Wikipedia

Talk:FamilySearch Research Wiki

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Midtopia in topic These bullet lists felt like padding
Learn more about this page

Notability

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This Family History Research Wiki article has been challenged as not meeting the general notability guidelines (significant coverage in reliable and independent sources).

I believe the Family History Research Wiki is well and significantly covered in independent sources. By independent I mean sources created by people who are not employees of FamilySearch, while invited to speak at FamilySearch organized conferences, or on any committees associated with this Wiki. Nevertheless, Wiki contributors may be among the authors of some of the following.

Please consider the following citations as part of the evidence of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources:

Books

Dunn[1], Helm and Helm[2], Kennett[3], McCullough[4], Tanner[5]

Periodicals

Crossroads[6], Searchers and Researchers[7], Voices of the Past[8], Sedgwick County News[9], The Echoes[10], and Genealogy Updates for VGS[11]

Blogs

Ancestry[12], FamTreeMagBlog[13], GenStar[14], Meitzler[15], In-Depth[16], Legacy[17], Newberry[18], PassionateGen[19], Seaver[20], Senior[21], SouthAfrica[22], and Worldwide[23]

Class material

BYU Idaho[24], Calaveras[25], Mayhew[26], PC Club[27], SantaClara[28], and Snow[29]

Online articles

AinsworthLibr[30], AFGS[31], Free Mormon[32], Hendrickson[33], Society of Gen[34], TNGenWeb[35], and Treasures[36]

Talk Radio Blog

FGS Voice[37]

Because of these and other sources, I believe the Family History Research Wiki has general notability. Diltsgd (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Michael Dunn, A Beginner's Guide to Online Genealogy (Avon, Massachusetts: Adams Media, [2015]), 60.
  2. ^ Matthew L. Helm, and April Leigh Helm, Genealogy Online for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc., [2008]).
  3. ^ Debbie Kennett, DNA and Social Networking: A Guide to Genealogy in the 21st Century (Stroud: History Press, 2011), 171. (accessed 9 March 2016). Described in a list of wikis.
  4. ^ Dana McCullough, Unofficial Guide to FamilySearch (Cincinnati, OH: Family Tree Books, 2015), 216-20. Chapter on Wiki.
  5. ^ James L. Tanner, Guide to FamilySearch Online (Mesa, Ariz.: Bookmark Graphics, 2011). From reader review: "I found the section on FamilySearch Wiki to be extremely helpful. This portion of the book is worth the price all by itself."
  6. ^ "Civil War and the FamilySearch Research Wiki," Crossroads, 6, no. 2 (June 2011).
  7. ^ "FamilySearch Research Wiki, Overview," Searchers and Researchers, 33, no. 2 (summer 2010).
  8. ^ "FamilySearch Wiki as a Research Tool," Voices of the Past, 9, no. 1 (March 2013).
  9. ^ "FamilySearch Research Wiki," Sedgwick County Genealogy News, 13, no. 4 (December 2009).
  10. ^ "FamilySearch Research Wiki Description and User Tips," Echoes (The), 12, no. 6 (November 2013).
  11. ^ "Research Using FamilySearch Wiki," Genealogy Updates for VGS / Village Genealogical Society Newsletter, 2, no. 4 (April 2012).
  12. ^ #NGS2014GEN English Research and the FamilySearch Wiki in Ancestry Insider blog, 9 May 2014 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  13. ^ Diane Haddad, FamilySearch Research Wiki in FamilyTreeMagazine Genealogy Insider blog, 24 October 2010 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  14. ^ James L. Tanner, Have I mentioned the FamilySearch Research Wiki Recently? in Genealogy Star blog, 4 September 2014 (accessed 9 March 2016). Blog describes and praises it.
  15. ^ Leland Meitzler, The Updated Tennessee Page on FamilySearch Research Wiki in GenealogyBlog, 16 August 2010 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  16. ^ James L. Tanner, How to Search in the FamilySearch Research Wiki in In-Depth Genealogist blog, 18 August 2012 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  17. ^ Marian Pierre-Louis, Research Help for Unfamiliar Locations - FamilySearch Research Wiki in Legacy Family Tree News blog, 19 January 2012 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  18. ^ Newberry Library, FamilySearch Research Wiki Update in Newberry Library Genealogy Blog, 24 January 2014 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  19. ^ Blair Archival Research, Genealogical Research and the Wiki in The Passionate Genealogist blog, 19 March 2012 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  20. ^ Randy Seaver, FamilySearch Research Wiki, Videos, Getting Started Just Two Clicks Away Now in Genea-Musings blog, 19 April 2013 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  21. ^ Shanna Jones, Genealogy Corner… FamilySearch Research Wiki in Senior Sampler Genealogy Corner blog, 3 November 2011 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  22. ^ Jacqueline, Family Search Wiki in South African Family History blog (accessed 9 March 2016).
  23. ^ Pat Richley-Erickson, Record Selection Tables at FamilySearch Wiki in Worldwide Genealogy blog, 3 December 2015 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  24. ^ What Is a FamilySearch Wiki??? (Rexburg, ID: BYU Idaho, Fall 2011) (accessed 9 March 2016). Lesson outline.
  25. ^ Calaveras Genealogical Society’s Spring Social in MyMotherLode.com (accessed 9 March 2016). Lesson topic announcement.
  26. ^ Jamie Lee McManus Mayhew, Understanding the FamilySearch Research Wiki 10 page .pdf lesson. (California, 2015) (accessed 9 March 2016).
  27. ^ David Flint, pcclub.org Family History Research Wiki 2015 .pdf lesson handout.
  28. ^ Scandinavian Genealogical Research Resources Santa Clara County (Calif.) Historical and Genealogical Society lesson outline (accessed 9 March 2016).
  29. ^ Donald R. Snow, FamilySearch Catalog, Books, and Wiki Genealogy class notes of 17 May 2015 (accessed 9 March 2016).
  30. ^ FamilySearch: Oswego County in Ainsworth Memorial Library Genealogy (Sandy Creek, NY) (accessed 9 March 2016). Recommendation for local Oswego County research.
  31. ^ American-French Genealogical Society expands research resources with a page on FamilySearch Research Wiki in American-French Genealogical Society (accessed 9 March 2016).
  32. ^ Free Mormon Genealogy in Ancestor Search (accessed 9 March 2016). Short basic description of this wiki, on a list among other.
  33. ^ Nancy Hendrickson, Toolkit: Wikis 101 in FamilyTreeMagazine 20 April 2010 (accessed 9 March 2016). Discusses four online wikis.
  34. ^ Hints & Tips Twelve: How to Get the Best Results from FamilySearch in Society of Genealogists (England) (accessed 9 March 2016). Discussion of Wiki among others.
  35. ^ FamilySearch Partnership in TNGenWeb Project (accessed 9 March 2016). 2010 announcement re Wiki.
  36. ^ FamilySearch.org in Mary’s Genealogy Treasures (accessed 9 March 2016). Wiki takes a large section of this aggregator site menu.
  37. ^ FamilySearch Research Wiki and Your Genealogy Society in FGS "The Voice" 28 October 2014 (accessed 9 March 2016).

Pick subjective or neutral

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am concerned at the removal of two criticism sentences:

"But it is under-used by beginner genealogists who could most benefit by it, and who are often unaware of its existence. Even volunteers at Family History Centers, the primary intended audience, frequently seem to overlook its potential to help them answer genealogical questions."

To answer the question (Who's to say what is underused?) asked in the justification for removing the above sentences, expert genealogists would be good candidates to ask if some research tool is under-used by beginner genealogists. Experienced practitioners often have a feel (perhaps even subjective) for what constitutes rookie mistakes in Wikipedia, as well as in genealogy.

One person's “subjective” may be another person's “neutral point of view.”

Subjective does not always mean inaccurate--sometimes it just means a formal study or measuring has not yet been conducted. The subjective notions of experienced users can be based on valid informal observations. Discussion of the situation may lead to just such a study. Suppressing discussion because it is subjective may discourage research into the situation. I cannot point to a study to prove it, but I believe that if you visited a genealogical conference and asked expert genealogists a majority (a consensus) would agree that generally new genealogists seem to pay too little attention for their own good to the Family History Research Wiki. It is a genuine problem even if it a subjective observation because it has not yet been formally studied.

Neutral point of view is also an element of good encyclopedia articles. These two deleted sentences were most of the negative criticism in the article. Loss of a brief discussion of a problem associated with this wiki leaves the article even more one-sidedly laudatory than before. I believe in this case it is better to err on the side of allowing some subjective commentary if doing so creates a little more balance in the point of view.

Please restore the two deleted sentences in order to render a little more balanced and thus neutral point of view to the article. Diltsgd (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Think of it this way: What metric is used to specify the amount of use a given resource "should" get, allowing us to state that an amount of use beneath that amount is "underuse"? I don't see that the word "underuse" has any practical meaning here, and therefore isn't informative.
The problem may simply lie in the word and its focus. Above, you discuss specifics: researchers are often found not to be aware of this resource, or aren't making use of it. (Of course, in that case, it may be because they aren't finding it useful. The article can't take the position that the Family History Research Wiki would be useful to these people who aren't using it.) If the article stated things in those direct terms, rather than indirectly by drawing conclusions about "underuse", it may help. It's especially important that conclusions not be drawn here from data and other information found elsewhere: this is synthesis, which, as a subset of the greater topic of original research, isn't allowed here.
Even then, I believe there could be a problem insofar as making such comments at all gives the appearance of advocating that researchers should be making greater use of this resource, and that it's a problem that they don't. I think it would be tricky to write this so that the article doesn't given the impression that Wikipedia is promoting the site and making judgements on its value. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

First line sounds like an advert

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Articles should start with the definition, and then the details/use case, not the other way around. Jurryaany (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

These bullet lists felt like padding

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

New to Wikipedia, so hopefully I'm not overstepping!

I'm talking about the lists describing "Other types of pages" and the listing out of available languages. I've removed them in this edit. I briefly tried to pare them down to a tighter form, but I think this page is stronger with them removed entirely.

Open to discussion. I know it's a big edit. Midtopia (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FamilySearch_Research_Wiki&oldid=1251776469"