, and now
when you search, you've got to hit all of them, and then figure out
whether M...@home.com and H...@isp.net and MY...@aol.com are the same
person, and which entry is newest.
If this keeps on the way it's been going for the past 3 or 4 years,
we're going to find ourselves tangled in an endless do-loop where
URL#1 refers us to URL #2 which refers us to URL#3 which sends us to
URL#4 which is really URL#1 and to URL #5 which is really URL#2 ...
and we STILL won't see what we were looking for. Having once chased
an obscure word through a high-school dictionary ending up back at
the word I started with, I can tell you that circular
self-references are truly frustrating.
You only need ONE place that tells you the vital records for Podunk
County Redneck State are in Whither Fork, or that 90+% of the 1890
census burnt in an office building in DC.
*THAT'S* what we're objecting to. Or at least, that's what /I'm/
objecting to here.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
D. Stussy
Ian Goddard
> The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
> yet-another-central-depository.
>
> The objection is not to the LDS doing it -- the objection is to
> yet-another-central-depository.
>
> The object is not to whether this is better'n that -- the objection
> is to yet-another-central-depository.
>
> Again -- the objection is to yet-another-central-depository.
>
>
> You only need ONE place that tells you the vital records for Podunk
> County Redneck State are in Whither Fork, or that 90+% of the 1890
> census burnt in an office building in DC.
>
And why was 90+% of the 1890 census lost in a single office building
fire?
Because it was the *only* central depository. Had there been copies
in a second repository elsewhere the loss would have been 0%.
Multiple repositories are great; multiple copies mean survival of
records. Bring 'em on!
--
Ian
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
Bob Melson
<snip>
>
>
> The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
> yet-another-central-depository.
>
> The objection is not to the LDS doing it -- the objection is to
> yet-another-central-depository.
>
> The object is not to whether this is better'n that -- the objection
> is to yet-another-central-depository.
>
> Again -- the objection is to yet-another-central-depository.
>
> *THAT'S* what we're objecting to. Or at least, that's what /I'm/
> objecting to here.
>
So, what you're saying is, for example, that because Ancestry has
multiple unique databases - for which you must pay for access -
there's no reason for other entities to have or develop similar
databases .. after all, that'd be another central-repository.
'Scuse me, but I think not. Yeah, y'gotta look in more than one
place to find information, sometimes there's some question about
just which version of a document is the "real thing". I can only
speak for myself, but I'd much rather have multiple places to poke
around in, more than one point of view, especially WRT wikis, and
the essential freedom to make up my own mind as to the validity and
appropriateness of a given piece of evidence.
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>
Q
> I already gave you an example, albeit a non-genealogical one:
> Aboutus.com
Possibly I missed something, but the only "example" I've seen is
your statement
Occasionally, I've seen generic genealogy sites rank higher in SERPs
than the specific site on that surname - where the surname is a rare
one where anyone who has it is related to the single family founder
(I know of a handful of these). Any genealogy-based wiki that has
surname entries is likely to do exactly the same thing, and that IS
bad - as the top entry should be the web site set up by the
descendants as a "one name study" type surname site.
You've explained the problem, but what i asked you for was a
specific example. ie, give the set of search terms that generate
the problem you describe....
However, that's more or less besides the point. I'm sure you can
run a search and find things that were taken more or less verbatim
from some other location on the web. The USGenWeb Archives is
filled with that kind of thing---things copied from some other
location, no acknowledgement, but obviously duplicative of what's
been done previously. And I suppose that if you did a search for
something like that the duplicated material on USGenWeb might show
up higher than the original stuff. To which I'd ask
a) why do you suppose the duplicated material got a higher ranking?
Probably because the site more closely matched what the person was
searching for, or had better optimized their site.
b) Does it really make any difference?
Not as far as finding the information is concerned.
Q
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
Q
Cherry Wrote:
> > The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
> > yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > The objection is not to the LDS doing it -- the objection is to
> > yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > The object is not to whether this is better'n that -- the objection
> > is to yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > Again -- the objection is to yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > You only need ONE place that tells you the vital records for Podunk
> > County Redneck State are in Whither Fork, or that 90+% of the 1890
> > census burnt in an office building in DC.
Good. The point is that the problem you are concerned with has
nothing to do with Wiki's per se, but is a concern on your part
about how genealogy is done on the web.
As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example he
gave fits that circumstance. I'm not sure its equally valid for the
web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have had
only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
There are, however, lots of other reasons why duplication is a good
thing. In particular, most of the duplication that you see,
especially at the scale of major genealogy services, is probably
driven by someone seeing a better way to do things. That could be
simply better site layout, or it could be something more intrinsic,
like how the information is captured, stored, and then served up to
the public.
An example of that lies with the US Census records. In
longtimeago-time USGENWEB came up with the nifty idea of having
voluteers transcribe the US census records. That project made great
strides, but its still far from complete---seems like that's been
going on close to ten years and they are still plugging away at it.
In the meantime Ancestry decided they could pay folks to transcribe
those same records. Very time consuming, very expensive....but the
ancestry project is done and the census are available (to
subscribers). To be sure, the product of the GenWeb effort is free,
and you have to subscribe to ancestry, but a basic subscription to
ancestry is relatively cheap (less than my internet service
providers charges), and its a complete data set. I might be able to
find what I want on USGenWeb, but probably not. They've got a long
way to go.
So I suppose your reasoning is to get rid of the USGenWeb census
project---incomplete though it is, it was still first little boy in
the classroom, so I guess it gets priority. No?
Unless of course, you think its Ancestry's census project that
should go. In which case you're advocating the destruction of a
truly valuable resource.
But in truth, I don't mind having the two things out there
duplicating each other. And of course there are other services and
places that have portions of the census records available. LDS, for
example, but there are others.
And that duplication serves a very worthwhile purpose---Sometimes
those busy bees at ancestry do botch a transcription---can't read a
name, or something of the sort. You can always check the images
yourself if there's a need, but I sort of like to go to the other
census transcription projects and check to see what they have.
Sometimes I'm in luck and its duplicated---then I can see if they
had the same problem as ancestry. Sometimes ancestry does the
better job, sometimes its somebody else. But the point is that this
is helpful.
Then there's the aspect of "a better idea". Sometimes the first kid
up doesn't really have a very good idea about how to present things.
The Rootsweb message boards have elements that I think are ill
thought through. The GenForum counter part works much better I
think is several respects. But if only Rootsweb was allowed to do
that job, we'd be pretty much stuck with whatever they gave us---I
personally would much rather work the GenForum message boards, but
perhaps that's a matter of taste. But I do have a choice. Choice
is good.
Old chinese saying "let a thousand flowers bloom". Some of those
flowers are going to be prettier than others, and those are the ones
you harvest.
Q
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
D. Stussy
I don't object to that. What I object to is when the COPY has a
higher preference ranking that its original. That is as bad (if not
worse) than search engine A indexing and offering first search
engine B's pages on a topic instead of going directly to the topic.
Also, with the census example, you're talking about identical copies
(if any had existed).
"D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
singhals
Ian Goddard wrote:
> > The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
> > yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > The objection is not to the LDS doing it -- the objection is to
> > yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > The object is not to whether this is better'n that -- the objection
> > is to yet-another-central-depository.
> >
> > Again -- the objection is to yet-another-central-depository.
>
> <snip>
>
> > You only need ONE place that tells you the vital records for Podunk
> > County Redneck State are in Whither Fork, or that 90+% of the 1890
> > census burnt in an office building in DC.
> >
> > Cheryl Singhals
>
> And why was 90+% of the 1890 census lost in a single office building
> fire?
Because it was the original and it was in use.
> Because it was the *only* central depository. Had there been copies
> in a second repository elsewhere the loss would have been 0%.
Well, no, the original would still be burnt, but you'd have an
alleged duplicate in some other repository. And, since the
1850-60-70 were triplicated, it's easy to see that 3 copies made
pre-Xerox-machine aren't necessarily duplicates of one another. A
Copy that isn't a Copy isn't significantly better than no copy.
Cheryl (wondering when they banned books like Red Book and
Handy Book)
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
leoandlinda
> > The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
> > yet-another-central-depository.
Yet-another-central-depository ........
I'm not sure that there has ever been anything like a 'central
depository', ever. Even for small geographies or specialized
research areas, or localized surnames. Not in pre-Web research.
Not in post-Web research. Never really has been such a thing.
Unless you can somehow make people contribute all possible relevant
information to a particular set of resources or websites, there will
be no 'central depository' that is effective or even partially
complete. Many will be full of information, and include great work,
and many are. But they will not have everything. They can't.
They don't expect to.
People will contribute information and sources and references and
research tips and geographical and historical information and family
data........ where they choose.
Yes, you need to search them all, if you want to find all the clues
available. It's very messy, true. But it is so very worth the
work!
Multiple repositories, multiple sources, multiple sites, multiples
references, multiple contacts with other researchers, arguments and
corrections, and discussions about places and migrations and trends
and people and times.........
Linda S
leoandlinda <leoan...@provide.net>
Q
> What I object to is when the COPY has a
> higher preference ranking that its original. That is as bad (if not
> worse) than search engine A indexing and offering first search
> engine B's pages on a topic instead of going directly to the topic.
Can't see that makes much difference.
> Also, with the census example, you're talking about identical copies
> (if any had existed).
Apparently you believe that two census transcriptions of the same
material are going to be identical.
They might be if they are exact transcriptions.
That's not likely given the scale of activities.
And the resulting transcriptions always contain errors.
So the duel transcriptions serve a very useful purpose.
And of course if one is simply a copy of the other there are
probably license violations involved.
Q
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
Ian Goddard
> Cherry Wrote:
>
>>> The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
>>> yet-another-central-depository.
>>>
>>> The objection is not to the LDS doing it -- the objection is to
>>> yet-another-central-depository.
>>>
>>> The object is not to whether this is better'n that -- the objection
>>> is to yet-another-central-depository.
>>>
>>> Again -- the objection is to yet-another-central-depository.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>> You only need ONE place that tells you the vital records for Podunk
>>> County Redneck State are in Whither Fork, or that 90+% of the 1890
>>> census burnt in an office building in DC.
>
> Good. The point is that the problem you are concerned with has
> nothing to do with Wiki's per se, but is a concern on your part
> about how genealogy is done on the web.
>
> As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
> is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
> when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example he
> gave fits that circumstance. I'm not sure its equally valid for the
> web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
> distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
> all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have had
> only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
> specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
>
I'm not thinking about backups although as a sometime sysadmin & DBA
I've always considered paranoia as an essential prerequisite for
those roles.
What really concerns me is what would be the consequence of there
being a single archive and the central provider decided to move out
of the market. In the long term survival of records depends not
just on multiple copies under the same management but copies under
different management.
There have been discussions here in the past about libraries and
archives disposing of books but what really brought the risk home to
me many years ago was walking into a bookshop when I was on holiday
and finding its shelves crammed with bound copies of Nature. The
county library was selling off at least part of its run. Nature:
the premier science journal in the UK (OK Proc. Roy. Soc. might
argue the toss on that!) and the county librarian feels able to
dispose of it! In the long term there's no guarantee that some
future curator of any particular resource won't act irresponsibly.
That's why multiple organisations are important.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
Q
> > As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
> > is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
> > when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example he
> > gave fits that circumstance. I'm not sure its equally valid for the
> > web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
> > distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
> > all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have had
> > only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
> > specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
> >
>
> What really concerns me is what would be the consequence of there
> being a single archive and the central provider decided to move out
> of the market. In the long term survival of records depends not
> just on multiple copies under the same management but copies under
> different management.
> Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
As someone who has had to manually recover many years worth of
emails from a heavily trafficked mail list, because RootsWeb decided
the list wasn't supposed to have archives if it was a private list,
I can easily see that point. Anything can be turned into free
electrons, but if there are multiple systems containing the same
material, there's an improved chance at preserving the data in an
accessible format.
So, the answer is: there are a good many reasons why duplication on
the web is a good thing. Those who don't like or appreciate that
duplication are primarily having a problem with the way the web
works. If it's a problem (I think it isn't) it's not one that is
obviously remediable.
Q
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
D. Stussy
> > > As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
> > > is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
> > > when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example he
> > > gave fits that circumstance. I'm not sure its equally valid for the
> > > web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
> > > distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
> > > all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have had
> > > only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
> > > specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
> >
> > being a single archive and the central provider decided to move out
> > of the market. In the long term survival of records depends not
> > just on multiple copies under the same management but copies under
> > different management.
>
> emails from a heavily trafficked mail list, because RootsWeb decided
> the list wasn't supposed to have archives if it was a private list,
> I can easily see that point. Anything can be turned into free
> electrons, but if there are multiple systems containing the same
> material, there's an improved chance at preserving the data in an
> accessible format.
>
> So, the answer is: there are a good many reasons why duplication on
> the web is a good thing. Those who don't like or appreciate that
> duplication are primarily having a problem with the way the web
> works. If it's a problem (I think it isn't) it's not one that is
> obviously remediable.
>
Howevre, copies should NOT surplant the original when the original
is still available. That's the problem: wikis often do.
Q
> > > > As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
> > > > is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
> > > > when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example he
> > > > gave fits that circumstance. I'm not sure its equally valid for the
> > > > web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
> > > > distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
> > > > all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have had
> > > > only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
> > > > specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
> > >
> > > being a single archive and the central provider decided to move out
> > > of the market. In the long term survival of records depends not
> > > just on multiple copies under the same management but copies under
> > > different management.
> >
> > emails from a heavily trafficked mail list, because RootsWeb decided
> > the list wasn't supposed to have archives if it was a private list,
> > I can easily see that point. Anything can be turned into free
> > electrons, but if there are multiple systems containing the same
> > material, there's an improved chance at preserving the data in an
> > accessible format.
> >
> > So, the answer is: there are a good many reasons why duplication on
> > the web is a good thing. Those who don't like or appreciate that
> > duplication are primarily having a problem with the way the web
> > works. If it's a problem (I think it isn't) it's not one that is
> > obviously remediable.
> >
>
> Howevre, copies should NOT surplant the original when the original
> is still available. That's the problem: wikis often do.
>
I'm not sure that duplication occurs on wikis to any significant
extent.I asked you to point to specific examples concerning a wiki
article taking a higher precedance in a search,
and you did not.
Could you provide a specific example of where a wiki has duplicated
an existing article?
In any case, your problem has little if anything to do with wiki's.
Duplication is endemic in genealogy on the web.
Your problem would seem to be that you do not like the way the web
works.
Q
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
Nan...@aol.com
What is a wiki forums someone??????????????????
May your troubles be less, your blessings more,
and may nothing but happiness, come through your door.
N
In God we Trust!
Q
> What is a wiki forums someone??????????????????
>
In a wiki environment pages are designed for other folks to respond
to something, or to ask questions. The most ubiquitous forum in the
wiki world is something called "the water cooler", which is
basically a place to chat. Forums are usually created by Admins for
the Wiki, but anyone can create a defacto forum---might lack a few
bells and whistles, depending on the implementation of the wiki, but
usually anyone can create a forum to meet whatever need.
When that's done its usually intended to meet a very specialized
need, or speak to a specialized issue of interest to only a few
individuals. Unlike a mailing list, or a message board in
traditional Web 1.0, where everyone has to wade through the same
stuff, on a wiki, where forums or their equivalents are implemented,
you can easily opt out of paying attention to things that really
aren't of interest to you.
Q <quo...@gmail.com>