Monday, October 25, 2010

FamilySearch Blogger Day - FamilySearch Family Tree

Perhaps the most important presentation (for me, at least) at the FamilySearch Blogger Day on 21 October was by Ron Tanner, titled "FamilySearch Family Tree: On the Horizon."

There have been rumors coming from FamilySearch in the past few months that the New FamilySearch tree would be open to the public soon, perhaps in the early months of 2011.  From what I heard, I don't think that it will be that soon. 

Here are the notes I made for myself and my Twitter audience during Ron's presentation (with a time stamp; #FSBlogDay is the Twitter hashtag useful for collecting tweets):

#FSBlogDay Tanner: nFS will eventually be Family Tree on coming www.familysearch.org.  Main reason was to reduce research duplication (12:37 PM Oct 21st )

#FSBlogDay Tanner: nFS updated every 3 months. Adding capability regularly, last was Discussions, and exact search (12:37 PM Oct 21st )

#FSBlogDay Tanner: nFS has Standard Place Entry. select from list, but can add descriptive data, has geocoding (12:43 PM Oct 21st )

#FSBlogDay Tanner: nFS has no more disputes! now can delete only info contributed by researcher (12:44 PM Oct 21st )

#FSBlogDay Tanner: nFS now has Discussions; putting legacy disputes into Discussions. discussion size to be 4000 characters (12:46 PM Oct 21st )

#FSBlogDay Tanner: new to be "Watch an Ancestor" in nFS. Email about changes made to ancestors you're watching (12:47 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: customers want: to remove bad data/relationships; want better sources to show what's valid; want to talk to contributors (12:51 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: want to undo a change someone else did; need right-click Undo contributor. Folks have "My Tree-itis" (12:52 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: "nFS is like a refrigerator that you can put stuff in and can’t take stuff out." Need nFS to be "Our Tree" not many MyTree (12:57 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: goal is to make it better! Tanner is funny... (1:00 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: folks want to know when someone changes their data; Sourcing is the answer to changes (1:02 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: where's the proof? balance by notifications/discussions/change log - talk about changes. Abuse to be handled. (1:05 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: only way to resolve is to put sources to assertions, use Master Sources, link to outside resources, artifacts (1:08 PM Oct 21st )

#FSBlogDay Tanner: allow only one name, one birth, one death, etc. Allow alternate facts/assertions. Users need to learn analysis process (1:10 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: "Our Tree" is coming. Notifications by end 2010. 2011 to add sources from Internet (links, no docs); (1:16 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: nFS goal is "Our Tree" with help from billions... RJS: realistic? (1:19 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Q: When release nFS to general public? Tanner: We're not ready yet - need to get further down path. Strategy is to ... (1:20 PM Oct 21st )

#FSBlogDay Tanner: ... slowly introduce to general public. Need to get AF, IGI, PRF out of the connected tree. Left with a Conclusion Tree (1:23 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Tanner: lots of Q&A here about trees, interacting with genealogy software, etc. sorry for break (1:31 PM Oct 21st)

#FSBlogDay Q: will there be standard for sources? A: haven't had conversation yet. They will. (1:37 PM Oct 21st) 

#FSBlogDay encourage users to put in source citations - folks are trying. But it's not perfect. Can be edited. (1:41 PM Oct 21st)

The really BIG NEWS in this presentation was that:

*   The Ancestral File (AF), Pedigree Resource File (PRF) and International Genealogical Index (IGI) source information would be removed from the shared FamilySearch Family Tree. 
*  AF, PRF and IGI information would remain on the FamilySearch.org website in some sort of database.
*  What would be left is a Conclusion Tree with assertions of facts and events.
*  The Tree would be "Our Tree" rather than the current thousands of "My Trees."
*  No one would own a person in the tree, and anybody could contribute information to it.
*  Customers want to remove bad data and relationships for their ancestors in the tree.
*  Customers want better sources to show what is valid.
*  Customers want to discuss information with other contributors.
*  Customers want to undo a change that someone else added.
*  In "Our Tree," anyone can add information, correct information, remove invalid information, edit other person's submittals, add artifacts as evidence, communicate with each other.
*  There could be alternate assertions submitted to the Tree.

In describing the "Our Tree" vision, Ron noted that users would be able to add data into the tree through their certified software program (e.g., RootsMagic, Legacy Family Tree, others), but that data could be changed by any other user.  The Change Log would document changes, Notifications would tell a contributor which person had changed data, and Discussions with the other submitters would be encouraged.  There would be moderators to ensure no abuse occurs in the discussions.

He specifically highlighted how Wikipedia operates, with almost instant moderation of abusive or wrong data and discussions, and the cumulative result is accurate and consensual information.  While Ron didn't specifically state that the FamilySearch Family Tree would evolve into a wiki, it was fairly clear (to me) that he was describing a wiki-like system for the Tree, at least in the Discussion area of it.  It would not surprise me if the different tabs on the Person Page remain in order to contain the different information fields.
The issue of master sources and citation formats was raised, and FamilySearch has not decided on a standard format set yet  (and I hope that they are consulting with Source citation experts in the genealogical community and the software companies).  Linking to online websites or documents, and eventually uploading photographs and documents as artifacts to the Tree, will be encouraged.

There are currently 1.4 billion persons in the New FamilySearch Family Tree (presumably, the duplicate persons in the Tree are now combined), and it is unclear how many would be left in the Tree once the Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File and IGI data was removed.  Some questions I have:
*  After removal of the AF, PRF and IGI data, will one name of a person, and one birth date/place, one death date/place, and one marriage date/place for that person, be left in the Tree without any source information?  Will the submitters of information then provide source information and documents to back up their assertions?
*  Will there be a judge and jury system to evaluate conflicting assertions, or to standardize the information for historically significant persons in the Tree? (I'm thinking of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the Mayflower passengers, Presidents, European royalty, etc.)
*  Copyright infringement will have to be considered for text, documents, photographs and other media.  Who will judge?  Who will correct or edit the material?  What sort of copyright protection will contributors to the Family Tree information have?
*  What will be the reaction of LDS Church Members who previously "owned" persons in the Tree?  Will they even participate in the Discussions? 
*  Wikipedia has many contributors that know the wiki change/discussion process - will Family Tree users be as capable if they are not using the wiki-like features on a regular basis?


This is a very ambitious, but desirable, Family Tree project, in my opinion.  If it works, then it should be a useful family tree system.  It's important that they get this designed right, tested and released in a controlled way.  However, I don't see how they can do all of this before late 2011.  The timeline given was:

*  May 2010 -- Discussions were added
*  late 2010 - Notifications will be added
*  Early 2011 - Internet sources can be added, but no documents
*  May 2011 - ???? (it didn't say - the implication is the Public is IN and Tree is working)

I know that I may have missed crucial points in this hour-long discussion, and if I have points wrong then I hope that FamilySearch personnel, or my blogging colleagues, will correct them.  I have been hampered by not being able to use the New FamilySearch system since I am not an LDS Church member.

Disclosure:  I am not an employee, contractor or affiliate of FamilySearch.  FamilySearch paid my way to this Bloggers Day in Salt Lake City, including airfare, hotel, some meals and incidental expenses.  I am trying to be as objective as possible.  I really appreciate FamilySearch's efforts to inform the genealogy community about their products and capabilities.

UPDATED: edited some text, added some text, last at 8:15 a.m.

4 comments:

Jimbar said...

"In describing the "Our Tree" vision, Ron noted that users would be able to add data into the tree through their certified software program (e.g., RootsMagic, Legacy Family Tree, others), but that data could be changed by any other user. The Change Log would document changes, Notifications would tell a contributor which person had changed data, and Discussions with the other submitters would be encouraged. There would be moderators to ensure no abuse occurs in the discussions."

The information would be changed right away? not just put on as another part? addenda?
that sounds like abuse could occur.

Martin said...

I'd love to an "Our Tree" judge and get to decide what documentation is given what weight in the case of disputes. It sounds like there will be many disputes. How they will be mediated will be interesting. Just because "abusive" language won't be tolerated doesn't mean that things won't be heated. On wikipedia there are entries that change weekly depending on who edited them last. Look at Miles Standish's entry. Every other week he's born in Lancashire, the other on the Isle of Man, and sometimes, the truth is put in that we don't know where he was born.

Geolover said...

You make very urgent points with your questions, especially:

"After removal of the AF, PRF and IGI data, will one name of a person, and one birth date/place, one death date/place, and one marriage date/place for that person, be left in the Tree without any source information? . . . . Will there be a judge and jury system to evaluate conflicting assertions . . . ?"

In addition you point to a reference by Mr. Tanner to a feature of Wikipedia, "the cumulative result is accurate and consensual information."

Consensual? I have read of one conflict in Wikipedia where a researcher made a change based on documentation found in her own research. The initial response of the WikiP moderators was to reverse her change(s) because previously-published "consensus" was the earlier version. Eventually the researcher's change was accepted, but not without considerable distress and aggravation.

In one of my ancestral lines the parents of the husband and parents of the wife are wrong, according to my own documentary research. The errors have been oft-published and are entered multiple times in IGI, AF and PRF. If someone aware of the correct relatives makes corresponding changes in the nFS tree, what is to prevent someone else from coming along and changing them back, citing the IGI, AF and/or PRF files? Are the mistaken published assertions to be considered the "consensus"?

You allude also to LDS members who are 'stakeholders' in many ancestries' appearing in certain ways (you do not specify this is because of past Temple Ordinances). Thus there are at least some who may be inclined to restore relationships as they previously appeared, however erroneously. So how will such things be handled?

Schelly Talalay Dardashti said...

Thanks, Randy, for this information. I think, as do other commenters, that there is too much room for abuse here.

Anyone can come along and change data about any individual? With no indication of what the previous data was? Forums? Disputes? Moderators?

I am not too sure about this at all.