> Bill wrote:
>
> > > > For starters, it's duplicating the re-invention of the wheel.
> >
> > The "re-invention" of the wheel?
>
> First there was The Handy Book, and then the Redbook by Ancestry,
> then LDS put out the Research Outlines, then the GenWeb -- all with
> the same bare-bones grassroots info. Then LDS put the Research
> Outlines on-line as d/l. IMO, that wheel doesn't /need/ further
> refinement.
I probably mis emphasized when I just pointed to "re-invention of
the wheel"---the full quote was "duplicating the re-invention of the
wheel".
But to address your final comment "the wheel does not need further
refinement", that might be true if you thought something like GenWeb
had perfected itself.
That's hardly the case---unless you are satisfied with folks placing
un-sourced information on its archives. Of course, that's also a
problem with Wiki's---genealogists being what they are, non-sourcing
is far more common than sourcing information---so bad habits common
to GenWeb, are also bad habits anywhere genalogy is done. But on
some wiki's there's a definite emphasis on pointing to the sources
used. Its a step in the right direction.
> > Apart from that, please explain how it duplicates what has been done
> > on GenWeb.
>
> It points to local sources of info. The GenWeb points to local
> sources. [EVEN if the LDSwikithingie points to film in the FHLC,
> the SOURCE remains a local record.]
I presume you mean local in the sense of "geographic". Somethings on
GenWeb are in fact sourced. But a lot of it is not.
>>> Misinformation, added by anyone, is reason enough.
>>
>> Is the US GenWeb free of misinformation?
>
> No. I do seem to recall hearing though that two wrongs don't make a
> right. Nor was that part of what *I* said; I quoted it by sloppily
> not snipping.
Well, if you want to trade quotes I seem to recall hearing something
about "the pot calling the kettle black".
> > > Just wait until they get wikispammed. ;-)
> >
> > And why is it that you think spamming is a particular problem on a
> > wiki?
>
> Again, not /my/ remark. However, the GenWeb not being a wiki and
> therefore only the county coordinator can post updates or
> corrections, it would seem to be a lot less spam-able than any wiki
> or similar reader-editable site.
Spam occurs on wiki's simply because they allows immediate and
direct access to virtually anyone.
Spam is mostly a problem on wiki's that are not active---and there
its a non-problem. In an active wiki, spam is typically detected,
re****ted, and corrected very quickly. It must be very frustrating
for the spammers to see their "creative efforts" turned into free
electrons within 30 minutes of posting. As a result spammers
usually tire of the game after a few rounds, and go looking for an
inactive wiki. That's no fun either because if its inactive, no one
see's it. Spammers are children (one way or another), and the
object is to be seen. No good at all posting spam where it isn't
seen---that's why its a non-problem on inactive wiki's---even if it
occurs, its not seen.
There are several thousand wiki's on the web. Most are tiny with
only a few pages. Typically, people get a great idea for something,
create a wiki (very easy to do---anyone can start one at no cost at
all)---but find that implementing that great idea is "a lot of
work"---and so abandon ****p. There are at least four wiki's that I
know of which have substantive content, in addition to the LDS site.
The largest has approximately 2M articles, others are considerably
smaller, but still active. There are a number of other wiki's or
"wiki-like" sites which sometimes pose as genealogy sites, but their
main purpose is really something different (ie, they are really
social networking sites in one form or another--places to post
family photographs, family chat, etc.)
So, have you actually spent anytime working on a wiki?
Bill
Bill <wmwillis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
