APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-01 > 1232345327


From: "Peggy K. Reeves" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] LDS databases and accountability
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:08:47 -0500
References: <45c595dc0812151235s2b75b96btc8604f757b67affc@mail.gmail.com> <45c595dc0812151235y57daf06i1883841027ee5fe4@mail.gmail.com> <45c595dc0812151236j3c36596fk12d28c607f794d8a@mail.gmail.com> <45c595dc0812151236v2a4e3338y574b92cf4483ccbe@mail.gmail.com> <45c595dc0812151237h4c88c71ek8bfdd343182dacce@mail.gmail.com> <49471F30.9030507@reevesweb.com> <fd58173f0812161832w728688efhb26223805c199443@mail.gmail.com> <4948828E.4070506@reevesweb.com> <01db01c960d7$9d797e30$d86c7a90$@net> <494AEC82.3020205@reevesweb.com> <006601c96f1b$f6e3e3a0$e4abaae0$@net> <49708C47.3030000@reevesweb.com><005501c9786c$9ef817b0$dce84710$@net> <497222D1.7000803@reevesweb.com><2BE6CDD72B09490D8144A98E14C45B71@JILLS0033000064>
In-Reply-To: <2BE6CDD72B09490D8144A98E14C45B71@JILLS0033000064>


Jill,

Thanks for finding this. This is, indeed, the press release that I was
talking about.

> Comments have been made about digitizing a copy of a copy of a copy and how
> bad the quality is after multiple generations of copies. I cannot speak to
> what is being done with NARA film, but I think it's important to separate
> the different organizations that have been criticized.
I made those comments, and I CAN speak about what's going on at NARA.
Yes, we definitely need to separate the different organizations, because
we are not talking about films at Salt Lake City, we are talking about
microfilm that was NOT made by the LDS church. I realize that many
people believe that the LDS are the only ones who microfilm records, but
that is not true. I notice you didn't copy the entire press release
into your posting. Here's another paragraph from that same press release:

"Under the new agreement, FamilySearch will be operating highly
specialized digital cameras 5 days a week at the National Archives in
Washington, D.C. FamilySearch intends to extend the digitization
services to select regional facilities at a later date. That means
there will be a continuous flow of new data for genealogy buffs to
explore for years to come. It also means FamilySearch will be able to
digitize the thousands of microfilms it has already created from NARA's
holdings--providing access to millions of images for genealogists to
search from the convenience of their home computers with Internet access".

What's wrong with this? Well, the biggest gaff is that FamilySearch did
not "already create" microfilm from the NARA holdings that they are now
putting online. Those thousands of NARA microfilms they are talking
about were created by federal employees working at NARA, on NARA
equipment, with their salaries paid by U.S. taxpayers. Those are the
NARA microfilms that are online at Footnote and Ancestry. The LDS had
nothing to do with it, and do not own that microfilm unless they bought
copies from NARA at $34.00 a roll like everyone else! This is not what
I call honesty and integrity. You'll also notice in that paragraph that
it is FamilySearch operating the digital cameras--not Ancestry or
Footnote. What are they filming with the digital cameras? Well, the
next paragraph that you left out tells us what:

"The first fruit of this effort is a portion of a very large collection
of Civil War records, already underway. In this pilot project,
FamilySearch will digitize the first 3,150 Civil War widow pension
application files (approximately 500,000 pages). After digitization,
these historical documents will be indexed and posted online by
Footnote.com with the indices also available for free on
www.FamilySearch.org. FamilySearch intends to do all 1,280,000 of these
files over the coming years."

Yes, they are beginning to film some of NARAs original records,
beginning with the Civil War widows' pensions. The next obvious
question is, "Where can we see these images of the Civil War widows'
pensions that the nonprofit is filming for free and making available to
us for free?" Answer: They are being put online at Footnote. OOPS!
Wait a minute--Footnote isn't free, is it? NO, IT ISN'T! The indexes
may be free, but the images will be sold by Footnote for five years.
Under the agreement, after five years the images will then be available
on the NARA website for FREE. FamilySearch does not have these images
free on their website--they are working for Footnote, and advertising
for them (falsely). So to say that FamilySearch is not linked to the
for-profit companies is to be misinformed. The fact that Footnote can
only make money on this for five years is the biggest incentive in the
world for them to rush through the data and get it online as fast as
possible, with whoever they can get to do it, adding databases quickly
to justify raising the price before time runs out.

> I would also like to take issue with the following statement:
>
>
>
> "4. There also need to be fines for incidences of false advertising. One of
> the past press releases at FamilySearch actually claimed that one of the
> subscription services were scanning some NARA records that you can't see
> otherwise even if you go to NARA in person. That is ridiculous! You can go
> and look at whatever you want, either on microfilm or the originals.
>
Okay, here's the offending paragraph:


> "Almost all of the records in the National Archives currently are not
> readily accessible to patrons who visit the National Archives or one of its
> regional facilities. The newly digitized and indexed records produced under
> the agreement will be available online-greatly increasing patron access.
>
I am at NARA on a regular basis, and ALL of the federal records ARE
readily accessible if you visit in person at the facility that holds
those records. This paragraph is blatantly FALSE. I fill out a pull
slip for the records I want to see, throw it into the request box, and
the stack searchers retrieve it from the stacks and have it available
for my viewing in the file room within an hour, sometimes sooner, unless
there are a lot of patrons on that particular day in which case it may
take a little longer than an hour. I can throw in file requests the day
before and come back and see them the next day if I want, because pulled
records are held for three business days before being refiled. Records
that are already microfilmed are available immediately because the NARA
microfilm room is self-serve and you can go to the drawers and look at
whatever you like. Footnote and Ancestry are increasing access for
people who can't get to NARA, but they are doing just the opposite for
NARA patrons. The NARA microfilm images, though not great, are a lot
better than the online version that the subscription services created
from the NARA-made microfilm. Not only that, the online services are
very unreliable as far as access--saying "come back soon", or having
servers overloaded and taking a long time to load each image. I can
spin through microfilm images as fast as I want, a lot faster than you
could load them online, and the quality of original images that I can
request and see in an hour are far superior to the low-resolution scans
that are being put online. Also, nothing is missing. This paragraph
misleads everyone who can't get to NARA in person to know the truth, and
makes it look like FamilySearch has been given special access to
something that others cannot see. This most certainly is false
advertising, but FamilySearch can get away with it because they are not
the ones actually being paid for the product. The only documents that
you cannot readily access at NARA are ones that are not yet old enough
(72 years) to be put into the public domain (because of privacy laws),
and nobody, including FamilySearch, can access those until they are
unsealed.
>
> "'For a number of years, we have had a very productive relationship with
> FamilySearch,' said Professor Allen Weinstein, archivist of the United
> States. 'This agreement expands our relationship to enable online access to
> some of the most popular and voluminous records in our holdings. It is an
> exciting step forward for our institutions and for the American people,' he
> added."
>
He was, of course, assuming that the images would live up to how they
were advertised, and actually be "high-quality", and that this process
would actually preserve the records instead of degrading them further
and making many of them disappear. These contracts obviously need to be
re-evaluated by the new Archivist of the United States (since Professor
Weinstein has resigned) to create better incentives for honesty and
integrity on the part of the for-profit companies, and fines or
penalties for lack of performance. This will be high on the agenda for
us on-site researchers who use NARA on a regular basis and don't want
NARA to do away with our microfilm access and make us dependent on work
that is as poor and incomplete as what we have already seen from
Ancestry and Footnote. It is especially troubling to think that we
won't be able to request the original documents for the widows' pensions
after filming is complete, knowing the quality of work and the work
ethic that has already been established. There will be no way for us to
know what got left out, if there is no microfilm and no originals to
check it against. Hopefully many of the professional organizations will
also recognize the danger of becoming dependent on poor quality work and
let NARA know that this is unacceptable.

Peggy Reeves

This thread: