APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-03 > 1237834679

From: "Peggy K. Reeves" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Mormon News
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:57:59 -0400
References: <05FC3A32-1608-411F-B742-65A032C7F161@keyconn.net> <49C3B044.7040209@reevesweb.com> <003501c9aa99$8716daf0$954490d0$@net> <49C5CB9A.8040100@reevesweb.com><001501c9ab43$ad7f2800$087d7800$@net>
In-Reply-To: <001501c9ab43$ad7f2800$087d7800$@net>

Elizabeth wrote: (with regard to the first standard in the Genealogists

> The problem here lies not with the standard, but with the present
> application of it. For those of us who have signed the code, that provision
> is a moral imperative we agree to live by.
Peggy writes:

I agree completely! We can't even know how to apply the BCG standard
unless we can first identify the entity. What is familysearch? Are
they a professional company, a nonprofit organization composed of
amateurs, or a church? A church cannot also be a business, and a
business cannot also be a church. A nonprofit full of untrained
amateurs should not be getting contracts to be in charge of original
records, doing the work for professionals, and giving their shoddy work
to a company that will make us pay for it. None of the three entities
should be making exaggerated claims about their accuracy rate, saying
that things are checked and double-checked by two people when it is
constantly proven otherwise with some pretty drastic and frequent
examples. It seems that people on this list want to make Familysearch
any or all of the three entities, depending upon whatever is most
convenient for the situation at hand. The only thing that has been
fairly consistent is that when challenged about anything, people want
familysearch to instantly become a church, accusing the person bringing
the challenge of "religious bias". Regardless of which of the three
entities familysearch claims to be, they have been knowingly and
admittedly, for many years, publishing material that is "questionable"
in nature and "unproven", often without permission, and professionals
should not be a party to this or be defending this, according to the BCG
standard that I quoted.

I agree with Dee Dee that there needs to be some entity step up and do
the job right, one that has a professional standard of quality control
and honesty. I just don't believe that can happen as long as
professionals are complacent enough to continue to defend the unethical
behavior and shoddy work of a huge entity like familysearch, simply
because people feel that they don't have any choice. We always have the
choice to do what's easy or to do what's right.

"I will not publish or publicize as fact anything I know to be false,
doubtful, or unproved; nor will I be a party, directly or indirectly, to
such action by others."

I'm not going to argue this, but I do feel that people need to consider
it. Thanks for your time.

Peggy Reeves

This thread: