tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post3436963445347436509..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: Top Secret FamilySearch ProjectThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-5790799477548771332010-10-23T02:01:50.282-06:002010-10-23T02:01:50.282-06:00I don't think there's any doubt that conj...I don't think there's any doubt that conjecture could be taken as fact. And facts could be over shadowed by bad sources. But in my opinion, a universal tree where anyone can contribute, debate and scrutinize its content is the future of genealogy. It will never be perfect or without error (just like it's users). But it would be more accurate than most data bases where there is no real scrutiny. Once people start get over the sense of ownership of information, we should see something very interesting.S Russellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-25783844614007323832009-07-18T05:47:58.496-06:002009-07-18T05:47:58.496-06:00Applause and dittos for MikeF's last 3 paragra...Applause and dittos for MikeF's last 3 paragraphs, and !!! emphasis on his 2nd one.<br /><br />The basic database for NFS is quite contaminated with non-evidenced genealogical errors. One could wonder how many years it would take such a Project to clean up most of them, given MikeF's points.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-77449019660321359552009-07-17T23:12:25.831-06:002009-07-17T23:12:25.831-06:00I have discovered that no matter how much evidence...I have discovered that no matter how much evidence I provide to disprove the Indian Princess in our family tree, there are those cousins who will continue to cling to their illusions because it makes them feel good regardless of the mounting pile of evidence to the contrary.<br />MarilynUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00392367966441017019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-9436543513966797452009-07-17T22:18:32.234-06:002009-07-17T22:18:32.234-06:00ditto to "their own version of WeRelate."...ditto to "their own version of WeRelate." The similarity is astounding.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11223147425604847913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-66949104122058904372009-07-17T20:34:32.111-06:002009-07-17T20:34:32.111-06:00Insider,
I admire the intentions behind this proj...Insider,<br /><br />I admire the intentions behind this project. Source and evidence based genealogy and with an arbitration process. Unfortunately I believe the scope of this project is both too broad to be completed properly as a system, or to be executed in practice, especially as to arbitration.<br /><br />While perhaps your description is not adequately describing the system, and though is on the right theoretical track, it still seems lacking from the perspective found in Elizabeth Shown Mills' book Evidence and the followup, Evidence Explained, and other professional level books and articles.<br /><br />The process and parts of same are given in the following excerpt from the APG list archives found here in one of Ms. Mills' posts:<br />http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/APG/2004-08/1092795113<br /><br /><br />"Basic Principle:<br /> SOURCES give us INFORMATION<br /> from which we select EVIDENCE.<br /><br />SOURCES --> INFORMATION --> EVIDENCE<br />are .... is ... is ...<br />Original Primary Direct<br />Derivative Secondary Indirect<br /><br /> All of these go through the<br /> EVALUATION PROCESS<br /> to produce ...<br /> "PROOF."<br /><br />That is an older discussion, and a fuller one can be found in EE p. 24ff.<br /><br />So going off of a chain of modern vital records, or a little bit earlier before such records using clear statements of relationship in estate documents in absence of actual/potential conflicts, then one might be able to craft a fairly short proof argument as imagined in the NSF system. But take the time period back in American genealogy before 1850, then short proof arguments will rarely suffice in the Southern states without very good estate records, though one may still be OK in New England.<br /><br />Southern and frontier genealogy, especially in the time period from a little before the Revolution to 1830, is especially difficult, even without the often found poor record keeping or subsequent record loss. There is where brickwalls are found in abundance, including my own. It requires the study and analysis of large family and neighborhood units and all common and allied surnames in the area (cluster genealogy). And if success is found in proving another generation, it usually is by correlation of multiple pieces of indirect evidence producing a sound, albeit circumstantial conclusion. And that proof won't look like a 2 or 3 paragraph proof argument, but rather an article in the NGSQ/TAG/NEHGS/etc.<br /><br />The vast majority of persons, either Mormon or non-Mormon, who might use such a new NFS wiki type of family tree, will not be able to produce such an analysis. And without plagiarizing and possibly violating copyright, they also won't be able to dump a long article in the proof section, even if there is space for same. And if such article length arguments are produced by someone (or merely cited as in where a person donates an article to BYU and it shows up in the FHL catalog), and there are disagreements, who exactly will be qualified to referee such a dispute that even competent professionals might disagree on? Only professionals and less than 5% of "amateur genealogists". And the question is not just who, but how many such qualified arbitrators do you think NFS can come up with?<br /><br />I love the concept, both here and as envisioned elsewhere by other organizations (like Ancestry's ill-fated and ill-executed OneWorldTree). But it is too complex to execute and most professionals or highly competent amateurs who can produce valid conclusions from exhaustive study and analysis of original sources are not going to be willing to repeatedly waste time arguing with those who lack such skills. I seem to recall that the church only allows experts to submit ordinances and make trees etc. in medieval genealogy. But the fact is that such a bar should also exist between medieval and 1850 or so (maybe even 1900). Weekend internetologists who copy and recopy each other's "work" simply are not going to contribute anything other than further iterations of wrong assertions that they already do.<br /><br />MikeF<br /><br />P.S. Was that too pessimistic? :)MikeFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16587230319820652536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-8071167891022214812009-07-17T06:31:42.380-06:002009-07-17T06:31:42.380-06:00It sounds like they are going to set up their own ...It sounds like they are going to set up their own version of WeRelate.Charley "Apple" Grabowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07193646109965731249noreply@blogger.com