Re: Wiki software for genealogy (long)


"'Bob - remove cap to reply' (Bob)" <squealing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:489e661e.1047776750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, "Tony Proctor"
<tony_proctor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"SteveW" <steve.m.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46c20ecd-082f-4141-b81c-1ab1f5d53889@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I believe that genalogy software should ideally do three things.
... store information ...
... Secondly it should be able to store source material:
... Thirdly, it needs to allow connections to be made flexibly ...

Wiki is much too free-form as a collaborative method Steve. Sure, it can
be
linked all over the place but there's no structure to that linkage - you
simply get a cat's cradle of linkages

Tend to agree - but you've both missed off what i consider to be the most
critical, which is getting the information out! This makes the difference
between raw "data" & real "information".

1) I like to have nice looking trees and printed reports as I don't get
much engagement with my kinfolk if I just produce a list of names, a
spread***, scribbled note, or a dry 60-page report full of source
references. But if I have a (semi-automated) report that looks more like a
coffee table book with photographs, with snappy little phrases telling us
about the people, nick-names, and a paragraph or two describing the person
as a PERSON, perhaps sourced from newspapers, parish records or passed
down
stories, then suddenly those couzins start to volunteer more photos and
stories. This holds as true for other researchers as for my other family
members (who previously just thought "hes doing the family tree" and now
want to collaborate so they can see their immdeiate family given the same
quality treatment.)

2) I like to be able to sort my data according to dates, family branches,
and facts. Especially when looking at one-name studies, it can give leads
to connections that I may have missed

3) I like to be able to map families moving across the county over time.
Again, this gives me an idea about potential connections and places to
search.

4) I'd love to be able to hotlink into online archives as well, but their
tendency to reorganise and hide behind proprietary databases or logins
makes it impossible.

While software capabilities have improved, no one tool or piece of
software
gives me this in a truly automated fashion. Note that this is almost
diametrically opposed to the Friends reunited approach, which IMHO favours
quantity rather than quality of contact.

Bob

I don't disagree with any of this Bob. However, I'd stress that I'm
currently looking at the way the data is organised internally, and the
paradigm by which it is accessed. What types of reports, displays, or
analyses than can be generated from such a data source is up to the desktop
genealogical programs rather than the underlying database, i.e. there's
still room for a competitive edge for the vendors, and for
cheaper-and-easier versus expensive-and-powerful differentiations. However,
the data engine could become a tried-and-tested generic commodity that's
applicable to several fields. Representation of genealogical data would just
be one of many possible "schemas"

Tony Proctor


.