Re: What this list is
- From: leovdpas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ("Leo van de Pas")
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 23:01:32 +0000 (UTC)
By starting another group, you fragment and even more knowledge will be lost. Todd made a few suggestions and perhaps we should start to introduce more continental subjects and move away from concentrating on gateway ancestries.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message ----- From: "Renia" <renia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: What this list is
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Creating a new group of limited distribution with a confusing name is not likely to get people to post somewhere else (and even if it did, would not suddenly engender more medieval discussion).
Likewise, as was discussed at length when the soc.gen.* groups were formed, some ballance must be achieved between splitting and lumping together. I think the perfect groups would be soc.genealogy.only-what-interests-me, but there would be only one participant. Groups with too narrow an interest (both in terms of topic and in terms of willing posters) will not 'take', and there are any number of dead groups to prove it.
For several reasons, this group has come more and more to be dominated by discussions of a few rather limited aspects of its original charter scope. There used to be several Iberian posters, discussions of Viking origins, posters with significant knowledge of Polish and Russian material, etc., but this is no longer the case. The problem is not so much the presence of the 'fringe' topics, but the loss of these central ones.
I disagree. I think it is the domination of American Gateway ancestors which has pushed many non-Americans off the newsgroup. From this side of the pond, it is just too American. No way is American immigration in the 17th century a medieval subject. It is early modern.
> However, creating another group for everyone posting about thingsI am less interested in will not purify the group, nor will the vacuum theoretically so created by banishing the unwanted discussion bring these lost topics and posters back. If you want more medieval discussion in this group, then post more medieval material.
There are not enough people here interested in medieval material any more, as you imply, below, regarding Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project pages.
> Part of theburden of making the group what you want it to be falls on you. You really can't make other people discuss what you want, all you can do is entice them with your own postings.
In other groups where an analogous compilation is underway, such an announcement as Stewart Baldwin's release of new Henry Project pages might be followed by various members picking over the new pages, making comments and corrections, suggesting additional sources or alternative interpretations worthy of commentary, etc. Here all we get are "Thanks" posts (here we are a week later, and no one, present company included until now, has even commented that there is someone represented as the wrong gender on one of the new pages). Yes, thanks are due, but if you want to discuss medieval genealogy, here is a perfect opportunity staring you in the face, and . . . . nothing.
taf
.
- Follow-Ups:
- new early modern genealogy group announcement
- From: norenxaq
- Re: What this list is
- From: John Brandon
- new early modern genealogy group announcement
- References:
- Re: What this list is
- From: WJhonson
- Re: What this list is
- From: the_verminator@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: What this list is
- From: Chris Dickinson
- Re: What this list is
- From: Todd A. Farmerie
- Re: What this list is
- From: Renia
- Re: What this list is
- Prev by Date: Re: C.P. Correction: Birthdate of Margaret Butler, wife of William Boleyn, K.B.
- Next by Date: Re: What this list is
- Previous by thread: Re: What this list is
- Next by thread: Re: What this list is
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|