One of my favourite bloggers is James Tanner of Genealogy's Star. James, a prolific blogger with a legal background, writes thoughtful and challenging posts.
Yesterday James posted a list "My top ten worst genealogy practices targeted in 2012" in which he outlined common crimes committed by the genealogists with whom he comes in contact. James intends to write further on these misdemeanours in 2012. This post must have hit a raw nerve with some genealogists as I read a few tweets yesterday that obliquely referred to the post. I made a flippant comment in a tweet "Guilty as charged - but only on one".
It appears that another genealogist was also offended by the tone of James' post as today James responded with, "Mean Spirited" a lengthy defence of his previous post. James made it difficult for the reader of this second post to reread and view the first post comment he cited as he did not provide links back to them. I don't have a problem with what James' wrote - he is entitled to publish his opinion as are the people who have commented on his post.
I agreed with 9 out of 10 of the crimes cited by James, however I am guilty of his number 3 crime: "People who copy information directly from an online compiled family tree without sources."
I wrote this lengthy comment on his original post:
"James, I am guilty of your number three crime - People who copy information directly from an online compiled family tree without sources.
I take unsourced information, add it to my tree and publish it.
I expect that those who visit my website and find unsourced information (and I use that term loosely) will do as I do and seek out both print and online resources to verify the facts (?) I have published.
My family site is dynamic, a work in progress, not the end point of a piece of academic research.
I am not guilty of your crime number 4 - People who think (or claim) that their genealogy is done. My genealogy is not done - my website is my workhorse not a show pony. I choose to let people view my work in progress.
By publishing my far from perfect work I have made contact with a number of cousins who have been able to verify some of the unsourced facts I have published. On occasion people have contacted me to correct what I had published.
If I had waited until everything in my tree was cited correctly according to genealogical proof standards my tree would be very spindly and I would have missed out on reaping the benefits that the digital age offers genealogists who use online tools to make connections.
My message to those who borrow from my tree is "Caveat emptor"."
Yesterday James posted a list "My top ten worst genealogy practices targeted in 2012" in which he outlined common crimes committed by the genealogists with whom he comes in contact. James intends to write further on these misdemeanours in 2012. This post must have hit a raw nerve with some genealogists as I read a few tweets yesterday that obliquely referred to the post. I made a flippant comment in a tweet "Guilty as charged - but only on one".
It appears that another genealogist was also offended by the tone of James' post as today James responded with, "Mean Spirited" a lengthy defence of his previous post. James made it difficult for the reader of this second post to reread and view the first post comment he cited as he did not provide links back to them. I don't have a problem with what James' wrote - he is entitled to publish his opinion as are the people who have commented on his post.
I agreed with 9 out of 10 of the crimes cited by James, however I am guilty of his number 3 crime: "People who copy information directly from an online compiled family tree without sources."
I wrote this lengthy comment on his original post:
"James, I am guilty of your number three crime - People who copy information directly from an online compiled family tree without sources.
I take unsourced information, add it to my tree and publish it.
I expect that those who visit my website and find unsourced information (and I use that term loosely) will do as I do and seek out both print and online resources to verify the facts (?) I have published.
My family site is dynamic, a work in progress, not the end point of a piece of academic research.
I am not guilty of your crime number 4 - People who think (or claim) that their genealogy is done. My genealogy is not done - my website is my workhorse not a show pony. I choose to let people view my work in progress.
By publishing my far from perfect work I have made contact with a number of cousins who have been able to verify some of the unsourced facts I have published. On occasion people have contacted me to correct what I had published.
If I had waited until everything in my tree was cited correctly according to genealogical proof standards my tree would be very spindly and I would have missed out on reaping the benefits that the digital age offers genealogists who use online tools to make connections.
My message to those who borrow from my tree is "Caveat emptor"."
