tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post1809054220657311863..comments2024-03-19T01:26:04.572-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Sharing Genealogy InformationRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-52509303286684282382007-06-09T00:47:00.000-07:002007-06-09T00:47:00.000-07:00Hi Randy,I'm up late so I thought I would reply to...Hi Randy,<BR/><BR/>I'm up late so I thought I would reply to this post of yours, which I read earlier.<BR/><BR/>I have been debating this issue as well, since I have been more active lately on working on my family tree. As yet all I have posted on the net is a partial tree on Ancestry as one of their public trees, which isn't viewable through the rootsweb interface. However the problem is that unless I post through World Connect on rootsweb, I likely won't get nearly as many viewers and potential correpsondents with whom to collaborate.<BR/><BR/>Also I simply *hate* the idea of posting information without sources, as I dislike that from others (glad we aren't related to my knowledge :) ). Sure it makes it easy for someone to rip the common part of my tree that we share and pass it off as their own, maybe even commercially. But as you say, genealogy is usually a work in progress, especially the further back one goes, so they run the risk of having incomplete or wrong information.<BR/><BR/>This issue also goes hand in hand IMO with the one of genealogy societies that you have been discussing. Ideally, one could publish over time bits of one's research to share and leave for when one is gone, and invite contact and collaboration as well, and in a published print form that is loosely protected by copyright (as to the presentation but not facts), and which documents who had it first. But with the dwindling membership in the societies, as well as the proclivity noted by yourself and George Morgan for members not to read articles that don't directly relate to their own families, then the internet is the only viable choice for publication unless one can get a state level society to publish it.<BR/><BR/>What I have been thinking about doing is to publish most of my tree on rootsweb and also request one of their free webpages which I can link to on the tree, for posting research extracts and sources and inviting collaboration. Sure I would kind of be giving away the store as it were, and not necessarily getting anything in exchange when I give first. But really I am thinking about distant relatives after I am gone, to insure my work is preserved for them.<BR/><BR/>Unlike the past 20 years when I was somewhat disorganized, I am trying to be much better organized now. I have always taken fairly good notes compared to the average "tree climber" out there with decent but not full source citations, but have been lazy about using research calendars to note negative searches to help not doing the same search again later. I have purchased and read many times the standards manual of the BCG and ProGen, and hope to publish and share my research according to the higher standards required of professionals and peer reviewed publications. And that simply means always listing sources in anything one publishes, print or internet.<BR/><BR/>To be honest, my biggest worry is not so much other persons stealing my work without giving credit, but in the thought that they will just repost the same info on rootsweb, which already is so clogged with duplicate information that adds nothing to the information they got from someone else.<BR/><BR/>As you say, it is a matter of personal preference and one can choose to share in the manner one wishes. And it is very true as well that those "tree climbers" mostly just search the internet, or maybe even subscribe to one or two commercial providers like Ancestry, but don't actually do any further original research in county records that involves reading microfilm or old paper case files and ledgers. All their work except census information, is mainly in derivative sources like abstracts that they can't be sure are accurate or extensive.<BR/><BR/>One thing though I probably won't share on the internet, at least for a good while, is any kind of involved proof arguments or the historical background of areas where my ancestors lived. This is the kind of stuff that really makes a printed narrative genealogy stand out and be more than just a bunch of begats, even when rigorously footnoted.<BR/><BR/>Having said all that, I am still not totally certain and share many of your concerns about unlimited sharing. What I really want, and have cultivated with only one other distant cousin, are collaborators who are as willing as I am to do an exhaustive search in original records so as to be able to reach the best genealogical conclusion. As one's tree grows arithmetically the further back one goes, it simply isn't possible without a 24/7 effort to do all the research on all lines by oneself. I'm younger than you, but I still don't think I could get it all done before my time is up. I've picked all the low hanging fruit years ago and am left with untangling difficult problems and scaling brick walls in the early 1800s and late 1700s in America, not to mention 1/4 of my ancestry which is in Germany before 1850.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, sorry for the long post, but you invited discussion :).<BR/><BR/>Mike FergusonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com