WIKIPEDIA vs "The Good Old Days"
and Use of encyclopedias as a source
Please note:
The Genealogical Proof Standard
http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html
"Acceptable conclusions, therefore,
meet the Genealogical Proof Standard
(GPS). The GPS consists of five elements:"
FIRST LISTED:
"a reasonably exhaustive search"
A reasonably exhaustive search
must now include WIKIPEDIA, because:
(1) According to Alexa, it is Global #8
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500
(2) Wikipedia Trend History is up
http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikipedia&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
(3) For the United States alone, 12/10/07 -
Nielsen Online Re****ts Topline U.S. Data
for November 2007
http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_071210.pdf
Wikipedia had a Unique Audience of 49,617,000,
with average time per person 17 minutes 17 seconds.
(4) Articles cited from the Internet must be
credible, reliable and current. Key word:
"current", makes Wikipedia indispensable.
It is the responsibilty of the professional
researcher to make proper "analysis and
correlation of the collected information"
and "bring to resolution" "any conflicting
evidence".
Cyndi's List.com is hurting bad, according to
the recent information she sent out to her
readers. RootsWeb.com is subject to
the powers that be, changing all the time.
On the other hand, there is Wikipedia and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy
Wikibooks, at:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Genealogy
Wikibooks is as "****d as a jaybird".
http://www.answers.com/topic/****d-as-a-jaybird?nr=1&lsc=true
Wiki, in its various forms, allows the
genealogist and family historian to
potentially create for free, an independent
niche in the world, outside of being "the glove
in the hand of the historian", as an auxiliary
science thereto; with added access to a
worldwide audience. We serve only those
with whom we can actively communicate.
If other current resources fail, what is next?
ANSWER: Wikipedia (obviously); the hand
that can honor the profession.
I am not interested in nitpicking. Evaluate
the Internet, re: professional genealogy, as
a whole. I repeat: There appears a clear
usage trend, indicating Wikipedia will over
time, become central to higher education
curriculum and teaching methods, in all
language formats, worldwide.
As an example of research potential, note:
Surnames & Names
http://academic-genealogy.com/archives.htm#Surnames
Look For: SURNAME GENEALOGY SEARCH:
.. . . note:
* Wikipedia(R) - Category: Surnames A to Z
Sample:
Mills (surname) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills_%28surname%29
English plurals
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mills
mill - Wiktionary
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mill
From the List of most common surnames,
I might find it of value, if family records
indicated Hispanic connections, that:
" Molina - 99,000 (0.25%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molina
(Mill, place with mills; toponymic)
Elizabeth (Given Name)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth
And of course, the research tool:
Wikipedia articles: All pages beginning
with Elizabeth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Elizabeth
Let us try that with "genealogy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Genealogy&namespace=0
Let us try that with "Mills"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=mills&namespace=0
Quite powerful if you are looking for a place
and don't know the full location or setting.
Perhaps the real problem is the fact that so many
individuals on this list are biased, to the point that
they have really not taken the time to find out what
is available and how it can be used effectively. It
would be wonderful to see some group take on the
Wikipedia "elephant" and provide a state of the art,
excellent serial article in "x" Journal(s). This could
provide the future framework of integration into the
submission process, bringing together societies and
organizations, as well as individual professionals, for
meaningful lasting contributions. With proper ongoing
over site, the information will remain credible over time,
from generation to generation.
OBSERVATIONS ON CREDIBILITY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility
.. . .
(a) perceptions of credibility differ across web site
"genres": news organization web sites are rated
highest in terms of message, sponsor, and overall
site credibility, and personal web sites lowest;
.. . .
http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/past_research.php
This observation weighs heavily against the
family history profession having online credibility,
and should be a first area of change.
.. . .
[Second, traditional notions of credibility as
coming from a centralized authority (e.g., a
teacher, expert, or author) and individualized
appraisal processes are challenged by digital
technologies. Electronic networks make it
easier to rely on the collective to assess
information. Credibility assessments as
constructed through collective or community
efforts (e.g., wikis, text messaging via cell
phones, or social networking applications)
emerge as a major theme in recent discussions,
and phrases like "distributed" and "decentralized"
credibility, the "democratization of information,"
and "collectively versus institutionally-derived
credibility" are common. At core is the belief
that digital media allow for the uncoupling of
credibility and authority in a way never before
possible. . . .] Please evaluate the real world,
and stop attacking the information messenger.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory
http://www.academic-genealogy.com/
|
