tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post1363186291450086643..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Is a unified online family tree program possible?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-88676042249185809042013-09-15T12:28:37.308-07:002013-09-15T12:28:37.308-07:00You are making an assumption that a unified tree w...You are making an assumption that a unified tree would work the same as a user owned tree. They are not the same. You can put anything you want into your own online family tree, but anything that goes into a unified tree needs a consensus to remain online. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-70752589014250344392013-09-15T12:26:43.002-07:002013-09-15T12:26:43.002-07:00Good points and all of this is something that has ...Good points and all of this is something that has to be resolved and discussed. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-16762028103600001132013-09-15T09:27:32.729-07:002013-09-15T09:27:32.729-07:00Interesting you are as optimistic as you are given...Interesting you are as optimistic as you are given your comments a few days ago about people not seeing the necessity for multiple sources...<br /><br />For what it's worth, I do believe in the possibility of a unified tree. I see, though, the necessity for dealing with several aspects.<br /><br />1. As I have said several times recently, the unified tree cannot displace individual researchers' own trees. It has to live alongside them and that means the product managers of FS FT need to figure out how to interface the two sets of data in an easy and controlled manner. Otherwise, it's not practical for my stuff to go in.<br /><br />2. Wikipedia dispute resolution works at an informal level because the data is presented as text, which can have nuances built in. For instance, take "Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale" (an ancestor of King Robert I of Scotland, a.k.a. Robert The Bruce). Right now, the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Brus,_1st_Lord_of_Annandale, accessed 15 Sept 2013) says "An early modern historiographical tradition that he was the son of a Norman noble named Robert I le Brus or de Brus who came to England with William the Conqueror in 1066 and died ca. 1094 has been found to be without basis". Now, how do we get that into an obvious place in the FS FT? Are the existing discussions going to be able to cope with the several screens of Talk that we find on Wikipedia? (I'm not saying they can't - I'm simply asking, and suggesting this as a typical example of the issues and workload)<br /><br />Actually the above example is simple. The consensus there is that we don't know his ancestry but need to record the dodgy suggestions to stop them being recreated all the time. A trickier aspect is where the consensus says "X is probably descended from Y". Like many tree software, FS FT has no ability to record unconfirmed relationships other than in free-format text. It's not just a case of marking the relationship as "possible" since it could be the case that "X definitely has a father named Y and it's possible that the Y in question is this chap named Y over here..." (I'll let the reader work out the extra possibilities themselves). So if we are to record the consensus in a formal way, we need (un)certainty options that we don't currently have. If we do have them, then the ordinary genealogists can work out and record the subtleties of the consensus themselves, without recourse to arbitration. <br /><br />3. One unified tree can work if people contribute professionally. I have my concerns about some of the stuff people want to input, stuff driven not by professional research motives - the Wikipedia talk page mentioned above says "the hideously large-sized peerage crowd help such nonsense spread like a virus all over the internet and onto wiki." This reinforces your suggestion for freezing. But then - who does the freezing? And I think back to postings on Dick Eastman's blog about another "One Tree" system, which has curators - some of whom are held to be the problem, not the solution.<br /><br />I guess I think the sun will rise but I'm unconvinced about how many hours remain to noon!Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-71299940026713525902013-09-15T07:57:26.361-07:002013-09-15T07:57:26.361-07:00James, you say "I would also think that each ...James, you say "I would also think that each fact and source should have a rating system: something like Five Stars or whatever with cumulative input. Sort of like GoodReads.com where users can make comments and rate the data based on reliability and consistency."<br /><br />Since the vast majority of persons who upload trees and genealogical material in other forms to the web think that other trees and non-documented genealogical accounts of sundry types are acceptable tree components, how would a rating system by FT users have any import as to accuracy? The 100 or so folks who've incorporated wrong genealogical stuff in trees regarding two of my ancestral lines, published in at least 5 books, would not be especially inclined to give a positive rating to something disagreeing with their beliefs. Indeed, they are more likely to change what's in FT to agree with what they think is verified by each publication.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.com