Re: Making the Results of your Research Public


"Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:g8jtel$hdo$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry folks. This is not a question but a viewpoint I'd like to
share

There's a recurring theme in the genealogy newsgroups that revolves
around people not wanting to share their hard-earned data with
wannabees & wasters, or not wanting to publish it on the Web, or
hard-earned data being shared/used without their permission, etc

I know how hard this stuff is to do, and how precious your data is.
I'm now paranoid about backing up everything, keeping off-site
backups, etc., just in case

Whilst I can understand why someone wouldn't want to give such data
away freely, I'd just like to make a short case for the
alternative...

I'm always amazed how with some family lines (i.e. different
surnames in different regions) I find a wealth of other researchers
involved with it, and a thriving community of living relatives
exchanging data, emails, pictures, and stuff. I mention someone's
name with reference to a piece of data and I get 'yeah, that's my
sister', or 'that's my cousin', and so on. In contrast, I've found
several family lines where it's completely barren - no researchers,
no public trees, no living relatives on GRU or the other community
forums. It really feels like I'm breaking new ground.

I've been thinking about what the possible difference is and feel it
could be due to the person who first puts their data 'up there'.
Maybe there have been casual checks for family members in public
trees but then those people never progressed things having found
nothing out there. Once someone has put the first foot forward,
though, then maybe they would start to come out of the woodwork. [I
just know someone is going to say 'Build it and they will come...'.
Yeah, thanks, but I beat you to it :-) ]

The other advantage is that it could help stem the
copy-and-accumulate people from perpetuating inaccurate data. You
know when you see someone's data whether they've put a huge amount
of effort into it, or simply copied names and dates from some
un-cited source. Putting comprehensive (maybe not everything)
accurate data out there creates a beacon

I know not everyone will agree with this viewpoint but I'd still be
interested in other perspectives

Tony Proctor

What you are talking about is getting close to the normal publication
of science BUT there is a big hole in your argument.

Duff information from incompetents rarely gets into any respectable
scientific journal. That is because what the author seeks to publish
is NOT published! All submissions have to go through referees, an
editorial board, an editor and a sub-editor. It is a complex and
time-consuming process. The two or three referees usually give their
time free, but of course expect others to do the same for the papers
where they are the author. Rejection is common and requests for
amendments, tightening up, or even further observations, are almost
universal. What comes out at the end should be sound stuff 'for the
record'. Subsequent researchers can build on it with some confidence.

Now take away all that checking process. Write. Publish. Don't give a
name and address. Don't be held accountable. Some people will act
responsibly and only put up what they feel they have checked properly
(although it is damn nigh impossible to spot all your own errors of
omission or commission). Most won't. They think a vast pile of crap is
worth more than one small purified nugget, and publish accordingly.
You'll never be able to stop it so long as self-publication is
allowed. And with the Net as it is now you can't stop
self-publication.

That is why in genealogy instead of building on prior work we have to
keep going back to the records and doing it all again. We can't trust
what is published.

There is another factor in genealogy which doesn't exist in most
sciences. It touches on people and on family myths about people.
Illogical as it may be, some people feel disgraced by assorted
naughtinesses their ancestors got involved in, and want the truth to
stay covered up. It's a sort of hangover of the 'mark of Cain'. Even
something simple such as granddaddy being a *** can enormously
upset living kids. Anybody who doesn't think so has clearly forgotten
how vicious a place the school playground is. There are very many ways
in which existing people can be hurt by publications about
ancestors.Hence the reasonable and natural reluctance to scatter
information in all directions to people who may not be considerate and
responsible in using it.

This difficulty can be fudged by a stepwise exchange of information.
If somebody responds to a keyword, such as a particular name, in
something you have published think about the nature of the response.
If it is 'I want everything, now, to add to the 20,000 names in my
tree' then it can be ignored. At the other extreme if it is 'I may be
your fourth cousin and here is a little of the information which might
ring bells with you,' then answer with a little information. It
doesn't take many exchanges to detect whether you are dealing with a
real relative who is interested and responsible. and after that you
can open up more fully.This is not a foolproof method of dealing with
the rip-off merchants but it certainly shuts out most of them.

To show just how trivial the early information exchange an be, I'll
use the example of a previously unknown relative in Spain. One early
exchange mentioned her difficulties in getting things done because her
young son kept her out of the kitchen and was generally irascible when
cooking, and her slightly older daughter wouldn't let her get at the
full-length mirror because the daughter was using it for dancing and
acting practice. My immediate reaction was 'typical Harben' and I sent
back more examples of Harben descendants (including me) who've had to
put up with tempestuous chefs and emotional actresses in the house. We
then started exchanging what might be more recognisable as
genealogical information. For example, she had pictures of our joint
ancestors which I had never seen, but I had the stories about those
ancestors which she had never heard.

Yes it does take time to use this kind of stepwise approach, but if
two branches of a family have been out of touch for more than 70
years, what is wrong with taking a couple of months of small exchanges
in order to put the family back together again? It doesn't have to be
done in 5 minutes.

Don


.

Loading