Everything about a wiki is counter-intuitive. Collaboration on a large scale with few rules and no supervision should not work. Especially when the collaborators do not collaborate but work entirely independently on their own projects. Especially when the collaborators have no idea who else is working on the project. How can a project that entirely lacks an overall goal or even a mission statement produce anything of value? Isn't it sort-of like depending on the people driving by a construction site to build the building, without plans or supervision? Do wikis work?
I think the answer to these and many other questions can be answered by examining the structure both cultural and practical of the wiki. First of all, there is the underlying program structure of the wiki. Using as an example the FamilySearch Research Wiki, there is a standard conceptual and recognizable structure. The Research Wiki uses the dominant WikiMedia open-source program, the same program used by Wikipedia, that is at its core, extremely simple to use. Wikis are described as a self-organizing, self-correcting and never finished online encyclopedias. This is a very long video but interesting, it will give you an idea about why the wiki works:
As you can see from the video, the core value of the wiki is neutrality. The wiki itself does not take a position. If you take the time to view the video, you will also see why the wiki works.
When I use the term "simple" I mean like E-mail and Blogs. Simple to the point of usefulness. As I have noticed, nearly everyone who reads my blog posts also has a blog. Only a handful of blogs can break out of the blog culture to have a wider appeal. On the other hand, E-mail is becoming pervasive even among the almost entirely computer illiterate. When I ask a class about wikis how many people have used Wikipedia, I find that there is a surprisingly large number of positive respondents. But as you can see from the video, the actual number of active participants is relatively small. The real question is not why does a wiki work, but why will seemingly intelligent people spend their time writing useful articles for free? Deep down, there is a need to communicate. I have noticed that bloggers not only write a lot, they have a tendency to talk a lot also.
In my previous post about the culture of the wiki I was focusing on the exclusive issues of wikis. Obviously, there are more inclusive than exclusive issues or wikis would not be such a phenomena. The FamilySearch Research Wiki currently has an access counter that shows that the startup page has been accessed 234,789,234 times and growing at the rate of thousands of visits a minute. The number of articles will soon pass 50,000. (If you read this in the future, you will see how influential the Research Wiki has become, because these numbers will seem very small).
There is no mystery as to why this particular form of social organization works. Those who contribute have bought in to the system. They know how and why the wiki works. They are also insatiable communicators and get satisfaction from sharing what they know or can research. There is a complex and difficult to penetrate social organization, but it is worth the effort. Ask yourself, if you are one of these people and seriously consider adding your own knowledge and expertise to the mix. It is satisfying to find a project that is worth the effort.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, March 6, 2011
How does a wiki work?
All social interactions are based on a complex behavioral code. I spent a number of years living and working in Latin America. I also spent years studying Spanish and Linguistics and then teaching both Spanish to English speakers and English to Spanish speakers. The complexity of the differences between my own Anglo culture and that in Latin America, was brought home to me recently when I was invited to a wedding reception where I was good friends with the bride's family, who were Anglos, and also good friends with the groom's family who were Latinos. There were substantial numbers of both ethnic groups in attendance and once again I was struck with the contrast between the two cultures. The Spanish speaking people were all related or friends or whatever of each other. When I said hello to a Spanish speaking friend, I was immediately introduced to the entire table and, through a cultural norm, had to shake hands with everyone. As soon as they realized I spoke Spanish, I was immediately friends with everyone.
The contrast was with the Anglos. We knew quite a few people who would say hello, perhaps shake hands and then wander off after exchanging the mandatory formalities. Except for a few parent/child relationships, the Anglos were all there as individuals or couples. They would talk to those who they recognized as friends but I don't recall meeting one person I did not already know. Some of the younger attendees who knew each other, were gathered in groups but not really interacting.
One image at the reception was a group of about 20 or so Latinos standing in a group having their picture taken together. These were not wedding pictures, they were family and friends.
Everyone got along fine, there was almost no apparent friction between the two groups because I assume most people didn't even recognize that there were two groups defined by language, culture and traditions. It is not at all unusual in Mesa, Arizona to have people speaking Spanish since close to half of the people speak Spanish. Many of the people there spoke both Spanish and English.
How does this apply to a wiki? Well, a wiki is in effect a social organization where there are specific rules, customs and traditions. Just as with my experience in noting the cultural differences between the Latino and Anglo people at the reception, when someone uses a wiki they may become more or less aware of the wiki culture and mores. When I lived in Panama, I knew Anglos who would not go out of the Canal Zone. They had lived in the Canal Zone for years and had never been across the imaginary line dividing Panama from the Canal Zone which was essentially like crossing the street as there was no formal fence at the edge of the Zone except signs. As a contrast, my family lived in the heart of Panama City in an apartment building. I assume there are a lot of people out there who will also avoid learning about the wikis.
My cross cultural experience probably helps me to accept the restrictions and rules of other cultural groups, including working with wikis. Some rules are written and obvious, some are less obvious and unwritten.
In the overall online world, it is customary to identify yourself through some method, either as an individual who lives in the "real world" or as an avatar, an imaginary character assumed for the purpose of online conduct. Participants in a wiki soon learn to distinguish between participants who have a "real" identity and those with assumed ones. Participants also soon realize that the wiki is cooperative and that there are definite rules for successful participation. In the long run, participants can only continue to actively contribute from a real identity.
Like living in a non-English speaking country (I avoid the term "foreign" as no country is foreign to me only different), wikis have their own language, Wikitext and HTML. Just as those who visited Panama from the deck of a boat going through the Canal, casual visitors to a wiki may not even be aware that the participants speak Wikitext. Wiki culture is somewhat defined and created by the structure of the wiki itself. Just as I learned Spanish and then after a number of years became accustomed to the Latin American culture, everyone can learn "wiki" but it is only through active participation over a considerable time period, that the person can learn wiki culture.
Just as there were people who lived in the Canal Zone only around the corner from a completely different culture but who never stepped across the line, there are those who will use wikis their whole life and never imagine the underlying cultural complexity of the social context.
Obviously, I understand that any real world culture is far more complex than an online wiki, but I am illustrating the fact with a wiki that there is a language, not generally known, there is a culture, also not generally known and there are other similarities. One difference between the wiki culture and a real world one, is the fact that the participants in a wiki, to some extent, define the culture rather than in the real world where the participants are defined by the culture. Additionally, the individual wikis do take on some of the aspects of the dominant background culture. The FamilySearch Research Wiki is a genealogical community, so it assumes many of the attributes of the genealogical community and culture. Other wikis take on their own culture.
The FamilySearch Research Wiki is a good example of the blend of background culture, in this case, genealogy, with the wiki culture. Since it is a relatively new community, the active participants are still trying to search out their collective identity. Wikis work because there are those who see the advantages of the collective cooperative environment and are willing to participate and contribute even if the participation requires learning a new language and accepting a new or different culture.
Likewise, those who are actively involved in a wiki need to remember that not all those who use the wiki want to be native wiki users. Some just want to be tourists on a boat. Others just want to experience the different culture but do not want to learn the language. Some will learn the language and come to participate and contribute, but those people are few and far between. How many English speakers do you know who have learned to speak Spanish like a native?
I probably have a lot more to say about this subject, but that is all for now.
The contrast was with the Anglos. We knew quite a few people who would say hello, perhaps shake hands and then wander off after exchanging the mandatory formalities. Except for a few parent/child relationships, the Anglos were all there as individuals or couples. They would talk to those who they recognized as friends but I don't recall meeting one person I did not already know. Some of the younger attendees who knew each other, were gathered in groups but not really interacting.
One image at the reception was a group of about 20 or so Latinos standing in a group having their picture taken together. These were not wedding pictures, they were family and friends.
Everyone got along fine, there was almost no apparent friction between the two groups because I assume most people didn't even recognize that there were two groups defined by language, culture and traditions. It is not at all unusual in Mesa, Arizona to have people speaking Spanish since close to half of the people speak Spanish. Many of the people there spoke both Spanish and English.
How does this apply to a wiki? Well, a wiki is in effect a social organization where there are specific rules, customs and traditions. Just as with my experience in noting the cultural differences between the Latino and Anglo people at the reception, when someone uses a wiki they may become more or less aware of the wiki culture and mores. When I lived in Panama, I knew Anglos who would not go out of the Canal Zone. They had lived in the Canal Zone for years and had never been across the imaginary line dividing Panama from the Canal Zone which was essentially like crossing the street as there was no formal fence at the edge of the Zone except signs. As a contrast, my family lived in the heart of Panama City in an apartment building. I assume there are a lot of people out there who will also avoid learning about the wikis.
My cross cultural experience probably helps me to accept the restrictions and rules of other cultural groups, including working with wikis. Some rules are written and obvious, some are less obvious and unwritten.
In the overall online world, it is customary to identify yourself through some method, either as an individual who lives in the "real world" or as an avatar, an imaginary character assumed for the purpose of online conduct. Participants in a wiki soon learn to distinguish between participants who have a "real" identity and those with assumed ones. Participants also soon realize that the wiki is cooperative and that there are definite rules for successful participation. In the long run, participants can only continue to actively contribute from a real identity.
Like living in a non-English speaking country (I avoid the term "foreign" as no country is foreign to me only different), wikis have their own language, Wikitext and HTML. Just as those who visited Panama from the deck of a boat going through the Canal, casual visitors to a wiki may not even be aware that the participants speak Wikitext. Wiki culture is somewhat defined and created by the structure of the wiki itself. Just as I learned Spanish and then after a number of years became accustomed to the Latin American culture, everyone can learn "wiki" but it is only through active participation over a considerable time period, that the person can learn wiki culture.
Just as there were people who lived in the Canal Zone only around the corner from a completely different culture but who never stepped across the line, there are those who will use wikis their whole life and never imagine the underlying cultural complexity of the social context.
Obviously, I understand that any real world culture is far more complex than an online wiki, but I am illustrating the fact with a wiki that there is a language, not generally known, there is a culture, also not generally known and there are other similarities. One difference between the wiki culture and a real world one, is the fact that the participants in a wiki, to some extent, define the culture rather than in the real world where the participants are defined by the culture. Additionally, the individual wikis do take on some of the aspects of the dominant background culture. The FamilySearch Research Wiki is a genealogical community, so it assumes many of the attributes of the genealogical community and culture. Other wikis take on their own culture.
The FamilySearch Research Wiki is a good example of the blend of background culture, in this case, genealogy, with the wiki culture. Since it is a relatively new community, the active participants are still trying to search out their collective identity. Wikis work because there are those who see the advantages of the collective cooperative environment and are willing to participate and contribute even if the participation requires learning a new language and accepting a new or different culture.
Likewise, those who are actively involved in a wiki need to remember that not all those who use the wiki want to be native wiki users. Some just want to be tourists on a boat. Others just want to experience the different culture but do not want to learn the language. Some will learn the language and come to participate and contribute, but those people are few and far between. How many English speakers do you know who have learned to speak Spanish like a native?
I probably have a lot more to say about this subject, but that is all for now.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Understanding Topographical Maps for Genealogists -- Part Three A matter of scale
Early historical maps were usually one-of-a kind unique hand-drawn creations. Even if the map were published, the additional copies of the map were duplicates or near duplicates of the original. As a result of the individuality of the maps, there was no easy way to compare places shown on one map to those same places shown on another map. The problem was the lack of a uniform scale.
In maps, the term "scale" refers to the relationship between a measured distance on the map and the measured distance on the actual portion of the earth being represented. If the scale were 1 to 1 (usually represented by 1:1), the map would be the same size as the land or building represented. For very small objects a 1:1 representation is reasonable and practical. For land, showing things at full size is usually very impractical. Any map drawn to a particular scale will only be entirely useful if the map also shows the scale represented.
Here is a screen shot of the bottom of a topographical map showing the scale:
A couple of things need explaining. First, a "7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map refers to the best known and most detailed United States Geological Survey maps that are drawn at a scale of 1:24,000, that is one inch on the map represents 24,000 inches or 2000 feet on the earth's surface. This type of scale is known as a ratio scale. When two different maps have the same scale, distances measured on the two maps are comparable. So any 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map in the U.S. is exactly comparable every other map with same scale. The 7.5-Minute maps are the only largest scale maps of the U.S. that cover the entire country.
The bar scale shown in the screen shot above, gives you a measuring size so that you can measure almost exact distances on the map. The bars are calibrated in meters, miles and feet. Remember that a mile is 5280 feet.
Many other map scales have been used historically and many are in use today. Some of the most common scales for topographical maps include the 1:62,500 or a 15 minute quadrangle, the 1:100,000 or one degree sheet and the 1:250,000 or 2 degree sheet. The reference to "minute" is the measurement on a circle i.e. curved surface of the earth's sphere in degrees, minutes and seconds. (360 degrees in a circle, 60 minutes in a degree, 60 seconds in a minute). The smaller the scale of the map, such as 1:250,000 the larger the area on the actual earth surface, the map covers. Large scale maps cover a small actual world area. Small scale maps cover a large actual world area.
Now you are asking, who cares and why should I know this? A map is not just a picture, it is supposed to be a representation of a portion (or all) of the earth's surface. Old historical maps were sometimes drawn with a variable scale. That is, the scale varied from one location to another. Places well known to the map maker were drawn with greater detail than those unknown or at some distance. It is often very difficult to try and match an historical map to its modern equivalent for this reason alone. If you are aware of the scale of a map every time you look at one, you will not be mislead by places that appear to be quite close but, due to the scale of the map, may actually be hundreds of miles apart. A map is only accurate if it has a consistent and measurable scale.
In maps, the term "scale" refers to the relationship between a measured distance on the map and the measured distance on the actual portion of the earth being represented. If the scale were 1 to 1 (usually represented by 1:1), the map would be the same size as the land or building represented. For very small objects a 1:1 representation is reasonable and practical. For land, showing things at full size is usually very impractical. Any map drawn to a particular scale will only be entirely useful if the map also shows the scale represented.
Here is a screen shot of the bottom of a topographical map showing the scale:
The bar scale shown in the screen shot above, gives you a measuring size so that you can measure almost exact distances on the map. The bars are calibrated in meters, miles and feet. Remember that a mile is 5280 feet.
Many other map scales have been used historically and many are in use today. Some of the most common scales for topographical maps include the 1:62,500 or a 15 minute quadrangle, the 1:100,000 or one degree sheet and the 1:250,000 or 2 degree sheet. The reference to "minute" is the measurement on a circle i.e. curved surface of the earth's sphere in degrees, minutes and seconds. (360 degrees in a circle, 60 minutes in a degree, 60 seconds in a minute). The smaller the scale of the map, such as 1:250,000 the larger the area on the actual earth surface, the map covers. Large scale maps cover a small actual world area. Small scale maps cover a large actual world area.
Now you are asking, who cares and why should I know this? A map is not just a picture, it is supposed to be a representation of a portion (or all) of the earth's surface. Old historical maps were sometimes drawn with a variable scale. That is, the scale varied from one location to another. Places well known to the map maker were drawn with greater detail than those unknown or at some distance. It is often very difficult to try and match an historical map to its modern equivalent for this reason alone. If you are aware of the scale of a map every time you look at one, you will not be mislead by places that appear to be quite close but, due to the scale of the map, may actually be hundreds of miles apart. A map is only accurate if it has a consistent and measurable scale.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The good, the bad and the wiki
It is difficult to understand how any aspect of genealogy could be in the least bit controversial. The subject matter yes, the discipline, not so easy. But notwithstanding the non-controversial nature of genealogy as a discipline, the FamilySearch Research Wiki is loaded with controversy. I teach classes many times a week and the classes where we discuss the Wiki are always the most lively. There is a huge amount of skepticism that anything like a "wiki" could possibly work.
All wikis are to a major degree collaborative and despite the huge amount of media emphasis on collaborative interaction on the Internet, I feel that most people do not believe that collaboration works. It may be one thing to accept input on a document from peers or superiors in a commercial work group, but the average computer user is not used to being corrected. In one instance on the FamilySearch Research Wiki, one of my associates made a contribution to the Wiki. Unfortunately, he did not identify himself by entering any information into his User page, so I did not know who he was. The information entered needed to be altered slightly. When I mentioned the change later, he admitted that he had entered the information but since then he has not contributed to the Wiki. No one likes to be told they are wrong and correcting entries is a form of telling people they are wrong.
So if this is the mind set, how can a wiki possibly work? The idea of collaborative documents, including wikis, only work when the individuals involved turn over "ownership" of the document (or wiki page) to the community and stop thinking in terms of personal ownership.
Cooperatives, such as buying co-ops, farm co-ops in some form or another have an extremely long and involved history in our society. Co-ops where people pool their resources to obtain certain communal advantages are very viable and long-living entities. If you think of a wiki as a type of co-op, the idea becomes less foreign and more viable. A wiki is an information co-op.
The fact is that wikis do work. The concern that the information will ultimately be corrupted or inaccurate is not realized in practice. Wikis, for the most part, are self correcting. Where they do not work well is with information dealing with issues with a significant amount of controversy. If the Research Wiki dealt with family and individual information there would be much more difficulty in coming to a consensus. But if the topic is cemeteries in Ohio, there will not be a lot of disagreement over the content. But this non-controversial nature of the content does not diminish the overall controversy of the wiki idea itself.
If you have concerns about the viability of the wiki idea, I suggest you get involved in the wiki community. Try making some changes and see what happens. With the FamilySearch Research Wiki, you just might get a comment or two, but nothing else.
All wikis are to a major degree collaborative and despite the huge amount of media emphasis on collaborative interaction on the Internet, I feel that most people do not believe that collaboration works. It may be one thing to accept input on a document from peers or superiors in a commercial work group, but the average computer user is not used to being corrected. In one instance on the FamilySearch Research Wiki, one of my associates made a contribution to the Wiki. Unfortunately, he did not identify himself by entering any information into his User page, so I did not know who he was. The information entered needed to be altered slightly. When I mentioned the change later, he admitted that he had entered the information but since then he has not contributed to the Wiki. No one likes to be told they are wrong and correcting entries is a form of telling people they are wrong.
So if this is the mind set, how can a wiki possibly work? The idea of collaborative documents, including wikis, only work when the individuals involved turn over "ownership" of the document (or wiki page) to the community and stop thinking in terms of personal ownership.
Cooperatives, such as buying co-ops, farm co-ops in some form or another have an extremely long and involved history in our society. Co-ops where people pool their resources to obtain certain communal advantages are very viable and long-living entities. If you think of a wiki as a type of co-op, the idea becomes less foreign and more viable. A wiki is an information co-op.
The fact is that wikis do work. The concern that the information will ultimately be corrupted or inaccurate is not realized in practice. Wikis, for the most part, are self correcting. Where they do not work well is with information dealing with issues with a significant amount of controversy. If the Research Wiki dealt with family and individual information there would be much more difficulty in coming to a consensus. But if the topic is cemeteries in Ohio, there will not be a lot of disagreement over the content. But this non-controversial nature of the content does not diminish the overall controversy of the wiki idea itself.
If you have concerns about the viability of the wiki idea, I suggest you get involved in the wiki community. Try making some changes and see what happens. With the FamilySearch Research Wiki, you just might get a comment or two, but nothing else.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Is there an iPad in your genealogy future
I had someone today stop me at the Mesa Regional Family History Center just to tell me how much they liked Reunion on the iPad. Looking around and seeing the huge increase in the number of smart phones, particularly iPhones, it is likely that someone you know will show up with either an iPhone or an iPad. The new iPad 2 is really impressive. Many people who do not want to pay for the monthly charge of the iPhone are purchasing iPod Touch with all of the same features and no monthly charge. You still need an Internet account and the Internet needs to be available by WiFi.
Going back to the Mesa Regional Family History Center, they just introduced free WiFi at the center. That means I can take my MacBook Pro to the Center and actually do some work while I am there. The times are really a'changin.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
There is a state south of Arizona
I do intend to finish up my post on Understanding Topographical Maps for Genealogists, but in the first post I asked a question about what state lies to the south of Arizona. This was not a trick question. I was not going to say something like, Florida, because it is "south" of Arizona. I really meant what state lies to the south of Arizona.
Well, I did get the answer but the person who got the right answer was my daughter so that really doesn't count. I also got the right answer from one of my sons. They are all Bloggers and definitely online.
Arizona's neighbor to the south is commonly called Mexico. But the real name of the country is (translated into English) The United States of Mexico. (Estados Unidos de Mexico or Estados Unidos Mexicanos). Mexico has 31 states and one Federal District. If you are interested, here is a list of the Mexican States in Wikipedia. The state to the south of Arizona is Sonora. People in Phoenix are more aware of this than other places because of the license plates from Sonora.
The point from a genealogical perspective is simple. Sometimes we are not even aware of how little we know about our world geographically speaking and that gets in the way of our genealogical research. Some of the insurmountable genealogical mysteries can move towards solution if the locations of the events are accurately identified. I have been talking about topographical maps for a while because two places on a map might look relatively close together but there just might be a major river or mountain in between. We used to live on the Ohio River. Even though we lived about a mile from Indiana, it would take us about half an hour to drive to the town across the river, because we had to drive to a bridge. Back in the 1800s there were no bridges and living across the river would have been a major obstacle.
Also populations migrated along rivers, railroads and canals. Knowing about the lay of the land and the proximity of developments makes a huge difference as to why and where people lived.
Just remember, there is a state south of Arizona. Sonora.
Well, I did get the answer but the person who got the right answer was my daughter so that really doesn't count. I also got the right answer from one of my sons. They are all Bloggers and definitely online.
Arizona's neighbor to the south is commonly called Mexico. But the real name of the country is (translated into English) The United States of Mexico. (Estados Unidos de Mexico or Estados Unidos Mexicanos). Mexico has 31 states and one Federal District. If you are interested, here is a list of the Mexican States in Wikipedia. The state to the south of Arizona is Sonora. People in Phoenix are more aware of this than other places because of the license plates from Sonora.
The point from a genealogical perspective is simple. Sometimes we are not even aware of how little we know about our world geographically speaking and that gets in the way of our genealogical research. Some of the insurmountable genealogical mysteries can move towards solution if the locations of the events are accurately identified. I have been talking about topographical maps for a while because two places on a map might look relatively close together but there just might be a major river or mountain in between. We used to live on the Ohio River. Even though we lived about a mile from Indiana, it would take us about half an hour to drive to the town across the river, because we had to drive to a bridge. Back in the 1800s there were no bridges and living across the river would have been a major obstacle.
Also populations migrated along rivers, railroads and canals. Knowing about the lay of the land and the proximity of developments makes a huge difference as to why and where people lived.
Just remember, there is a state south of Arizona. Sonora.
Lest We Forget -- FamilySearch.org Marches On
I estimated that FamilySearch.org had added over 200 million records in January and was interested to see, with a short month, if they would add more than that in February. It looks like they had more than 350 million records added. It is pretty hard to imagine over 1/2 billion records in two months!
From our perspective at the Mesa Regional Family History Center, one of the most important additions is the 1930 Mexican Census for all of the states. We have a lot of Spanish speaking patrons and this will be a great resource for some of them.
It is also interesting to note that FamilySearch is adding African records such as Zimbabwe, Death Registers, 1890-1977; Index to Death Register, 1892-1977.
If you want a list of the most recent records. You go to FamilySearch.org and click on "All Record Collections" just below the list of countries on the startup page. When you click, you will be taken to the Historical Record Collections page. If you click on the title to the "Last Updated" column, the list will be sorted chronologically and show the most recently added items like this:
Check it out. FamilySearch.org is rapidly becoming one of the most valuable genealogical resources on the Internet.
From our perspective at the Mesa Regional Family History Center, one of the most important additions is the 1930 Mexican Census for all of the states. We have a lot of Spanish speaking patrons and this will be a great resource for some of them.
It is also interesting to note that FamilySearch is adding African records such as Zimbabwe, Death Registers, 1890-1977; Index to Death Register, 1892-1977.
If you want a list of the most recent records. You go to FamilySearch.org and click on "All Record Collections" just below the list of countries on the startup page. When you click, you will be taken to the Historical Record Collections page. If you click on the title to the "Last Updated" column, the list will be sorted chronologically and show the most recently added items like this:
Check it out. FamilySearch.org is rapidly becoming one of the most valuable genealogical resources on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)