tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post8622171094247184029..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: FamilySearch Blogger Day - FamilySearch Family TreeRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-7145770810404065402010-10-26T06:36:00.444-07:002010-10-26T06:36:00.444-07:00Thanks, Randy, for this information. I think, as d...Thanks, Randy, for this information. I think, as do other commenters, that there is too much room for abuse here. <br /><br />Anyone can come along and change data about any individual? With no indication of what the previous data was? Forums? Disputes? Moderators?<br /><br />I am not too sure about this at all.Schelly Talalay Dardashtihttp://tracingthetribe.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-90454149621699365942010-10-25T14:09:20.903-07:002010-10-25T14:09:20.903-07:00You make very urgent points with your questions, e...You make very urgent points with your questions, especially:<br /><br />"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 . . . ?"<br /><br />In addition you point to a reference by Mr. Tanner to a feature of Wikipedia, "the cumulative result is accurate and consensual information."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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"?<br /><br />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?Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-51394562522806585382010-10-25T11:49:12.981-07:002010-10-25T11:49:12.981-07:00I'd love to an "Our Tree" judge and ...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.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17205797878738290997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-36914524557568372392010-10-25T07:44:02.024-07:002010-10-25T07:44:02.024-07:00"In describing the "Our Tree" visio..."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."<br /><br />The information would be changed right away? not just put on as another part? addenda? <br />that sounds like abuse could occur.Jimbarnoreply@blogger.com