Scotland Census, 1901

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Yup. Hence the reference to having the cake and eating it. They can't do things like that and then get away with it scot free. Limited resources only works as an excuse if when someone outside of those limited resources tries to help the situation when they can they are allowed to do so. If instead they are shut down then that marks an assumption of responsibility by those doing the shutting down.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Obviously it is very sad to us "non LDS" when a whole set of collections become unavailable for our use. However, we have become used to the fact that, presumably following some detailed review of contracts, a lot more collections do seem to have been restricted to "LDS only" over the past year or so.

Okay, if that's what the contract states then we have to swallow it. But I do agree that there should be transparency over any new restrictions. It is upsetting that we have to approach record custodians for details, using the powers available (at least here in the UK) under the Freedom of Information Act. If Legal does not have the resources to update the Wiki please let ordinary users / other employees do this. If these is anything that hints of criticism of the LDS Church / FamilySearch, or any inaccuracy in the detail added to a Wiki article, we should expect a moderator to take down the added information.

True, we can no longer see the Scotland Census indexed collections at all, but for an interim period we were able to search them with a baffling "No results" outcome, when we knew the sources did exist. So, please treat us with respect and help us to understand why we are suddenly experiencing difficulty in accessing data from certain collections, where previously we had no such problems.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: I personally do not expect (or want, due to the massive risks) FS to be making their contracts publicly available, but in the interests of transparency the names of the record custodians should be released.

In the case of the 1841-1901 Scotland censuses, it was not clear whether National Records Scotland (who operate ScotlandsPeople) or FMP was the custodian. After making a FOIA request to NRS it turns out that FMP is the record custodian and that NRS has nothing to do with this (aside from signing a contract with FMP that gave them the right to sell the index of government-owned records to a third party). Conventionally for FS and FMP, because FMP is in the private sector, their contract is not covered by the FOIA. The NRS-FMP contract would be subject to the FOIA (subject to redactions for commercially sensitive material that may not apply to a contract with a non-profit organisation like FS), but I didn't request it in my recent correspondence with NRS.

On the topic of transparency, why are non-Latter Day Saints now longer told explicitly, in the messages that come up when trying to view restricted records, about LDS-only and LDS-favoured access arrangements? Instead we get told that the records may be on a partner or custodian's website and are somehow expected to deduce that means the records are LDS-only.

And of course, ordinary wiki editors who have accurate, useful content to contribute should not be prevented from doing so. If contracts really, as I was told once, sometimes prohibit FS from publicizing details of restrictions, the editor should be shown this evidence. If FS doesn't want to allow ordinary genealogists to edit the Wiki, which they are perfectly entitled to, then stop calling it a Wiki.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "I personally do not expect ... FS to be making their contracts publicly available".
Me neither.

Not totally sure I agree with AvH's suggestion to release the names of the record custodians. The custodians of the Scottish Census records are the NRS, who aren't the driving force in this (I'd never have guessed that NRS signed that contract that gave FMP rights to sell the index to a 3rd party, so thanks for that interesting point, AvH. ) I think I'd prefer to see "No general(?) access to the index due to contractual arrangements with FMP". I'd even be satisfied (if not that happy) to see the "with FMP" removed.

It's this attempt to pretend that there are no restrictions, or to ignore the question, that I object to.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: To my non-legal mind, claiming that the contract doesn't let you mention that there's a contract (which appears to be the situation we have now), seems to be on dodgy ground legally. Reminiscent of the concept of the super-injunction in the UK where not only were newspapers forbidden to mention fact X about person Y, they weren't even allowed to say that there was an injunction that stopped them from doing so. The super-injunction, as I recollect, was thrown out by the courts.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: It's completely unenforceable legitimately. We are not bound by the terms of the contracts between Familysearch and any of the record holders. We are not parties to those contracts and so their terms are not enforceable on us. Since Familysearch also do not have a public policy statement on the wiki about the secret nature of these contracts' terms then any information in them which can be found out by simple deduction is public information. If we compare Mormon and non-Mormon records access that is simple deduction and thus public information. There are no trade secrets or confidential information involved.

Now what we are bound by is the contract between us and Familysearch. That is the terms of use etc for the site and on the wiki the public policy statements. As I said there is no public policy statement I am aware of on the wiki regarding posting of information on records access differences between different groups. Until and unless such a public policy statement is made on the wiki then any attempt by anyone to remove accurate information about record access restrictions is vandalism and against the wiki terms of service. Familysearch and Familysearch representatives are as much bound by those terms of service as we are.

Hence my scorn and disdain for the stance actually taken.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Can someone point me to a page in the FS Wiki which needs editing and what the wording should be. I have more editing rights than most (long story that goes back ten years or so) and so I'd like to see if my level allows me to edit where the basic editing level does not. Provide a URL and image of the area, along with the preferred text.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: In the case of making edits that add content about restricted records, it is possible to make the edits- the pages are not blocked or protected in any way. But in most cases your edit will be reverted within a day or two by more senior editors and they'll message you and tell you that the edit was not allowed.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Don't try it. Seriously. You will get illegitimately reverted in exactly the same way as happened last year when someone edited the information for the 1939 England and Wales register to put details about access restrictions to that index in the article.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Thanks to both of you for this information.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Since those messages are not public policy pronouncements and since they go againat the actual public policy pronouncements THAT is why I refer to it as an illegitimate reversion and vandalism.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: This covers 1901 Scotland image issues and indexes

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...

LegacyUser

Paul said: Tom

In case you would like to check this out further, go to the first link. Click on "Learn more" and you will arrive at the page in the second link. (These are just examples - applying specifically to the 1861 Scotland census collection.)

Now, scroll down to "Search the Index". Clicking on "Collection Details Page" would previously had taken you to the Search page for the collection, but you currently find yourself in a loop and are taken back to the first link (shown below).

I say "you", but perhaps your experience will not be the same, if you are in a members' account. As "gasmodels" illustrated above, his (members') page - showing the list of all Scottish indexes available - is rather different to the one seen from a public account (see the comparison, above, between his screenshot and mine). It should have not been surprised me there are different pages for Members / Public accounts, as Joe Martel had already illustrated this 3 months ago.

Fortunately, I managed to attach most of these census sources to my ancestors / relatives pages before the search facility for them disappeared without warning or explanation!

Thank you for your interest in this issue.

https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: The article has the standard template:

"Whenever possible FamilySearch makes images and indexes available for all users. However, rights to view these data are limited by contract and subject to change. Because of this there may be limitations on where and how images and indexes are available or who can see them. Please be aware some collections consist only of partial information indexed from the records and do not contain any images.

For additional information about image restrictions, please see the Restrictions for Viewing Images in FamilySearch Historical Record Collections page"

Clearly this content is of limited use, as the restrictions are not specified.
Which is what some of us have tried to edit in the past, only to be reverted and reprimanded by senior editors.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Clicking on the "Learn more" link used to lead to a page with far more detail relating to the specific collection. Now, as AvH mentions, most of the Wiki articles (that have replaced the earlier linked pages) primarily contain a standard template.

For example, I have a particular interest in Norfolk (England) records. The former links from "Learn more" used to have a lot more detail on the problems relating to Norfolk collections than is now the case (e.g. where the register of one parish was to be found under the heading of another).

Possibly due to the "limited resources" factor, FamilySearch does not maintain these pages as in the past but, unfortunately, is very restrictive in the editing rights granted to "ordinary users". The rather vague, general comments that appear tend to just hint at certain difficulties that MIGHT be encountered - relating to accessing the collection, or parts thereof.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "Possibly due to the "limited resources" factor, FamilySearch does not maintain these pages ..."
Tell me again what Wiki usually means? :-(

LegacyUser

Paul said: That's why I was hoping, from the links provided above, Tom Huber (through his offer of help) might be able to prove whether certain edits to the Wiki definitely can only be made by Legal, or selected FamilySearch employees.