GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986171329


From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Tompsett's royals site
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 01:28:49 +0100
References: <01c0b9ed$ee735f20$LocalHost@fti/62hzcyc>, <3AC75DB1.41A5E7C@pacbell.net>


Kay Allen AG wrote:

> Dear Renia,
>
> Yes, it is handy and that is why it is so dangerous in perpetuating other inaccurate databases.
>
> If you would go back to the 1997 archives, I believe, that you will find complaints about Mr. Tompsett not making corrections which were submitted. That is four years ago! So why should one assume that reinitiating dialogue concerning changes would be productive.
> Genealogical accuracy is not his paramount aim.

I wonder how much dialogue professional, or expert genealogists have had
with Mr Tompsett. His does make it quite plain on his website, that he
is will not correct errors. He maintains a database, simply, but is not
concerned about the accuracy of it. However, as an academic, working for
a univeristy, both he and his university might be interested in a
further academic use for this massive database. It also may not have
entered their heads that there could be a necessity for genuine
genealogical accuracy. If it was pointed out to them, that this database
is blasted all over the internet as some kind of genealogical bible,
that they might be quite horrified that their database was
actually a misuse of academic and genealogical material.

> I believe the reason that time was spent in discussing setting up our own database was so that the feasibility of creating a database run by people who care about the genealogical accuracy of it might be contemplated.

Quite. Surfers, newbies and old hands alike would all welcome an
accurate database.

> Yes, it will be difficult and time consuming, but at least our visitors wouldn't be lab rats, which is what I believe Mr. Tompsett see his visitors as, although I don't believe that he would phrase it quite that baldly. And our cheese would be of better quality:-)

That's what I mean about dialogue. If they see visitors and surfers only
as lab rats, then it may not have entered their heads that genealogy is
as much an academic subject as any other. They probably see it as lists
of dead people, and don't realise the harm they are doing by mounting
genealogical and historical errors on an academic website.

> Of course, there are always going to be people to whom quantity is more important than quality, with or without our database being in operation. That is abundantly evident if you peruse the archives.

Hmm. I know. There is so much blatant crap out there, it's unbelievable.
People download one gedcome from one site, and upload it onto another,
plus whatever other stuff they've collected on the way. I've seen sites
on Rootsweb Worldconnect with 150,000 names on them.

Actually, I quite like Rootsweb Worldconnect for uploading databases. It
does give the ability to declare that a lineage might be "not proven" or
"false" or whatever. But, eventually, it's going to be difficult to
manoevre and search, as more and more people upload gedcoms there.
Particularly when there are 15 versions of the same basic gedcom.
Variant names hamper the search facility. You can use soundex, but then
you get all sorts of daft names that don't belong.

But all these discussions only go to show the basic difficulties in
searchability, manoevrability, uploading, accuracy, and all the rest of
it. I merely comment that a massive database already exists. If we put
on our academic hats (OK, mortar boards) can we not convince those other
academics at Hull, that their database is a misuse of historical data,
unless it is accurate. And if Mr Tompsett does not have the academic
time to make corrections, then a dialogue might open up a means whereby
corrections could be implemented by some means.

> To summarize, if Mr. Tompsett is not really interested in genealogical accuracy, as shown by a four year lag time in making corrections, if, indeed, they have been made, why should we match and merge our hard won research with it? This seems vaguely analagous to using Ancestral File as our partner in setting up our database and about as realistic in obtaining genealogical accuracy.

Ancestral File could have its uses, had it been set up genealogically in
the first place. While some of it may be accurate (like the Hull
database, or others), some is rubbish, and just plain misleading, and I
don't know how easy it would be to unravel that, if an attempt at
dialogue was made there. Really, I'm talking about academics approaching
academics, not academics (or even genealogical hobbyists) approaching
religious institutions.

> But I do appreciate that you care.

Of course I care. But, like everyone else, I realise the difficulties.
And, like everyone else, I'd like access to an accurate, monster
database which didn't fill up my own hard drive!

Renia

>
> Kay Allen AG
>
> Renia wrote:
>
> > The handy thing about the Tomsett site is that it exists, and people know how to find it. Being a university-based site, I expect many unwitting surfers think they have found the answers to their genealogical dreams. all these recent discussion on this newsgroup regarding establishing a database of "our" own, just goes to show how difficult it is to get such genealogical databases exactly right, and how to apply "possibles" and "probables" in relationships.
> >
> > While Thomsett claims on his site, not to make corrections, and not to be too bothered about errors, because his is a computer database site, not a genealogical one, wouldn't it be an idea to try and establish some sort of dialogue with him, whereby those with better genealogical knowledge could make additions and corrections to a huge and complex site that already exists, and one which is relatively easy to manoevre? Surely that would be better than starting all over again with a new database? How would surfers ever be convinced that "our" new database is the "better" or more genealogically professional one?
> >
> > Renia
> >
> > Annie Natalelli-Waloszek wrote:
> >
> > > aren't you folks overdoing it about Hull being so full of errors; there are a few, but not that many, certainly no more than anywhere else... isn't Leo involved with the Hull project? I know that if you find errors and send him the corrections, Tompsett is very nice about including them in successive updates... since you're all such aces, and can find them all, why not make that a project in your spare time? a sort of public service effort... because the advantage of Tompsett's site is that everyone knows where it is, and he occasionally distributes the gedcom which can be darn useful to a lot of people... especially if it's corrected on the site, not just in someone's filebox...

This thread: