Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265577985

From: Wilcox Lisa <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] wikis
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:26:25 -0800
References: <935A39E941D443908BC94588BEF236A4@PC>
In-Reply-To: <935A39E941D443908BC94588BEF236A4@PC>

Hi Andrew--

On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Lancaster-Boon wrote:

> With a wiki, people are forced by the format to come to an agreement
> about a
> single version of what seems to be the case. This means highly
> speculative
> material normally gets dumped or else turned into a statement about
> what
> speculations there are, and NOT stated as if simply a fact.

I particularly like the option of including the speculations as just
that: speculations. Seems to me it would offer incentives for further
research in search of resolution.

I also like the disambiguation feature of wikis. How many times have
we found trees with mothers "married" to their own sons because the
names were the same?!? If you input a search for "John Brown" it will
force you to identify which John Brown to whom you want to add all
those kids.

I lean toward family-specific wikis, perhaps administered by surname
societies, rather than a general site... not sure why... I came across
a family-specific wiki a few months ago which I can no longer locate,
dangit. There was a note about their process which mentioned the long
and somewhat agonizing process of uploading gedcoms and triple-
checking duplicates. I wish I could find it, because I'd like to know
about the process!


This thread: