"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4933f24a.5153375@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
OK.
> 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.
Iīll never accept family lore (except my own personal knowledge) as
anything more than stories to be confirmed.
> Failure to respect the efforts of another's research is not proper
> genealogy.
As I donīt do genealogical research for a living, itīs a hobby of
mine, I donīt care whether they credit me or not for what they find on
my web-pages.
I myself copied information from DISBYT and made a tem****ary source,
noting the person who had provided the information. Then I got an
angry email from one person who didnīt wanted to be mentioned as a
source. I thus removed all those tem****ary sources from my web-pages
but are keeping them in my program.
But I can assure you, Iīm still doing proper genealogy. What other
persons have done, is only an indication of where to find primary
sources.
> 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.
You must be happy about that!!!
> Hugh
Iīm a Swede, and that makes genealogical research much easier. Before
the Swedish Church became independent from the government, it was
responsible for keeping track of every person in Sweden. That mean
that the church books are excellent primary sources.
At last, why do you use an email address that bounces? To me, that is
an indication of a less trustworthy genealogist.
Kurt F
|
