APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 1999-12 > 0944377063


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: [APG] Data CDs
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 00:57:43 -0600


Brian wrote:
> I think there really should be a two-pronged APG approach.
> 1. create a publically available detailed description and
> review of the data on published CDs that includes the
> vendor's information, information on the original
> extractions, and comments from impartial reviewers

> 2. form an group of informed genealogists and offer to act
> as an Advisory group to publishers - the goal being to help
> identify important record groups, vet the data being
> published, and provide input on how it could be best
> presented. And allow the publisher to say what your opinion
> was of the data. (that is the carrot

Brian, I totally agree with you that positive suggestions are more
productive than negative complaints. At the same time, there's a need here
for somebody to play devil's advocate.

1. Should APGers labor to describe and publicize contents of commercial CDs?

You are right about the cost factor involved in doing quality extraction,
and it is *not* realistic for us to expect that of commercial firms of the
genre that's producing these CDs. If I correctly understand Chad, Helen, and
the others I've heard comment on this subject in more-private forums, that's
not what they (we) are asking. Rather, what we *are* asking is that the
CD-producers provide a reliable description of the contents--an entirely
realistic expectation.

For years, genealogical teachers and lecturers have told their students that
it's not enough to simply copy records and publish them. To earn respect,
the compiler has to adequately identify the source of the material and
provide an introduction that describes the content, its quirks, and its
limitations. If print compilers abstract just part of a set of records, then
they have a responsibility to tell their readers, in their preface, what
selection criteria they applied -- what did they include and what did they
omit? If they acquired their information from material compiled by somebody
else, then their preface should precisely identify the material and the
compiler. (If, for example, I were to retype and publish WPA will abstracts
from Timbuctoo County, then my preface should identify this derivative work
as the source. Potential buyers may already have used those WPA abstracts
elsewhere, in which case they should not waste their money on my product. &c
&c &c.)

Given that this level of disclosure is expected of print publishers -- why
should it not be expected of those who publish via CD?

On the same point: Why should the members of APG do the labor to identify
the sources, content, and scope of all the CDs being marketed? Many (if not
most) APG members are publishers of source materials themselves. They (we)
invest the time it takes to compile a proper description of our own products
before we market them. In my view, we have a right to expect that of those
who publish via CD.

2. Should APGers volunteer for Advisory Boards for commercial companies?

This second suggestion is fraught with problems, Brian! Let me just discuss
two of them . . . .

A. Once we agree to serve any company as an "advisor," we compromise our
objectivity -- or the public perception of our objectivity. Despite any and
all our efforts to remain unbiased toward any firm or product, despite the
fact that most such "advisory" relationships in the past have been strictly
volunteer, the public perception is that we are being paid by -- and thus
are in the pocket of -- the company that we are trying to help. We lose our
credibility as unbiased evaluators in both the lecture hall and the
classroom.

B. Despite item A above, more than a few APG members still donated their
time to the "computer genealogy" companies in the past. Back in the days
when these companies were run by "little guys just like us" who were
struggling to invent viable genealogical software and "make a living" as
"computer genealogists," the collegial atmosphere was vital. They knew much
about computers and some about genealogy; the professional genealogists knew
much about genealogy and maybe some about computers. It was a natural for
each of us to offer our advice to the other. For the most part, if I recall
correctly, they were APG members also.

However, the situation has changed radically. Mega-corporations have
discovered the genealogical market -- and they are naturally driven by the
concerns of the market place, investors, and advertising agencies. If I
understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we should be willing to
give our time (and compromise our reputations for objectivity) so that
mega-corporations can produce a quality product? Do members of professional
computing organizations donate their services to corporations to provide
quality control in programming? Do members of professional advertising
organizations donate their services to these corporations to provide quality
control in advertising? If not, then why should members of APG be expected
to donate their services to corporations whose stock trades on NASDAQ or
wherever?

APG has a vital role as an *independent* professional organization. As
individuals, our members make their living in a wondrous variety of ways. We
are fortunate that some of our most active members are corporate employees
and editors for publishing firms. On a daily basis, they (y'all!) have done
much to upgrade quality. But as *APG members* our credibility as
independent, objective critics -- when we teach, lecture, and write columns
and reviews for professional and scholarly publications -- is much too vital
to compromise by serving as volunteer advisors for any specific company.

IMHO, of course.

Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL

This thread: