The Democratization of Sources

There were many presentations at the SoCal Genealogy Jamboree that announced new web sites, or new developments in existing web sites, that would feature the Web 2.0 concept. I may use computers all the time, but sometimes Web 2.0 technospeak confounds my understanding, so I definitely wanted to hear at least one of these talks. The one I attended seemed a little premature, as the site does not seem to be in beta state, yet; but the speaker presented some very thought-provoking ideas. I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on the bandwagon.

The goal, the speaker said, was to provide access to all the world's records - admirable, of course - and to allow users to interact with these records: the "democratization of sources." This interaction, he said, might lead to "chaos," but it might lead to the "harnessing of the wisdom of the crowds." I had never heard the term, democratization of sources. We all know that all sources are not equal! When I got home, I Googled the term. There were a few entries, most of them referring to the ability we now have to obtain information from many sources, not just those approved by authority. It's a given that genealogists should look for all sources in our research. Just because we have a death certificate doesn't mean we don't need to look for an obituary or a tombstone. Just because we have a pension record doesn't mean we no longer need to look at a muster roll or a day book. Several undocumented million-name family trees, however, really don't add anything to our knowledge of an ancestor. Something told me I didn't understand the speaker's use of this term.

When I Googled the term democratization of information, I found this post, Web UI Platforms through Javascript sandboxes. If you avoid the technospeak, it's an interesting article, and I'm sure it's what the speaker meant when he referred to democratization of sources. "The users of these data make the data better." This isn't a new concept in genealogy web sites. Footnote has been doing this for some time. Original records can be annotated; links identifying an individual in multiple records can be created; original documents and pictures can be uploaded and linked to original records; and personal pages can be created. The Footnote user adding data is always identified - and there is a clear separation between the original record and the added material. The farther a genealogist strays from the original record, the more likely it is that errors creep into the family history. We all need reminders that our conclusions should be based on what a document really said, not on what someone else thought it said. And of course, what a document meant in the 18th century might not be what our 21st century mind inferred.

Find A Grave was one of my favorite sites when searching for tombstones. This web site is based on user contributions. When those contributions were tombstone photos and inscriptions, this site was wonderful. Some users, however, began competing to improve their statistics. When this happens, the quality of the contributions can diminish. Material was plagiarized, duplication was rampant, and copyright laws were violated. In fairness to the people at Find A Grave, they state that submissions must be the original property of the submitter, and they always remove material in violation of this policy. That must be a constant effort on their part! The site has always had problems clearly differentiating between what a tombstone said and what the submitter inferred, and the recent addition of family links and maiden names to the material has considerably increased the error to information rate. Sometimes, the "wisdom of the crowds" isn't so wise.

These two examples illustrate the possibilities and the limitations in the concept of democratization of information. Although Footnote's user contributions have added value to the site's data, access to the added material is still haphazard. Without user contributions, Find A Grave would not really exist, but the quality of material is often questionable. How does a site facilitate access to all data, maintain quality, yet encourage quantity?

Our Favorite SoCal Jamboree Presentations

L-AGS (Livermore-Amador Genealogical Society) was well represented at the SoCal Genealogy Jamboree. At least ten of us attended, and we never attended any presentation en bloc. This means there were plenty of reviews when it came to choosing recordings or planning the day's events. On the drive home, we listened to four more hours of lectures and discussed our favorites.

Number one on my list was Tony Burroughs' presentation, The Nature of Genealogy. If you didn't go to this talk because you thought it might be too basic, you missed an absolute gem. In one short hour, Tony took us from our initial research misstep through the publication of our findings. Almost every sentence highlighted important considerations, repositories and records - and he did it in his own inimitable manner. Among his closing statements was this telling point, "Among the approximately one hundred African-Americans who served in Perry's fleet on Lake Erie, scholars have identified only twelve - and Charles Smothers wasn't one of them. This is original, valuable work!" Remember that statement. It will come up again in later posts.

Number one on Jane's and Nancy's list was Jean Wilcox Hibben's presentation, Clue to Clue: Tracking a Family Over Time and Miles. I had planned to attend this, but changed my mind at the last minute. Big mistake! Jane and Nancy came running out of the presentation yelling, "You would have loved it!" I bought the CD, of course, and we listened to this on the way home. I did love it. Given their enthusiastic review, most of us changed our 8 a.m. Sunday plans and went to Jean's talk, Deduction vs. Induction in Genealogical Research. We didn't regret it.

Joyce's number one was Summit 2: Son of Blogger. I bought that CD, too - and you see that I'm now writing this blog. Jana Broglin's talk on the Genealogical Proof Standard also made the list.

I love doing research, but I also love teaching others good research methodology. Going to a genealogy conference always makes me think about my own views on both. One of the frequent presentation topics at this conference was Web 2.0 and genealogy. This has really made me think - and you will read some of those thoughts in a later post.

Have a happy and safe Fourth of July!

Road Trip: The SoCal Genealogy Jamboree

Like about 1500 other people, I attended the Southern California Genealogical Society's 40th Annual Jamboree last weekend. It's the first multi-day conference I've attended in years, and I had a great time. There's nothing like three days with fellow genealogists away from the demands of everyday life to jump-start a stale brain! The Jamboree reminded me that I had a blog - and it amazed me that I haven't touched this thing for almost two years. Either I have no life - or I have too much life.

Seven of us rented a van and drove to the Jamboree - Hurray! Road trip! Before we even got to the hotel, the group made a stop at Glen Haven Memorial Park in Sylmar to visit my grandmother's grave. I'd never been to this cemetery before, and as you might guess, it was an emotional experience. Although we arrived after the office closed, I had called the cemetery the day before, and a very nice young man had looked up Nana's burial information for me. With seven genealogists searching, it didn't take too long to find her. Thanks, guys, for braving rattlesnakes and driving out of the way to give me this opportunity.