On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:45:22 +0100, "Kurt" <kurt.fredriksson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:4932c7de.12070656@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:59:08 +0100, "Kurt"
><kurt.fredriksson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >news:4932a756.3741765@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:04:27 +0000, Ian Goddard
>> >> <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Bhoggatt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 29, 6:22 am, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >>> In message of 29 Nov, Bhogg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Mr. Alciere:
>> >> >>>> Please explain your method of taking copyrighted information
>> >without
>> >> >>>> permission from other websites.
>> >> >>> I am reasonably sure that in most countries data is not
>> >copywrightable,
>> >> >>> only the method of presentation is.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> In any case the must more serious problem with this sort of
>data
>> >is its
>> >> >>> veracity: what information is given about the reproducible
>> >sources of
>> >> >>> the data? The average website has no such information, so is
>> >worthless.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> Tim Powys-Lybbe
>> >t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >>> For a miscellany of bygones:http://powys.org/
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I beg to differ. The presentation on the web is the
>coyrightable
>> >> >> component. Scraping web sites and not producing it from your
>own
>> >> >> sources is a violation and often times the reason that many
>> >> >> researchers stop providing information.
>> >> >
>> >> >For one thing the OP wasn't about scraping websites, it was
>about
>> >> >uploading of original transcripts.
>> >> >
>> >> >And for another, anyone who wants to publish but not have what
>he
>> >> >published used by others needs to ask himself why he published
>in
>> >the
>> >> >first place. For goodness' sake - SHARE information, don't
>hoard
>> >it!!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >Ian
>> >>
>> >> People need to be educated about sourcing when they use shared
>data.
>> >A
>> >> source is where a person got the data, not where someone else got
>> >the
>> >> data (except as a secondary source).
>> >>
>> >> Too many times we find that data we researched over a long period
>of
>> >> time is scavenged by others who show themselves as the source.
>> >>
>> >> Hugh
>> >
>> >So what?
>> >
>> >I have published my research together with sources. Iīm doing it
>for
>> >my own pleasure and donīt mind if other researchers are copying the
>> >information. Please observe that I said "the information" not MY
>> >information.
>> >As Ian said: "For goodness' sake - SHARE information, don't hoard
>> >it!!!!"
>> >
>> >Kurt F
>>
>> What you show, unless you copied everything, is "your information" -
>> you researched, collected and displayed it.
>>
>> You appear to be saying that you don't care about accuracy in
>> sourcing. Did I miss something?
>>
>> Hugh
>>
>
>You certainly did.
>
>I have primary sources for 94% for the births, 88% for the marriages
>and 93% for the deaths. These figures are from May this year. Since
>then I have added even more sources.
>
>These sources were written a couple of days after the event.
>
>As all sources are public, I canīt claim owner****p to the information
>itself. And I donīt do that. If you can find something useful on my
>web-pages, feel free to use it. I would be delighted if I could help a
>fellow genealogist in his/her research.
>
>As Ian said: "For goodness' sake - SHARE information, don't hoard
>it!!!!"
>
>Kurt F
>
>
Let me restate my point. Anyone who uses "your" info should credit you
as the source, with your source as a secondary source. Your source is
not his source until he has seen that source.
Source data need to be confirmed by others since they can be misread
and/or misinterpresed and some sources conflict. That is particularly
true today when many people are guessing and accepting family lore
vice researching.
Failure to respect the efforts of another's research is not proper
genealogy.
I posted a theory once and it was clearly marked as such with
appropriate warnings. I later disproved the theory. But two people, in
spite of me telling them repeatedly, still post that theory as fact.
Fortunately they do not give me credit as their source.
Hugh
|
