tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post7889922514875997419..comments2024-03-07T23:20:49.790-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Family Trees: Unified vs. User Owned James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-7318518564023085282014-03-18T10:16:20.295-07:002014-03-18T10:16:20.295-07:00Those are excellent goals to work towards for any ...Those are excellent goals to work towards for any online or even desktop genealogy program. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-4425198128042843872014-03-18T10:15:34.424-07:002014-03-18T10:15:34.424-07:00This is a very good model and should be adopted by...This is a very good model and should be adopted by more people. Do you mind if I share the idea on a post with attribution?James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-23167649390735216922014-03-18T10:14:40.680-07:002014-03-18T10:14:40.680-07:00Well, I can't agree with or help your opinion....Well, I can't agree with or help your opinion. Sorry. I have a different view. I share everything I do with no expectation of return and I do not care about fairness in this context. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-10229114468332523722014-03-18T02:27:11.765-07:002014-03-18T02:27:11.765-07:00Aren't these just the same issues that might c...Aren't these just the same issues that might concern someone when "publishing" a creative work, whether fiction or non-fiction? Most people cannot afford to publish in the traditional form, and in the case of family history there is little in the way of software help to them. I'm thinking 'history' here rather than mere trees and lineage, and so I believe that there is an 'author' rather than simply someone has assembled publicly-accessible facts. Ignoring Wikipedia (much content of which is drawn from published sources), authors do not want their work stolen, or edited by others, or lost after their death.<br /><br />Obviously I cannot speak for everyone out there but I wonder how many genealogists would feel happy if there was a way of publishing their work that:<br /><br />a) Ensured their authorship was acknowledged, and allowed it to be cited by others.<br />b) Ensured that their work would persist after they are no longer able to contribute.<br />c) To allow other researchers to see their work, but not edit it. Their work could be connected to a central tree for indexing purposes but not 'assimilated' into the tree in order to keep its structure, or narrative form.<br />d) To allow revisions of their work, and possibly the addition of tentative items that they don't want to expose until they're more sure of them.<br />e) Allowed certain information to be disclosed at some point in the future (e.g. some respectable point after their death).<br /><br />I am assuming a lot here, based on my own situation, but I would be interested in any feedback. Implicit in this suggestion is that there is a middle ground between a simple "family tree" and some historical narrative. That middle ground is a structured representation that can be searched/indexed/explored without having to modify it, and yet can still be accessed as one-or-more narrative parts. [This is how STEMMA came about]Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-88976981436893387672014-03-17T16:23:14.967-07:002014-03-17T16:23:14.967-07:00I have a private tree on Ancestry but there are 49...I have a private tree on Ancestry but there are 49 of us working on the tree. I have them all as contributors so they can change whatever they like in my tree. <br /><br />I see the private/collaborative model being choice number 3 here - I control who is collaborating on my tree and they are free to start their own tree elsewhere. <br /><br />I've also been updating my family's information on FamilySearch just because I've been getting so many questions about the data on there, and its just been a nightmare. So many people just change things with no control system. If I have a birth date in place, someone should not be able to change it to "WFT 1600-1650" which drives me insane. The other thing that drives me crazy is the lack of contact info most of the users have. My husband found a wealth of information from a contributor on the tree about long lost family in Salt Lake City. But because the user had no contact info, I had no way of finding him/her to discuss the family! How heartbreaking and irritating at the same time.Crafting in Yoohoovillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223824425648008880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-12940568016201801002014-03-14T17:13:47.982-07:002014-03-14T17:13:47.982-07:00My frustration with my PUBLIC online tree on Ances...My frustration with my PUBLIC online tree on Ancestry is that I have shared many copies of documents, especially vital records, for which I paid a considerable amount of money over time. I see that lots of people are copying information to their PRIVATE trees, so they are taking information from those of us with PUBLIC trees, but not sharing what they know with the rest of us. Where is the fairness in that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-85156728033087189832014-03-14T15:42:30.079-07:002014-03-14T15:42:30.079-07:00All very good points. I will address some of these...All very good points. I will address some of these issues in a subsequent post. Thanks. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-37397740921104548592014-03-14T15:39:42.362-07:002014-03-14T15:39:42.362-07:00Sounds like another blog post to me. Thanks.Sounds like another blog post to me. Thanks.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-18514305270597700372014-03-14T15:03:15.639-07:002014-03-14T15:03:15.639-07:00"1. The fear of losing ownership or control o..."1. The fear of losing ownership or control of the data"<br /><br />I'm sorry but this bundles up several very different reasons, viz:<br />1a The belief that "these are my ancestors". <br /><br />1b A lack of faith in the ability of the so-called collaborators to follow sensible research process. Examples are where people alter values without leaving any justification or without responding to the existing arguments on the site that document why the proposed, new values are nonsense or who do not respond to requests to discuss or collaborate.<br /><br />1c A lack of faith in the ability of the software to implement the collaboration process. Example - not providing a mandatory contact process. How can one collaborate with some who cannot be contacted?<br /><br />1d Inability of the software to convey any nuance of likelihood. For instance, there may be a probability that X is the child of A and B but also a probability that X is the child of C and D and a probability that X is the child of someone else entirely. I know of no software that allows for all three possibilities and collaboration naturally ends up with multiple possibilities. <br /><br />Items 1b and 1c are crucial and are dismissed far too often as being the same as 1a. <br /><br />I'd also add:<br />7. A lack of awareness that the sensible thing to do is to keep a user-owned family tree at the same time as collaborating on a separate unified family tree. Does any supplier of a unified family tree advise that having two trees is sensible? Or are they all content to let people think that the unified family tree is the only tree you'll ever need?<br /><br />Also we have:<br />Inability of the target software to accommodate all the data that the user already has. This applies to any online tree not just unified family trees. Example - FamilySearch FamilyTree is incapable of loading all sorts of data - notes against events, multiple baptisms, etc.<br /><br />Adrian BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-11168424040068795232014-03-14T14:32:32.439-07:002014-03-14T14:32:32.439-07:00I believe the best result a unified tree can hope ...I believe the best result a unified tree can hope for is a collection of smaller and bigger clusters of people. Lack of evidence or proof (of parentage, for instance) will ultimately prevent all these clusters to be interconnected. I am still confused about what the real benefits would be of a unified tree, however, and most of the reasons you give in favor of this kind of collaboration are circumstantial, rather than deliberate.Tacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04059717877562427778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-78199729152254806392014-03-14T08:26:51.692-07:002014-03-14T08:26:51.692-07:00I certainly agree. If people can make changes they...I certainly agree. If people can make changes they should not be allowed to do so without having contact information.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-37274366370192414402014-03-14T08:26:05.060-07:002014-03-14T08:26:05.060-07:00Yes, there are attempts to address both concerns.Yes, there are attempts to address both concerns.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-78566274639776666512014-03-14T06:17:33.933-07:002014-03-14T06:17:33.933-07:00I have participated in two different unified trees...I have participated in two different unified trees: WikiTree and Family Search. I have no issue with collaboration on a tree as long as the person adding to, deleting, or changing the data is identified or identifiable through a mouse-click or two. That identity component must also include a valid email address, or a messaging system within the tree site, in order to strongly encourage communication. <br /><br />For now, WikiTree seems to have the superior model with respect to actually facilitating communication. In comparison, Family Search is woeful in this regard.<br />William Flowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-37510829881083509292014-03-14T05:42:41.233-07:002014-03-14T05:42:41.233-07:00Mr Tanner,
Doesn't the Wiki-Tree website have...Mr Tanner,<br /><br />Doesn't the Wiki-Tree website have both, privately controlled, and a collaborative options?<br /><br />From what I have seen, Wiki-Tree has both.<br /><br />Just an observation.<br /><br />Great article.<br /><br />Thank you,<br /><br />RussCousin Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326890362591254874noreply@blogger.com