The impact of E-books on genealogy

Yesterday I worked with a patron at the Mesa Regional Family History Center that was looking for a book about one of her remote ancestors, a member of British nobility. She was wondering if there was a book in our library about this individual. I quickly found three bound journal articles containing references to the individual, but also helped her look online for additional material. I decided that this same process would work for many other researchers looking for printed material online.

The name of the distant ancestor was Sir George Beeston. There are several places I could start a search, but I chose to do a Google Books search first. By putting his name in quotes, I did an exact search on his name and found 667 results. Nearly all of these were for this specific individual. Needless to say, the patron was overwhelmed. However, she also wanted to see a physical book. In her words, "I just want to hold it in my hands." Most of the books that were listed on Google Books had free online digital copies. Choosing one,

Debrett, John. Debrett's Baronetage of England: Containing Their Descent and Present State, Their Collateral Branches, Births, Marriages, and Issue, from the Institution of the Order in 1611 ; a Complete and Alphabetical Arrangement of Their Mottoes, with Correct Translations ; a List of Persons Who Have Received the Honour of Knighthood, of Such As Have Been Advanced to the Peerage, and of British Subjects Holding Foreign Orders of Knighthood. London: Printed for C. and J. Rivington, 1824. 

I also found the book in WorldCat.org website. The original book proved to be quite rare and not generally available, however there were several other editions and several libraries had copies. At this point she had the option of ordering the book through inter-library loan or being content with an online version of this particular book.

The trick here is figuring out that Google Books, WorldCat.org and several other large digitized book databases are interrelated with links to each other. So the total number of scanned books online is extremely large.

What does this explosive growth of digitized books mean to genealogy? In one word: availability. Many genealogically significant books have been entirely unavailable. It is not unusual for someone to research their genealogy for a lifetime and then put all of the information they obtain into a book. My Great-grandmother did just that. But there was one problem, usually the author had little or no funds to print a large number of books. So the books were out of print as soon as the first printing was done. Many of these one-of-a-kind genealogy books have found their way into libraries across the world, but the library may have the only copy available anywhere.

Previously, the one and only copy issue was insurmountable. Even if you had access to the library, there was really no way of knowing that the book was there in the first place. So now we have WorldCat.org and its counterpart Google Books. Now, at least, we can find out if the book exists somewhere in a library. For example, the book written by my Great-grandmother can be found in the Brigham Young University (BYU) Library. How would I know if WorldCat.org did not tell me? But in addition, there are copies in five other libraries. Now, at least, if I wanted to see a copy of the book, I would have a chance of finding one.

In addition to being able to locate the book in a library, once a book is digitized, it will appear in an online collection. In the case of my Great-grandmother's book, the book was digitized and may some day appear in the Family History Archive, the huge BYU digitized collection. The reason I say someday, is because the website has yet to be updated and even though books are being digitized they do not necessarily show up online.

In many cases, these books have never before had anything approaching a general circulation and in addition, many of the digitized copies are completely searchable. I think we are only just now seeing the beginning of the changes that will come to research as more and more publications become available online.

What drives genealogists over the edge...

Week after week, I look at hundreds of patron "genealogy" records. I put genealogy in quotes because many, not all, but many of the records are patently wrong on their face. Further, because I work frequently with New FamilySearch, I see many of those records show up in that database. It is getting to the point that I can scan down a list of records and pick out the ones that are wrong without doing anything more. Today I hit my limit of patience. I had a list of records that included the following entry:

Harriet M. Wilkinson
Born abt 1837
Massachusetts, United States

Perhaps you can see why this record caught my eye? Actually, there were several things about the record that made me immediately assume that it was either grossly incomplete or simply wrong. First, was the dead give-a-way, she was supposedly born in Massachusetts but had no exact birth date. Massachusetts records are very complete and I assumed that there was a high likelyhood that the record had not been researched and that someone had merely copied it from some other list because an exact birth date for this person existed, assuming she existed at all.

The second give-a-way was the general birth place. No town, no county, simply Massachusetts. This was probably an extracted record from a single source, likely a U.S. Census record.

So after copying down the short info above, I went to my computer to see if Harriet M. Wilkinson existed or not. Within ten minutes I found her and her husband and family in the 1870, 1880, 1900 and 1910 U.S. Census. Guess what? Wilkinson is her married name. She and her husband John N. Wilkinson and family lived in New Ipswich, Hillsborough, New Hampshire. In the same ten minute period of time, I found listed in the New Hampshire Death Records.

Before going further, I want to lay down some ground rules. Any place I search has to be readily available online. So I looked in the New Hampshire Death Records on FamilySearch.org.  The next ground rule is that I search only with the available information. In this case a name, an approximate birth date and a place.  In the New Hampshire Deaths and Burials, 1784 - 1949 I found the following:

It turns out that there are two Harriet M. Wilkinsons both showing in the New Hampshire death records, one married to John N. Wilkinson and born in 1837, another married to Charles Wilkinson and born in 1834. What are the chances?

I changed my search parameters to include a birth place of Massachusetts and did another search. I found the 1900 U.S. Census with her living with a Brother-in-Law. Then I searched on John N. Wilkinson. I found his death record again in the New Hampshire Deaths and Burials, 1784-1949 in FamilySearch.org's Historical Record Collections. I also found a marriage record in New Hampshire Marriages, 1720-1920 also in FamilySearch.org's Historical Record Collections. Here is that record:

There is her maiden name, Harriet M. Stevens. She died in Townsend, Massachusetts, which happens to be about 15 miles from New Ipswich. Now I search for Harriet M. Wilkinson born in Massachusetts in 1837 in Ancestry.com. In the 1910 U.S. Census it shows her living with her spouse John N. Wilkinson (misspelled Williamson) in Townsend, Middlesex, Massachusetts living with her daughter Ellen.

Here is the point, I could go on. I spent a minimal amount of time looking. Where did the information come from? New FamilySearch. Here is a screen shot of the NFS record on the family:

I could go on about this information for a long time, but I won't. It is obvious that her name is incorrect since it is her married name not her maiden name. The birth date for the eldest daughter, 1846 can not be correct since Harriet was only nine years old at the time, and so forth and so forth.

I found the correct information from easily searchable online sources in a matter of minutes. What is the problem here people? Can't we do even a modest amount of the research and come up with some kind of verifiable and accurate information? Why do I have to see this stuff day after day? Especially, when I can't do anything about it. I am all for liberality in accepting work by beginners and those who may never have the skills to do an adequate job, but it still drives me over the edge to see work that is poorly done and could have so easily been more accurate. I didn't even get into the mess with this family in New FamilySearch where one record has John N. Wilkinson as his own father.

Contributing to the FamilySearch Research Wiki -- Do's and Don'ts

http://In  the past week over a thousand articles have been contributed to the FamilySearch Research Wiki. But there are still huge areas of the Wiki that lack detailed information. A wiki, by its nature, is a collaborative website. Everyone is invited to register and contribute information. In addition to the thousands of articles with genealogical research information and links, the Research Wiki also contains its entire operating manual of instructions, principles and policies.

Every genealogist has some specialized information about records or some location that would benefit others. The Wiki is designed expressly for the purpose of sharing this unique personal information with others. As you browse the pages or search for specific information, you may see incomplete or inaccurate entries. All registered users have an automatic invitation to make changes to the Wiki. To make those changes you first need to register. If you already have an LDS Account or a FamilySearch Account, you are already registered. If not, you can click on the "Sign in." Registrations is simple and you can use your login and password for all of the FamilySearch websites.

Once you are registered and sign in, we strongly suggest you go to your User Page. If you look at the right side of the Wiki screen you will see a list of topics. Click on the one that says "Personal Tools" and then click on your login name. This will take you to your own User page. You can edit the page any way you like (within reason and appropriate to the Wiki). I suggest you put up some basic information about your background so you can relate to the other Wiki contributors. You are welcome to go to my User Page for an example. Just type "jamestanner' into the search field and select the User:Jamestanner link.

Now, you are ready to contribute. You should read the Contributor Guidelines however. Search on "Contributor guidelines" or here is the link. Please take the time to read each of the individual guidelines. You may also want to read some of the basic introductory material about how to make edits and changes to the Wiki. Although this seems simple, the Wiki is so dynamic that there is plenty to keep you busy and interested. You may also wish to view the Wiki Contributors Corner in the Forums.

Now something about the don'ts. Don't add personal family history, biographies, pedigrees or other family information to the Wiki. If you have any questions about what is appropriate see the FamilySearch Wiki:Purpose and Appropriate Topics page. Please have the courtesy to follow the guidelines. If you look down the list of things that are not appropriate you will also see that the Wiki is not a place for advertising products or services.

Please think seriously about helping with the Wiki. It is currently growing at a fantastic rate and is the most extensive and helpful resource on the Internet for genealogy already, but you and I can make it even better.

FamilySearch Research Wiki passes 50,000 article mark

Due to the dramatic growth in the past few months, the FamilySearch Research Wiki has now blown past the 50,000 article mark. The mark was reached early in morning of 9 March 2011. The count today, 10 March 2011, is already at 50,284 and rising rapidly. The access counter on the startup page read 235,731,413 this morning as I write this post. Why is this important? Wikis are only as good as their content.

If you compare the numbers on the FamilySearch Research Wiki with Wikipedia, for example, you might think that the Research Wiki is small potatoes. Today Wikipedia had more than 3,578,000 articles just in English with millions more in 279 other languages. The Research Wiki is available in Spanish, Portuguese and Swedish. But the comparison is far from fair. Wikipedia is a universal encyclopedia while the Research Wiki is focused only on genealogy/family history. Maybe another comparison would be the Ancestry.com Family History Wiki but that wiki has only been accessed 852,591 times.

What is on the Research Wiki that makes it such a draw? Loads of information about genealogical sources and methodology. OK, I probably need a disclaimer about this point. I am a Research Wiki fanatic. I am the moderator for Arizona and have been for a couple of years. I am currently on the Support Team for the entire Wiki. We are the folks who are trying to keep this rapidly growing resource relatively sane.

The Research Wiki is the first, go-to place to look for information about everything having to do with genealogy. What kinds of information are going onto the Wiki? Almost everything you can imagine in detail. Here is a brief selection of today's new articles:

Click on the image to see some of the today's new articles. Looking at the whole list of the last 50 pages, the subjects span the gamut from Texas to Finland with a lot of Sweden and England thrown in. With all these additions are the articles useful? Here is a screen shot of one of the most recent pages.

All of those blue entries are links. You may not be interested in Staffordshire, but what if you were? Have you looked for articles in your areas of interest?

Thanks to all my readers and Family Tree Magazine for Top 40

Every year the Family Tree Magazine picks the top 40 Blogs in eight different categories. I am honored to be included in this year's lineup. This year's selections were made by readers voting and with an expert panel weighing in on the judging. It is truly amazing to be associated with such outstanding talent and dedication. As I would say in Spanish, "un million de gracias" or a million thanks.

If your favorite Blog didn't get mentioned in this year's selections, then make sure you vote next year.

Why do you think that there has to be a Top 40 Genealogy Blogs (or a Top 40 anything for that matter)? I know some excellent Bloggers who can write professionally and have great content, but they are never mentioned as candidates for Blogger of Honor, Official Blogger or Top 40, so what goes? There seems to be a universal human need to have someone be the best of something. In fairs, races, dance contests, game shows, every where we interact as humans we need to have someone recognized. Genealogy isn't a competition, but at the very least we need a way to gauge how we are doing and some kind of goal.

So how does a Blog get into the Top 40? I would think the first and most important thing is consistency. People may not read everything you write but if you write enough of it, somebody will like it. Second, is writing style. You need to know who your audience is and talk to them. Third is passion. If you aren't passionate, it is very hard to keep writing about anything day after day. Fourth and last for a while, persistence. You have to keep on, keep on writing even when you don't feel like it, even when you are sick of it and even when you can't think of anything to write about. Some of the posts I for which I got the most response were written while I was tired or sick or both.

Thanks again for all the votes and to Family Tree Magazine.

How do you keep up with genealogy news?

One question I am frequently asked is when do I sleep (or if I ever sleep). I can assure you that I do sleep, sometimes when I really should be doing something else. But the real question is how do I keep up with all the genealogy news? There seems to be things happening every day.

Let's take an example. FamilySearch announces the addition of millions of more new records added to the Historical Record Collections on FamilySearch.org. So how do I know this? Simple, I am on an e-mail list from FamilySearch. I also subscribe to a large number of blogs and so there are many eyes watching the news. Why do you think the same announcement shows up in different blog posts at about the same time? We all read the same sources.

But don't I have to spend a lot of time reviewing my e-mail and blog posts? Well, yes and no. All of my e-mail goes directly to my iPhone, so I can review e-mail almost anytime and anyplace. Most of us have a surprising amount of down time every day, that is time where we are waiting or watching and if some of this time is used to keep up with e-mail and such, then the job gets done without any additional time being set aside.

The blog traffic is managed with Google Reader (there are a lot of other readers available). I get a list of headlines of new blog posts and every few hours I can go through the list and read or save anything that looks vaguely interesting. Some people use Facebook and Twitter for the same reason, to keep tabs but not spend a lot of time.

There are some things I don't do. I don't spend a lot of time online on anything other than genealogy and the other things I am interested in. I never "surf" the Web or spend time posting notes to Facebook. I do read a lot of books, especially on technical subjects. I am used to working about 12 to 14 hours a day, so I get a lot done every day. The idea is to focus on the things you want to do, like genealogy and other positive things and try not to waste time doing things that either don't matter or in which you have little or no interest.

Can we have anonymity and privacy in the online world of genealogy?

Today in Facebook there are a variety of posts from marriage to birthdays and software reviews to genealogical conferences. When do these people have time to actually do anything? They seem to live their lives online. On the one hand I occasionally glance through a long list of daily posts on Facebook and at the same time deal with people who think registering a new software program will make them an instant victim of identity theft. Yes, it is again time to talk about privacy in the context of genealogy. At the same time, I need to address the two opposite poles; complete and total anonymity in contrast to the openness and almost complete disclosure of social networking.

Facebook and its counterparts allow those who are interested to connect with family members in a way that could only be imagined a few years ago. Contrasted with this lack of privacy in social networking are those who shun the Internet entirely through fear of identity theft and concerns about privacy in general. In between are those who use the Internet extensively, but wish to remain anonymous.

Anonymity in communication has a long history in its variant form of pseudonymity. Think Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens and you will get the idea. In our online communication age, the pseudonym has been replaced by the avatar. The term "avatar" is defined in Wikipedia as a computer user's representation of himself/herself or alter ego whether in the form of a three-dimensional model used in computer games, or a two-dimensional icon (picture) used on Internet forums and other communities. This online phenomena of using an avatar spills over into the Blog world and is extensively used in the genealogical community.

For examples of anonymity, all you have to do is look at a selection of genealogy Blogs. If you need examples, go to Geneabloggers by Thomas MacEntee and click on Geneabloggers' list of current Genealogy Blogs. Start clicking on the Blogs listed and look at the author's name or lack of a name. I didn't do an exhaustive count but there is a definite split between bloggers who are unidentified except for an online name (avatar) and those who are clearly identified. Is there some problem in putting your name on your blog posts? Apparently a significant number of people think so. In asking this question I am not criticizing or condemning anyone for using a online avatar. If you choose to do so, you certainly may. Establishing an online identity can certainly be done using an avatar just as pseudonymity has its place in literature.

The issue is how does the current concepts of privacy and the creation of avatars impact genealogy? Privacy is always a really confused issue. For example, currently in Arizona there are bills before the State Legislature that would allow public officials to redact the identifying information of those who contact them through personal mailing addresses, computers, telephones or other personal electronic devices in the name of privacy. There have been several other major legislative efforts in the past few years to severely limit the availability of personal information especially concerning health care related records. Privacy concerns limit the availability of many records such as the U.S. Census and adoption records.

From a genealogical perspective there are competing interests. On the one hand, there are legitimate concerns about privacy that result in extensive limitations on the availability of records, even of people who have been dead for many years. On the other hand, we have the need for records in order to find our ancestors. Society has obviously put the need for privacy well above the need for access to genealogically important records. Where is privacy's curtain drawn? What is truly private and what is only private in the sense that we do not normally talk about the subjects in polite society?

Many of us would think that something such as the amount of debt we owed or our annual income was somehow private. We would probably be uncomfortable and even angry if this information were published without our consent in a blog post. But both our debt and our income are easily learned from public, online sources. There are also public sources for almost every other type of "private" information from the identity of family members to our work history and what kinds of things we purchase. Anyone who has been online for any longer period of time has little or no privacy in the traditional sense despite their perception to the contrary.

Both anonymity and pseudonymity such as avatars can be used for both good and bad purposes. But it is also clear that both interfere with the availability of records and thereby interfere with the main interest of genealogy, which is building family lines. That said, there are some types of information that are better left off of the Internet entirely. It is true that criminals may use anonymity and avatars to advance their illegal activities online. Even if anonymous activities are not criminal, people can hide behind secrecy to harass and offend. Some of the most obnoxious comments to my blog posts have come from "Anonymous."

One place anonymous contributors cause a lot of grief is in online family trees. People add information to online sites like New FamilySearch and fail to identify themselves making it almost impossible for family members to correct inaccurate or intentionally wrong information.

As long as we recognize that privacy and anonymity are competing interests to genealogy and strike an acceptable balance between protecting peoples' privacy and thereby limiting record availability and destroying the concept of privacy altogether through social networking, we will continue to be able to do genealogical research and at the same time feel comfortable with the level of information available.