On 10/09/2012 10:39, Tony Proctor wrote:
> "Graeme Wall"<***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> On 10/09/2012 01:56, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:31:48 +0100, Graeme
>>>> On 09/09/2012 15:04, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 00:13:09 +0100,
>>>>>> Tony Proctor wrote, Saturday, September 08, 2012 12:58 PM
>>>>>>> it won't be long before "genealogy" is simply a hobby where
>>>>>>> you cherry-pick names/dates/places from online content,
>>>>>>> preferably the free content, or from other people's trees.
>>>>>> To me, all these things are clues, which you might not get any other
>>>>>> way. Having got the clue, one should, for one's own satisfaction,
>>>>>> check that the clue is valid by going back to the "original" source.
>>>>> Indeed. And that is why I continue to look at such things, because they
>>>>> something to check. But the problem is that for wvery one who checks
>>>>> there are 50 who don't, and so bad genealogy drives out good.
>>>> Does it really matter? If hundreds of people are deluding themselves
>>>> but you are doing it properly do you really care about what happens to
>>>> the idiots?
>>> Well yes it does, because some of them may not be related to me, but
>>> they are.
>>> Conversely, of course, some of them may be related to me but not realise
>>> because they've been barking up the wrong family tree.
>> If you are being purist about it and Not Using Ancestry then what's your
>> problem. Carry on using the original records only and know that you
>> are so much superior to the common herd. If you don't look at Ancestry
>> then you'll never know about the might-have-beens.
>>  Assuming you can afford to spend a fortune travelling round the
>> country/world to hunt them down only to discover the archive in question
>> is only open during the transit of Venus and can you some back in 117
>> Graeme Wall
>> This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
>> Railway Miscellany at<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
> I like the comment about Venus, Graeme, but I feel there's a more subtle
> danger here. It's not just a case of 'we're doing it correctly so who cares
> if others are doing it incorrectly'.
> Although we probably all strive to avoid errors, it's highly likely that we
> all have a few, somewhere. Also, we were all newbies once, and I personally
> cringe at some of the things I did back then. So, yes, there is a
> responsibility to encourage and educate newbies who want to do it correctly.
> I believe this also extends to the capabilities of the software we use and
> the data formats that we use for sharing.
> But then we come to online data. Now that the big content providers have all
> got major record collections digitised, they all want to concentrate on our
> 'conclusions' - all those results that we've spent time& money creating.
> Irrespective of whether their T&C's say they own the uploaded data, or
> whether they will charge others for access to it, they are running headlong
> into this in the belief that 'sharing' will create better truths, and more
> quickly. Unfortunately, they don't appear to have thought about the
> logistics very well.
> Whether we like it or not, there will always be people who simply want to
> collect, and stitch together, the conclusions without looking at the records
> (whether originals or scans thereof). These people will proliferate those
> trees that already have hundreds of thousands of names (and so must have
> been done by an 'expert', right?), but zero citations or justifications for
> the conclusions. The weak data models that the content providers offer
> simply encourage this.
> My fear is that this will become the norm for "genealogy", and those of us
> who are used to doing real research will simply become part of the history
> that we love.
But, at the end of the day, does it really matter? Ancestry and Bright
Solid have to act commercially to justify spending money on their
digitisation projects. If that means encouraging the trainspotter
genealogists to spend money chasing themselves up the wrong tree it
doesn't worry me. It's not just genealogy it happens in many different
hobbies. But, as a result, I have access to records that I would never
have been able to afford any other way. So I am quite happy for Hiram J
Chipmunk VI to post dozens of copies on-line of his descent from Adam &
Eve, half the royal families of Europe and Thutmose III. I know it's
rubbish, you know it's rubbish and we can safely ignore it, just as we
have been ignoring patron submissions on the IGI for decades.
As Roy has pointed out, rubbish genealogy is not a new thing, it has
been around for centuries. Even before the infamous Burke, arriviste
knights were not above bribing the heralds to add a few famous names to
their ancestry. And said heralds, the professionals of the day, were
quite happy to pocket the cash and lie through their parchments.
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>