Notes and note taking

I was an awful note taker at the university and in law school. Especially in law school, I would watch the other students scribble furiously in their notebooks, so I would copy their behavior and write copious notes from every class. There was just one problem, when I got home and went back through my notes, they were absolutely meaningless. It was not that I couldn't write legibly, it was just that whatever I wrote down made no sense. I finally got to the point of simply listening more carefully and trying to accurately record the assignments.

This problem with note taking carried over to my genealogical investigations. I go to the libraries and find information on my family and write down meaningful notes (at the time) and when I go back to the notes later, they are gibberish. I have no idea what I wrote about or even what I have done. So, recognizing my dilemma, I started an entirely different way of taking notes. I now use my digital camera to record everything of interest. By clicking away at the books and materials, I can record everything I see of interest and I don't have to rely on indecipherable notes for information. I simply go back to the original materials any time I need to refer to them.

Of course, as I have discussed before, all of those digital images do create another problem; organization and storage. Storage is no longer a real issue, I have huge 1.5 Terabyte hard drives and could easily go to 2 Terabyte drives if necessary. On the other hand, organizing the files and collating the information with the pertinent family records is a huge problem. The book above is a good example. This person was my great aunt. Her daughter-in-law's book about her life is 155 pages long. It is spiral bound and self-published. It is such a limited edition book, that no copy has found its way into a library and it is not listed in Worldcat.org and does not show up on a Google search. Finding a book like this would be an extraordinary opportunity, but had I relied on my note taking ability, practically all of the information in the book about my family would now be lost to me forever. The people who wrote and produced the book are long since dead and I would have no idea how to find another copy of the book. So what happens when I digitize the book? I can then refer back to the information at any time without any particular concern that my notes will not be readable.

But what about copyright? Yes, the book is copyrighted. Yes, someone, somewhere owns that copyright. But I do not intend to reproduce the book at all, for sale or otherwise. Here is the very ambiguous description of the fair use doctrine for copyright from the U.S. Copyright office:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

The key here is how am I going to use the copyrighted material? Exactly, I am not going to use it at all. I am going to use the genealogical information contained in the book. As noted above, copyright does not extend to the factual information conveyed in the work. There is always an upside and a downside to any good system.

ICAPGen Emeritus Status

In a recent post, I related as experience I had with my wife's 94 year old cousin, a former Accredited Genealogist (AG). Apparently, some of my comments were felt to be very inaccurate. Here is the comment from the ICAPGen Chair, Linda Turner AG®:

It’s unfortunate that facts were not checked by the author of this blog before posting it. As chair of the International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional GenealogistsSM, also known as ICAPGen, I would like to enlighten your readers with some real facts about our organization and its renewal process. First, ICAPGen does require a completion of specific renewal requirements every five years to retain an Accredited Genealogist® credential. These requirements are in keeping with standard practices and renewal requirements of many professional organizations, including certain educational requirements and a brief report with supporting documents that demonstrates their practical research skills. Our renewal requirements are given at our website, www.icapgen.org, and as you will see, they do NOT require members to “extend anyone’s pedigree by two generations during the year” nor for any other time period.

Second, if someone decides to not renew their credential, they are not automatically “dropped from the list” or “out on the street”. They are given an option to “retire,” so to speak, by becoming an Emeritus AG professional, with no requirements other than an agreement to refrain from professional paid work using their AG credential. Why this particular 94-year-old cousin of the author opted not to become an Emeritus AG professional is not certain, but the fact remains that she had every opportunity to do so.

My greater concern with this blog is that the author, who describes himself as an experienced, seasoned attorney, did not take the time to investigate some facts first before publishing his comments through a very public medium. A quick browse on the Internet or one phone call to our organization could have provided a very different perspective of this situation. In future blogs, I would hope for a fair assessment of any situation that is based on facts, rather than emotion.

Linda K. Turner, AG®
Chair, ICAPGen

 I certainly apologize for any mis-information. But, here are a few more facts. The ICAPGen website apparently makes no mention at all of the "Emeritus" status other than to have a list of some eleven people who are identified as having Emeritus status. It is nice that they allow such a status, but seem to provide no information to the public about this status and about these Emeritus members other than their names. There Frequently Asked Questions -- Renewal Questions, makes no mention of an Emeritus status.  In addition, I reported my wife's cousin's characterization of why she was dropped, I did not say that it was the reason. I have no idea if she "had every opportunity" to become an Emeritus member or even knew there was such a category. I was reporting her impression. By the way, it appears that the word "retire" does not appear on their website.

I am also aware that the requirements for accreditation have changed over the years and she may have referred to some earlier understanding of a requirement. To be more specific, the current renewal requirements provide for a "letter of Education and Skills Application: A letter that summarizes your genealogical activities during the previous five years, both in general and specific to your area of accreditation under renewal, including a brief summary of TWO activities completed from the Education and Skills Application List in your area of accreditation under renewal."

 The Education and Skills Application List is apparently a newer requirement. Comparing the present requirements with those outlined in Clifford, Karen. Becoming an Accredited Genealogist: Plus 100 Tips to Ensure Your Success! Salt Lake City, UT: Ancestry, 1998, it is readily apparent that there has been a significant increase in the number of requirements and their specificity since the earlier book was written.  By the way, the Clifford book is still available new on the Internet.

A "quick browse of the Internet" would not have changed my opinion very much, if at all.  I have noted before an interesting fact, there is only one AG listed for the entire state of Arizona and she is accredited for the Mid-South States. Also a search for AG Professionals by Regions shows that there are no AGs listed for the Mountain West Region (which includes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming). In fact there appear to be no AG® Researchers for any of the western states at all.

I am not advocating the removal of qualifications for licensure or accreditation or whatever you want to call it, but I am concerned that the process not be arbitrary and capricious especially in an area like genealogy where there are no clear education requirements (unlike law, medicine, etc.) and the certification procedures are ad hoc with no clear national standards.  By the way, this same issue applies to building contractors and a lot of other professions. For example, there are specific standards in Arizona for a contractor's license, but the qualifications and regulation are extremely varied from state to state.

FamilySeach -- which Wiki is which?

As of August 4, 2010, FamilySearch has two FamilySearch.org websites, one at the traditional URL and another Beta site at fsbeta.familysearch.org. The Beta site does not cause any confusion, in and of itself, but there are two FamilySearch Wiki sites also. One Wiki.FamilySearch.org is the regular site with some recent updated changes. The other site, the Beta FamilySearch Wiki website, is a little more obscure and shows up when you make a search into FamilySearch's Record Search Pilot and get additional information about a collection. This Wiki FamilySearch Beta site is https://wiki.fsbeta.familysearch.org/

The difference between the two Wiki sites seems to be limited to a comment on the Beta site:

Newsflash! A new facelift will appear on the Wiki by 8 am (EST) Friday, July 30. We hope you like the new look! Please post comments and questions in the forums. Q & A's

There is a link to Q & A's but the link has a statement that "there is currently no text on this page." So, apparently, there are two different Wiki sites out there, one is linked to the old FamilySearch.org page through the Record Search Pilot and the other is indirectly linked through the Beta FamilySearch website. If this sounds confusing, it is, very confusing.

What about certification of genealogists?

I've had some interesting experiences lately that give me insight into the certification process both from the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG) and the International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional Genealogists (ICAPGen).

The first experience involved my wife's 94-year-old first cousin. An amazing person by any criteria with amazing mental abilities and a huge background in genealogy. In visiting with her, I discovered that she was an Accredited Genealogist. I say "was." Even though this lady is probably one of the most knowledgeable researchers I have met, with impressive qualifications, she told me that she was no longer "Accredited" because she had not extended anyone's pedigree by two generations during the year and "they dropped her from the list." This is partially true, ICAPGen has specific renewal requirements that must be completed every five years.

Why was this a notable experience for me? I am a practicing and licensed attorney. I passed the Bar Examination for the State of Arizona back in 1975. Every year, we have a continuing education requirement, and yes, the requirement is mandatory and the Arizona State Bar Association will not renew your license if you fail to provide evidence of having taken the Continuing Education. But there is a difference, when you reach the age of 70, you can "retire," you don't lose your license to practice but you no longer have to qualify every year with continuing education.

Here is a contrast with ICAPGen, apparently, there is no advantage to years of service as a member. Neither do they recognize those who have served for years and years. If you do not meet the renewal requirements, you are out on the street, so to speak. They are the authority, they call the shots.

Here is the second example. I read Martin Hollick's series of articles in The Slovak Yankee on his application to the BCG. He wrote about his experience in applying for certification from Why I Applied to What I Did Wrong and then on to Why I Won't Apply Again. (This is not all of the articles and I suggest you go back through the series and read them all). I was touched by Martin's frankness and also by the striking parallels to my own experience in applying to the BCG.

I also spent a huge amount of time preparing for and applying to BCG. Without going into the details, the rejection criteria were arbitrary, capricious and invalid. As a long time trial attorney, I am well inured to rejection. But there is a difference between disagreement over interpretation and a lack of standards. After reading Martin's series of articles I realized that my experience with the BCG was not likely an aberration but a characteristic of the way things were done. Like Martin, I will not apply again. Why? Because I have no assurance that my subsequent application would not be handled in just the same way and because as expressed by Martin, "I have no confidence in the fairness of the process nor in the competence of the organization itself."

In almost any profession, including law, if you fail the entrance requirements, you have a pretty good idea of the reasons why and what you need to do to pass the exam the next time you take it. I have a number of friends who failed the Bar Exam the first time and re-took the exam successfully. But with the BCG, there is no exam, just an arbitrary set of judges who have no clear criteria for making a determination. I am fully aware of the long list of requirements and standards, but the judge's remarks were not consistent with those standards.

I am certain that there will be those who claim that this criticism is nothing more than "sour grapes." But absent Martin Hollick's series of articles and my discussion with my wife's 94 year old cousin, I would never have mentioned the issues at all. Just like a jury trial that went bad, I would just move on to the next project or case and forget what happened in the past. I will now do that. I still wonder, how many talented and knowledgeable genealogists have been terminally discouraged by both the ICAPGen and the BCG?

Are you a modern Luddite?

In the nineteenth century, changes wrought by the industrialization of the British textile industry including the loss of skilled jobs, produced a wide ranging protest. The object of the mob action were the mills and factory machinery. In modern usage the term has come to characterize those opposed to automation, computerization and new technology in general. This sentiment was expressed recently by one of my genealogy class members who said she hated all the new technology and didn't even know how to operate her cell phone.

Rather than direct their ire at the source of the irritation, that is the changes in our cultural and social structures, the Luddite mentality identifies the machine with the change. Historically, the Luddites destroyed the machines in an attempt to stop the loss of jobs due to technological progress. Today, the same type of attitude is express in an unwillingness to adapt to new technology. I find this resistance to technological change particularly prominent among genealogists. Even though they are constantly being told that technological change is inevitable and necessary. A major segment of the genealogical community actively opposes adapting new technology, to the extent of refusing to use new computers and refusing to update software.

This manifestation of the Luddite attitude, the tendency to cling to older technology long since obsolete, is almost endemic in the genealogical community. There appears to be a decided correlation between the age of the genealogist and the adaptation to technology.  Older people tend to be more distrustful of technology, whereas my younger friends are not even aware that there have been technological changes. To them, there have always been cell phones, iPads, iPods and other such devices. The difference I observe is that younger people accept the technology but view the devices as facilitating social connectivity and are largely ignorant of the ability to find information or do research.

Older genealogists if taught, while uncomfortable with the technology, can recognize those same machines as tools to accomplish their research goals, but they are not necessarily personally motivated to use those same tools to enhance their own research. For example, I showed one of my friends some of the features of Google Translate. He was very impressed with its ability, but two or three weeks later, when I saw him again, he asked me to show him the program because he had forgotten how to use it. Rather than trying the program out or experimenting with it, he chose to ignore the program until he could find someone (me) to explain it to him.

One of the most common symptoms of the modern Luddite, is the refusal to update to a newer computer program. You would never believe how many people I know who are running Personal Ancestral File on a computer running Windows 95. At the other end of the spectrum, you cannot believe the tremendous interest shown by my youngest grandchildren in the two iPads that were brought to the family reunion. The adults, for the most part, were only mildly interested, if at all. It is too bad we can't have the best of both worlds, the interest in the technology for technology's sake of the young, coupled with the mature interest in what the technology can actually produce on the part of the older users.

Any updates for FamilySearch?

In the BYU Continuing Education announcement of the Conference on Family History and Genealogy recently concluded, the senior product manager for FamilySearch, Daniel C. Lawyer, was scheduled to present "The Future of FamilySearch (Something Big is Coming Soon)" Although there were a lot of comments about a presentation by Curt B. Witcher on the coming Dark Ages of Genealogy and a few news accounts of the presentation by Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander, I found no comments at all about Lawyer's presentation.  Searching further, his talk was apparently about the update to the FamilySearch.org website.

A recent E-mail to the Beta testers for the new site indicates that they plan on concluding the testing on about the 5th of August. In the past, the conclusion of Beta testing has been the signal for an update to existing programs. I can only speculate, but it appears that the change over from the older FamilySearch.org website to the new format may occurs shortly, perhaps later this week?

At the same time, Beta testing has been going on with changes to the New FamilySearch website also. But none of the proposed changes have been implemented with a formal introduction, there have just been some incremental changes with no explanation other than in the Help menus. The last major upgrade to New FamilySearch took place in June and nothing seems to indicate how soon other changes might take place.

The FamilySearch Record Search site continues to add a few records after the big addition in June/July. A few of the collections have received new records within the past two weeks or so. But, the news banner that used to advise users of updates has been totally removed. There seems to be a trend lately to downplay any incremental changes to the all of the websites. For example, some time ago, I called attention to the fact that the "counter" showing how many items were in the Family History Archive had stopped working. There seems to be a definite shift away from emphasizing changes and additions to the websites.

We get little or no advance information about the direction being taken by FamilySearch until things actually happen. This does make it difficult for those of us who spend considerable time teaching others about the programs.

One new development that is also interesting is that instructions were sent out from the LDS Church, through Church channels, about removing unauthorized websites that could be mistaken for representing the Church. This is a constant concern to the Church (or to any organization that has a web presence) because of branding confusion. It is a similar problem to copyright violations and tradename and trademark violations. In the past, some non-official organization websites have been taken off the web, such as the site for the Mesa Regional Family History Center. This may happen again as the resources are centralized in FamilySearch.org website with its inclusion of the Record Search, Forums, Wiki and other resources. If you would like to view the new site go to fsbeta.familysearch.org

Whatever happens it will surely be interesting.

Is a royal line back to the Middle Ages real genealogy?

In a recent comment to my statement about old royal pedigree, Martin said,

It's an incorrect opinion. You've confused two things. I don't believe in lines going back to Adam either. However, I can verify using modern genealogical standards, my line back to medieval royalty and that royalty back to the early dark ages (about 400-600 A.D.). So it is real genealogy and real history.

 Given Martin's expertise in genealogy, it is highly likely that his pedigree is as accurate as possible, but unfortunately not all of the claimants to genealogical validity have the same degree of expertise. I applaud those, like Martin, who have the intellectual tools to research Medieval genealogy, but before anyone makes such a claim, it would be a good idea if they are careful that they did not just copy the information out of an online database.

Normally a "pedigree" show father/son/daughter or mother/son/daughter relationships. What I meant by real genealogy, is the documenting of actual family relationships to the extent historically possible. The commentator raises the issue of both the accuracy of his own genealogy and that of the traditional royal lines back as far as 400 A.D. What I meant by my comment that royalty had descendants was just that. Royalty had children just like the rest of our ancestors and it is possible to be related to royalty. My comments go to the accuracy of the early records and the fact that traditional royal genealogies are not always historically accurate.

So how accurate are the old pedigrees? Where do the records start to become more fiction than fact? The first place to go for lots of information is the British site, Some Notes on Medieval Genealogy. It is also important to be aware of such projects as the Victoria County History. Founded in 1899 and originally dedicated to Queen Victoria, the VCH is an encyclopedic record of England's places and people from earliest times to the present day. Obviously, there are similar records for other European countries.

Here is a comment made in 1984 by Robert C. Gunderson, then the Senior Research Specialist, of the Genealogy Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "In thirty-five years of genealogical research, I have yet to see a pedigree back to Adam that can be documented. By assignment, I have reviewed hundreds of pedigrees over the years. I have not found one where each connection on the pedigree can be justified by evidence from contemporary documents. In my opinion it is not even possible to verify historically a connected European pedigree earlier than the time of the Merovingian Kings (c. a.d. 450–a.d. 752)."

Here is another opinion, from the English Website, Explore Genealogy, "1538, when Anglican parish registers were really first kept, is a watershed date for all genealogists. After that, however murky it might seem at times, there was at least a system in place to record births, marriages and deaths that can hopefully be traced. But going back before that date is rather like venturing into a dark old forest with no paths, unsure if you can find your way through. Not many genealogists have managed to break the 1538 barrier."

Here is another quote from Powell, James M. Medieval Studies: An Introduction. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1976.

As you can see, the scholars in this area acknowledge the difficulties in making claims to accuracy. It is probably inevitable that one person who actually did viable research into the Middle Ages would comment on my post.