Certification, Participation, Locking, and Accuracy, Part II
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Robert Wren said: A user resurrected this old post, someone else suggested a new Topic.
Margot Seymour Schulzke 4 hours ago: There is much to agree with in the comments above. Some actual controls are needed, not just comments here to that effect.
Some of us spend most of the time available to us correcting additions that should never have been made--with changes of locality that border on impossible.
It would be so wise if researchers/patrons routinely used an Atlas to evaluate the likelihood of a connection existing in a population before the age of trains and buses. Old world families tended to stay close to home before the industrial era.
originally shared by Jason Ivy over 5 years ago with · 280 replies 12 stars
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"I propose a certification process. This wouldn't be the same as other certifications proposed. This process would be entirely optional. Nobody would need to be certified to use Family Tree. Most people wouldn't be. People would still be encouraged to jump right in and start researching (hopefully with some FHC guidance). These certs, though, would carry real weight in the database. The certs would be tiered, with higher tiers requiring a greater degree of research knowledge and skill.
Certificates would represent, in a limited fashion, amounts of skill and knowledge, in other words, authority (in the academic sense)."
Promoted Responses:
joe martel (Official Rep) over 4 years ago: "Thanks for this discussion. Certification is one of many ways we are considering to improve the quality of tree data and at the same time gain participation. You are correct that certification is a fairly major undertaking.
Though I don't need to be certified to edit a wikipedia article maybe there are places where we can place more impedance on OpenEdit and do things like requiring a Reason on Delete (coming soon). THank you all for your suggestions and your process here is wonderful."
markshepherd over 4 years ago: What if there were no certification required to add new information as well as view existing information? This would accommodate new users who just want to look, those with minimal experience who are adding close relatives such as parents, grandparents, etc. so that ordinances can be completed. It would also better suit the needs of those in third world countries where vital records may not exist.
However, if one wanted to edit information contributed by others, they would have to complete certification. They would also have to complete certification for editing or deleting relationships, merging, deleting persons, etc. Certification would also be required to be able to add any new person (via GEDCOM or directly) where a high probability duplicate record already exists. If one were requesting ordinances for those born >110 years ago where high match duplicate records contain completed ordinances, one would also have to complete certification.
Christopher Allen Young over 4 years ago: Its this last group that will be the most important because they can be given the ability to correct and or lock records, restrict abusive and possibly send information to non public contacts.
I envision a simple overview to reinforce the core concepts that individuals need to understand when working in an open edit system and a system where those with knowledge and judgement can be tapped and empowered as a volunteer force handling cases.
Kathryn Grant over 5 years ago: Last year I took an online class at www.coursera.org. Students were responsible for grading other students' work. But before they could do so, they had to pass a short online training that taught them how to do it--in essence, a light "certification." It was all online and automated, so there was no overhead for administering the training and test.
In a similar way, FT could allow anyone to view data, but only "certified" individuals could make changes.
FT has such a diverse user base (from the professional genealogist to the occasional user who "just wants to find an ancestor" to the elderly patron who is terribly confused by the ever-changing web site). I don't see how FT will ever become an accurate, trusted genealogical resource unless some kind of light control or "certification" is put in place.
I don't think that's asking too much of users in this type of open-edit system; in fact, I think most would welcome the chance to learn. Users in my ward are frankly a little scared of the system and very scared (by their own admission) of making mistakes or messing things up.
Some kind of certification is all the more necessary given that repairing mistakes in FT is turning out to be less effective and more difficult than we'd been led to believe (see this thread: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...). It sounds like we need some way to reduce the likelihood of mistakes occurring in the first place, and the sooner the better
(my apologies to the other great responders years ago, whom I did not quote.)
OK, you forum members are now certified to respond. Please read, contemplate and give your well thought out BRIEF proposals or comments in response. (The PROBLEM continues, I was considering starting a new post with similar proposals, but why reinvent the wheel. Something needs to be DONE!
Margot Seymour Schulzke 4 hours ago: There is much to agree with in the comments above. Some actual controls are needed, not just comments here to that effect.
Some of us spend most of the time available to us correcting additions that should never have been made--with changes of locality that border on impossible.
It would be so wise if researchers/patrons routinely used an Atlas to evaluate the likelihood of a connection existing in a population before the age of trains and buses. Old world families tended to stay close to home before the industrial era.
originally shared by Jason Ivy over 5 years ago with · 280 replies 12 stars
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"I propose a certification process. This wouldn't be the same as other certifications proposed. This process would be entirely optional. Nobody would need to be certified to use Family Tree. Most people wouldn't be. People would still be encouraged to jump right in and start researching (hopefully with some FHC guidance). These certs, though, would carry real weight in the database. The certs would be tiered, with higher tiers requiring a greater degree of research knowledge and skill.
Certificates would represent, in a limited fashion, amounts of skill and knowledge, in other words, authority (in the academic sense)."
Promoted Responses:
joe martel (Official Rep) over 4 years ago: "Thanks for this discussion. Certification is one of many ways we are considering to improve the quality of tree data and at the same time gain participation. You are correct that certification is a fairly major undertaking.
Though I don't need to be certified to edit a wikipedia article maybe there are places where we can place more impedance on OpenEdit and do things like requiring a Reason on Delete (coming soon). THank you all for your suggestions and your process here is wonderful."
markshepherd over 4 years ago: What if there were no certification required to add new information as well as view existing information? This would accommodate new users who just want to look, those with minimal experience who are adding close relatives such as parents, grandparents, etc. so that ordinances can be completed. It would also better suit the needs of those in third world countries where vital records may not exist.
However, if one wanted to edit information contributed by others, they would have to complete certification. They would also have to complete certification for editing or deleting relationships, merging, deleting persons, etc. Certification would also be required to be able to add any new person (via GEDCOM or directly) where a high probability duplicate record already exists. If one were requesting ordinances for those born >110 years ago where high match duplicate records contain completed ordinances, one would also have to complete certification.
Christopher Allen Young over 4 years ago: Its this last group that will be the most important because they can be given the ability to correct and or lock records, restrict abusive and possibly send information to non public contacts.
I envision a simple overview to reinforce the core concepts that individuals need to understand when working in an open edit system and a system where those with knowledge and judgement can be tapped and empowered as a volunteer force handling cases.
Kathryn Grant over 5 years ago: Last year I took an online class at www.coursera.org. Students were responsible for grading other students' work. But before they could do so, they had to pass a short online training that taught them how to do it--in essence, a light "certification." It was all online and automated, so there was no overhead for administering the training and test.
In a similar way, FT could allow anyone to view data, but only "certified" individuals could make changes.
FT has such a diverse user base (from the professional genealogist to the occasional user who "just wants to find an ancestor" to the elderly patron who is terribly confused by the ever-changing web site). I don't see how FT will ever become an accurate, trusted genealogical resource unless some kind of light control or "certification" is put in place.
I don't think that's asking too much of users in this type of open-edit system; in fact, I think most would welcome the chance to learn. Users in my ward are frankly a little scared of the system and very scared (by their own admission) of making mistakes or messing things up.
Some kind of certification is all the more necessary given that repairing mistakes in FT is turning out to be less effective and more difficult than we'd been led to believe (see this thread: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...). It sounds like we need some way to reduce the likelihood of mistakes occurring in the first place, and the sooner the better
(my apologies to the other great responders years ago, whom I did not quote.)
OK, you forum members are now certified to respond. Please read, contemplate and give your well thought out BRIEF proposals or comments in response. (The PROBLEM continues, I was considering starting a new post with similar proposals, but why reinvent the wheel. Something needs to be DONE!
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Tom Huber said: I agree that patrons need training. The bigger problem is that FamilySearch (FS) has dropped the ball on documentation.
At best, we have a "guess at the keyword you need to get to the information you want" help(less) center. But we have been told that (a) new search engine(s) is(are) in development. Of course, we have no information on what the search engine will do (hopefully it will make use of Boolean operators) or when it will be released. This involves all search features on the entire FS site.
As to training, the Training Center went away, so patrons are left with little to go to. Many T&FH consultants are left with few resources and are often not able to keep up with the changes to the FS site themselves.
All that is current and past history, so we are left with a discussion that has come up before, a number of times, with no resolution from FS.
But, as a glimmer of hope, there is a site that has been certified for training and that is The Family History Guide (FHG) site. See http://thefhguide.com/ for those not familiar with the site. It has also undergone a slight redesign that, unlike the FS site, actually makes the FHG site easier to use.
As to asking to certify patrons and new users, this has largely been ignored by FS personnel, but at least the FHG site is now on the FamilySearch portal on Family History facility and affiliate authorized computers.
But that doesn't help those who never visit a FS facility or affiliate (or even have one close to where they live).
I'd like to propose that the FHG site be prominent promoted on both the landing page for the FS site (before any signs in) and as a prominent promotion after a person has signed in.
I would like to propose that the FHG site be included in any messages having to do with merge operations, along with any other pertinent information windows. The message could be as simple as "For information on merging, see the Family History Guide with that used as a link to the FHG site that opens in a new window.
I do not work for the FHG folks or FS, but something definitely needs to be done to educate users and us consultants as well.0 -
Christopher Allen Young said: My thoughts on this subject have evolved over the years. While I still think certification is needed I believe that what is needed most of all is some sort of agreement model that can be used to allow the system to defend itself against casual change. User training and certification can be used in such a system to lend weight to an agreement score and the system can impose various levels of impedance to change based on that. In such a system a well sourced and agreed upon record resists change. but does not prevent it preserving the open edit nature of the system. I've written extensively about this in the past and am willing to explain my ideas.0
-
Tom Huber said: What has Family Search's response to this idea been? I am not opposed to it, by the way.0
-
Christopher Allen Young said: they like the idea in theory but think in practice it will be too complex and take too many resources to implement and maintain and think there may be cheaper and better alternatives. If a reasonable plan to implement and maintain could be presented then they are willing to listen.0
-
Nathan Twyman said: I'm ready for part III, Robert.
FamilySearch has long claimed they want to have the most accurate one-world tree on the web, but that claim may need to be updated. FS personnel regularly tell me to go somewhere else for accuracy, and have done so for some years now. It doesn't make sense to push people elsewhere to preserve accuracy but still claim accuracy is a top priority.
Following FS personnel's instructions, I've started using an alternative one-tree site instead. Because of certification and similar hurdles, the ancestors and supporting research I've posted there will be preserved there for a very long time, whereas the same people and research posted to FSFT won't last a month.
The kind of participation prevented by the hurdles I had to work through is participation in thoughtlessly destroying family history. That kind of participation is something I can absolutely live without.0 -
A postscript to my thoughts above: At present, I don't believe there is a way for an FS user to reach out to a group of other FS users ... all those involved in stepping on each other with contradictory edits to a given family tree person, for example. I've seen well-intentioned FS users therefore using the Life Sketch field as a messaging system ... a place to implore other FS users to stop creating craziness, or to explain what changes they have made (yet again) and why. So, until FS settles upon a data driven approach to certification or damage control measures, perhaps even adding an ability to "Send a Message" to a group of FS users, where that group might be "All users who've made edits within the last week/month/year" sort of thing.
0 -
A postscript to my thoughts above: At present, I don't believe there is a way for an FS user to reach out to a group of other FS users ... all those involved in stepping on each other with contradictory edits to a given family tree person, for example. I've seen well-intentioned FS users therefore using the Life Sketch field as a messaging system ... a place to implore other FS users to stop creating craziness, or to explain what changes they have made (yet again) and why. So, until FS settles upon a data driven approach to certification or damage control measures, perhaps even adding an ability to "Send a Message" to a group of FS users, where that group might be "All users who've made edits within the last week/month/year" sort of thing.
0 -
Certification, Participation, Locking, and Accuracy, Part III
"The more things change, the more they stay the same!!" (An old French saying, translated)
It's interesting to see this 5 year old post pop up again - with NO effective solution or response from the 'powers that be.' It reminds me of another old (and yet unresolved) GEDCOM issue) or the more recent (unresolved) 'new Search records improvements (?)
I sincerely, but reluctantly, expect there will be NO 'effective' response to any of these 3 issues forthcoming. C'est la vie!
0
This discussion has been closed.