> Cherry Wrote:
>
>>> The objection is not to the WIKI part of it -- the objection is to
>>> yet-another-central-depository.
>>>
>>> The objection is not to the LDS doing it -- the objection is to
>>> yet-another-central-depository.
>>>
>>> The object is not to whether this is better'n that -- the objection
>>> is to yet-another-central-depository.
>>>
>>> Again -- the objection is to yet-another-central-depository.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>> You only need ONE place that tells you the vital records for Podunk
>>> County Redneck State are in Whither Fork, or that 90+% of the 1890
>>> census burnt in an office building in DC.
>
> Good. The point is that the problem you are concerned with has
> nothing to do with Wiki's per se, but is a concern on your part
> about how genealogy is done on the web.
>
> As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
> is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
> when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example he
> gave fits that cir***stance. I'm not sure its equally valid for the
> web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
> distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
> all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have had
> only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
> specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
>
> Q
I'm not thinking about backups although as a sometime sysadmin & DBA
I've always considered paranoia as an essential prerequisite for
those roles.
What really concerns me is what would be the consequence of there
being a single archive and the central provider decided to move out
of the market. In the long term survival of records depends not
just on multiple copies under the same management but copies under
different management.
There have been discussions here in the past about libraries and
archives disposing of books but what really brought the risk home to
me many years ago was walking into a bookshop when I was on holiday
and finding its shelves crammed with bound copies of Nature. The
county library was selling off at least part of its run. Nature:
the premier science journal in the UK (OK Proc. Roy. Soc. might
argue the toss on that!) and the county librarian feels able to
dispose of it! In the long term there's no guarantee that some
future curator of any particular resource won't act irresponsibly.
That's why multiple organisations are im****tant.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Ian Goddard <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
