The WikiTree Honor Code

My thanks to Dr. Bill Smith for bringing this to my attention by writing about the Code.[1]

I will admit that I rarely use collaborative genealogy sites. Nothing against the sites themselves–it just does  not often fit into my research plan. First, I have little time to research my own family and do not use online family trees for clients unless I am completely out of other options. Second, the online trees just don’t generally meet the standards of proof that I try to meet.

One of the leading collaborative sites in the market today–WikiTree–has recently instituted an “Honor Code.” This Honor Code is the first attempt of which I am aware that tries to bring research standards to online family trees. This nine-point Code addresses ethical concerns such as courtesy and privacy, and legal concerns such as copyright. In terms of research standards, it includes the following important point:

VIII. We cite sources. Without sources we can’t objectively resolve conflicting information.[2]

This one point in the WikiTree Honor Code actually addresses two of the five points of the Genealogical Proof Standard: that we cite our sources (obviously) and that we reconcile conflicting evidence caused by conflicting information.

I would like to commend the WikiTree team for making this first step in supporting genealogy research standards. I would also like to invite other collaborative genealogy sites to follow their lead to help make online genealogies more reliable in the future. This will do much to raise the overall quality of online genealogies.

SOURCES:

[1] Dr. Bill (William L.) Smith, “I support the WikiTree Wiki Genealogist Honor Code,” Springfield Genealogy Examiner, posted 29 June 2012 (http://www.examiner.com/article/i-support-the-wikitree-wiki-genealogist-honor-code : accessed 1 July 2012).

[2] “Wiki Genealogist Honor Code,” WikiTree (http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:Honor_Code : accessed 1 July 2012).

Using Ancestry.com’s “New Search”

Periodically, comments will be posted on one mailing list or another, or some blog or another, by an experienced genealogist, in which they express trouble with Ancestry.com’s “New Search” and try desperately to get back to the “Old Search.”

For the life of me, I cannot understand these feelings. I have been using the “New Search” since its debut a few years ago, and find it far superior to the old search engine. I can only suppose that the problems stem from unfamiliarity with the more powerful settings.

When most people see the “New Search,” this is what they see:

I will admit that this does look quite unbearable to use. However, you will notice the “Show Advanced” link at the bottom, next to the “Search” button.

When you click on this link, the appearance of the search box changes dramatically.

To get the best search results, click that box in the upper left corner, “Match all terms exactly.” Checking this box changes the settings under each box from “Use default settings” to “Restrict to exact.” (Don’t worry, you can limit this.)

When you clink on the “Restrict to exact” link in various boxes, you get the following options:

First & Middle Name(s): “Restrict to exact matches and

• Phonetic matches
• Names with similar meanings or spellings
• Records where only initials are recorded

Last Name: ”Restrict to exact matches and

• Soundex matches
• Phonetic matches
• Names with similar meanings or spellings

Location: “Restrict to this place exactly” “Or restrict to just

• county/adjacent counties
• state
• state/adjacent states
• country

[Note: You must have a county specified in this box in order for these options to appear.]

Wildcards (* or ?) will not work with any of these options. They only work when “Restrict to exact” is active. However, these options do allow for more flexible searching, without requiring wildcards. On first name, for example, a search for Anna with the “similar meaning or spellings” box checked will also return Ann, Anne, Annie, Hannah, etc.

Another complaint with “New Search” is that the results seem random. This is also a quick fix.

The default setting is view results by relevance, which appears as follows:

Here you see that the results from numerous record groups appear.

However, you can change the results to appear by record group. This is particularly helpful, for example, if you know that the person you are searching lived from 1863 through 1921 in New York. You can use a little genealogical reasoning to skip the record groups before 1863 and after 1921, and those that do not concern New York.

To make this change, you just have to click on the drop-down menu in the upper right next to “View”, and change “Sorted by Relevance” to “Summarized by Category.”

You can then go through and select each potentially relevant record group one-by-one. This, of course, limits the results to those in each individual record group. You can also make changes to the specific search terms within each record group. Just use your browser’s “Back” button to return to this main search results page to access other record groups.

I hope that this brief tutorial helps those who are having problems, and I welcome any questions, if I have not addressed any other issues with “New Search.” I believe that you will find–like myself–that the current search engine is far superior to the “Old Search” that everyone seems to love.

Notable Genealogy Blog Posts, 18 June 2012

[Please forgive the premature posting of an empty list yesterday. A case of auto-scheduling and sleeping in on Father's Day gone wrong. I have compensated by spending the day reading over a month's worth of blogs, so this list is longer than usual.]

The following recent blog posts are those that I consider important or notable. Unlike other similar blog lists, I cannot guarantee that they will all be from the past week. (Some weeks I simply do not have time to read any blogs.) But I will try to write this on a fairly regular basis.

Ramona Martinez, “Unknown No More: Identifying A Civil War Soldier,” NPR, posted 11 April 2012 (http://www.npr.org/sections/around-the-nation/ : accessed 18 June 2012).

John F. Cummings III, “Still Unknown… Despite Diligent Detective Work, NPR Story Makes Critical Error,” Spotsylvania Civil War Blog, posted 11 April 2012 (http://spotsylvaniacw.blogspot.com : accessed 18 June 2012).

Ramona Martinez, “Photo Mystery Solved, Then Doubted, Then Deciphered, Thanks To Readers,” NPR: The Picture Show blog, posted 17 April 2012 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/ : accessed 18 June 2012).

The three above articles/blog posts are brilliant examples of some historical detective work used to identify the subject of a newly-acquired Civil War tintype at the Library of Congress. Start at the beginning, and don’t neglect the comments.

Barbara Mathews, CG, “Follow Friday: Resources for Studying Genealogical Standards,” The Demanding Genealogist blog, posted 24 May 2012 (http://demandinggenealogist.blogspot.com/ : last accessed 18 June 2012). Barbara has created a new website discussing standards in genealogy research, writing, and teaching. The site will be in constant development, but provides invaluable information to those who want to study these standards.

James Tanner, “Community or Communities? That is the Question,” Genealogy’s Star blog, posted 29 May 2012 (http://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/ : accessed 18 June 2012). James Tanner discusses the genealogy “community” as a series of overlapping affinity groups. I love the sociological theory of networks!

Lynn Palermo, “Mind Mapping for Genealogists,” The Armchair Genealogist blog, posted 30 May 2012 (http://www.thearmchairgenealogist.com/ : accessed 18 June 2012). I have been using mind mapping for over ten years. I usually hand-draw my mind-maps for articles I am writing or presentations I am creating, but I have also used mind maps in the way Lynn describes. A mind map provides a different way of organizing and reviewing the information you have and the information you need.

Angela McGhie, “Elizabeth Shown Mills Ten-point Study Blueprint,” Adventures in Genealogy Education blog, posted 6 June 2012 (http://genealogyeducation.blogspot.com : accessed 18 June 2012). Angela reprints, with permission, an educational blueprint that Elizabeth Shown Mills had submitted a few years ago to the Transitional Genealogists Forum (TGF) mailing list. It is interesting to note that several of these then-non-existent opportunities have since been created: notably the ProGen Study Group of which Angela has been the major engine driving it forward.

James Tanner, “Navagating [sic] the Maze,” Genealogy’s Star blog, posted 8 June 2012 (http://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/ : accessed 18 June 2012). James presents seven rules for searching for information online. My favorites: Rule One, “Assume the information you are looking for is on the Web” and Rule Three, “Look for categories of records and sources rather than individual documents.”

Elyse Doerflinger, “The Genealogy Generational Disconnect,” Elyse’s Genealogy Blog, posted 8 June 2012 (http://elysesgenealogyblog.com : accessed 18 June 2012). Elyse responds to a post from the TGF list (which I have mentioned on numerous occasions) in which a young 20-something genealogist reported being largely dismissed by older genealogists. Many of you may be familiar with Elyse, whose YouTube genealogy videos while still a teenager were a huge hit. As a “younger” genealogist myself–though less so every year–I would like others of the “under 40″ ilk to start making our impact.

Marian Pierre-Louis, “The Complexity of Online Digital Records,” Marian’s Roots & Rambles blog, posted 12 June 2012 (http://rootsandrambles.blogspot.com/ : accessed 18 June 2012). Marian discusses the five main types of online genealogy content, and some considerations for each.

Marian Pierre-Louis, “The Complexity of Online Digital Records – Part 2,” Marian’s Roots & Rambles blog, posted 13 June 2012 (http://rootsandrambles.blogspot.com/ : accessed 18 June 2012). Marian discusses the three “views” of content: index view, record view, and image view.

I noted several other posts of interest, and have only made it through half of my unread blog posts in Google Reader. Now that I am back home from my “world tour” I hope to be able to list many more next week. Stay tuned…

Canadian genealogical society journals

Last year, Harold Henderson and I compiled “State & Regional Genealogical Society Journals,” a directory of the journals of societies around the United States.

M. Diane Rogers, editor of the British Columbia Genealogical Society’s journal (British Columbia Genealogist), has compiled and published a similar list for Canadian genealogical societies: “Canadian Provincial Genealogical Publications.”

If you are conducting research in Canada, please consider submitting your research to the appropriate journal.

What is forensic genealogy?

In an effort to explore some of the different career opportunities for genealogists, the following interview was conducted via email with Leslie Lawson, President of the Council for the Advancement of Forensic Genealogy.

Note from Leslie: Some of the answers to these questions I have pulled straight from the website for the Council for the Advancement of Forensic Genealogy at: http://www.forensicgenealogists.com/index.html. We worked long and hard to define ourselves and our goals for all the world to see!

1. What is “forensic genealogy”?

Forensic genealogy is research, analysis, and reporting in cases with legal implications.

Using methodology and ethics consistent with the highest standards of the profession, Forensic Genealogy is conducted by unbiased, disinterested, third party practitioners with no personal or professional stake in the outcome.

2. What is the difference in methodology between forensic genealogy and traditional “ancestral” genealogy?

Whether going back in time or coming forward in time it takes an educated research skill and knowledge about the available databases that can help you with this search. Each state decides what records will be available. Some states are extremely difficult to research in and others try to make it fairly easy. Going back in time is easier to a point, usually about 1850, and then it takes a different skill set, or mind set, to figure out how to go back further. To come forward from 1930 to today you must have knowledge about the place you are researching in and what information is available for that place. Are there newspapers, city directories, voter’s registers? Can you access the SSDI to help bridge the years? Is there an online tree somewhere to help you locate living family members?

3. What are some of the issues that forensic genealogists confront?

Broken families where siblings don’t talk to each other; they also don’t talk to other living family members. Fifty years ago there was almost always a family member who was the one person that kept up with every person in their extended family. Today people are so busy that they often don’t know what is going on within their immediate family.

There is the constant threat of closing record sets. Some records that are closed to researchers might include funeral homes or cemeteries that refuse to give answers citing privacy issues or HIPPA [dead people don’t have HIPPA coverage]. Some businesses want to charge a large sum of money to open a book or access a computer. With all the scams in the news the next difficulty comes when we try to contact living people. Many are very wary, as they should be, but it does make it difficult at times to convince them to speak with us. I usually start the conversation talking about their grandparents, information that scammers wouldn’t necessarily be aware of.

4. Who are the most common clients of forensic genealogists?

Most of our clients are attorneys; oil and gas companies; banks; trust accountants; guardians for the elderly.

5. What is the mission of the Council for the Advancement of Forensic Genealogy?

From the homepage of our website, under “Our Objectives”

• Advance public awareness and understanding of the profession.
• Encourage broader use of the services of qualified forensic genealogists.
• Promote and maintain high standards of professional and ethical conduct.
• Encourage best practices in client services and business models.
• Promote interchange of information among members through electronic forums, trade publications, meetings, and seminars.
• Provide education and training for professional advancement of membership.
• Assist fellow members in professional development though mentorship, full membership, credentialing, and awarding of fellowships.
• Influence legislation that impacts the profession or the ability to access public records.

6. What advice would you give a genealogist who is considering a career in forensic genealogy?

Understand that these cases can be very challenging; time sensitive affairs. If a judge is nipping at an attorney, you can bet that attorney will be nipping at you. Know the law of the state you are working within. Ask a practicing forensic genealogist if they can mentor you so that you can learn the ropes. You might not be able to access the professional’s files because of their confidentiality agreements, but you can certainly practice on your own family by picking a line you know nothing about and bringing all those lines forward to today; then contacting said family members. Perhaps you’ll have a fmily reunion with that new information you’ve uncovered. Understand that we are constantly learning about available records, and networking with others to be our legs on the ground when we need onsite researchers.

If you want to pull records for anyone, learn how to write citations! We’re not looking for perfection; we’re looking for accurate citations. If I receive a document with citations you can be pretty sure I’m going to call you again if I have work in that area. And you can also bet I’ll share your name with others. Understand if you are a record puller, forensic genealogists need prompt response, follow through, and citations.

And if you really want to learn about forensic genealogy, come to the Institute! At this writing there is one slot left open. You can learn more about what we are offering at the website. It will be an intense 2 ½ days, and your mind will be swimming when you return home. It is our intention to walk you through all kinds of real life scenarios that we have run in to while doing this work. We hope to give you answers to many of the common and not so common questions. Our hope is to truly stretch you as a professional genealogist.

UPDATE: For another perspective on this subject, see Barbara Matthews, “Response to ‘What Is Forensic Genealogy?,’“ The Demanding Genealogist blog, posted 23 May 2012 (http://demandinggenealogist.blogspot.com : accessed 23 May 2012).

Notable Genealogy Blog Posts, 13 May 2012

The following recent blog posts are those that I consider important or notable. Unlike other similar blog lists, I cannot guarantee that they will all be from the past week. (Some weeks I simply do not have time to read any blogs.) But I will try to write this on a fairly regular basis.

NOTE: As this post appears, I will be driving from Ohio to Delaware, coming home from the National Genealogical Society annual conference. Since I have been there all week, there are only a few posts noted here.

Anne Morddel, CG, “Sourcing and Annotating the French Way,” The French Genealogy Blog, posted 2 May 2012 (http://french-genealogy.typepad.com/genealogie/ : accessed 6 May 2012). Ms. Morddel discusses the work of a French genealogist to describe sources in France, using original records. Though Evidence Explained holds a dear place in the hearts of American genealogists, it does fall somewhat short on international records. (That could take another 800 pages!) But standards in genealogy are not unique to American genealogy, so I love to read about similar efforts in other countries. The post refers to …

Sophie Boudarel, “Comment utiliser les sources en généalogie ?,” La gazette des ancêtres blog, posted 18 April 2012 (http://lagazettedesancetres.blogspot.com/ : accessed 6 May 2012). Finally those seven years of French instruction (and a healthy dose of Google Translate) come in handy. Ms. Boudarel does a very good job discussing the use of sources. And she points me to another French blog …

Roland, “Les sources en généalogie,” Lorand.org blog, posted 17 April 2012 (http://www.lorand.org/spip.php?rubrique44 : accessed 6 May 2012). I love that these French genealogy blogs have been talking about the nature of sources, etc.—topics close to my own heart as any reader of this blog knows.

J. H. Fonkert, CG, “Why do Editors ask You to Write?,” Four Generations Genealogy blog, posted 6 May 2012 (http://fourgenerationsgenealogy.blogspot.com/ : accessed 6 May 2012). Jay responds to Harold Henderson’s post “Why We Don’t Write” (see last week’s Notable Genealogy Blog Posts), from the point of view of the managing editor of the Minnesota Genealogist, a publication of the Minnesota Genealogical Society. Very good input for those who love to write.

Notable Genealogy Blog Posts, 6 May 2012

The following recent blog posts are those that I consider important or notable. Unlike other similar blog lists, I cannot guarantee that they will all be from the past week. (Some weeks I simply do not have time to read any blogs.) But I will try to write this on a fairly regular basis.

Harold Henderson, “Why We Don’t Write,” Midwestern Microhistory blog, posted 6 May 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com/ : accessed 6 May 2012). This is the best blog post I have read in some time. I have written quite often about the need to form written conclusions in our research, but here Harold describes why so few genealogists appear to do so–or at least why they don’t submit this research to the local society newsletters and journals that are starving for content.

Jill K. Morelli, “Do you ever go back and re-read reference books?,” Genealogy Certification: My Personal Journal blog, posted 15 April 2012 (http://genealogycertification.wordpress.com : accessed 15 April 2012). Jill discusses her recent re-reading of Professional Genealogy, edited by Elizabeth Shown Mills. Now further along in her genealogical career than the first time she read it, Jill notes how her perception of various parts of the book has changed.

Chris Staats, “Fixing Your Genealogy Jalopy: A Metaphor,” Staats Genealogical Services blog, posted 29 April 2012 (http://www.staatsofohio.com : accessed 30 April 2012). Chris uses the metaphor of car repair to illustrate genealogy education vs. experience.

Thomas W. Jones, “Dr. Thomas W. Jones on Research, Teaching, and SLIG,” Utah Genealogical Association blog, posted 1 May 2012 (http://ugagenealogy.blogspot.com/ : accessed 3 May 2012). Dr. Jones discusses some of his “favorie” ancestors, and how he uses them in his teaching.

Lorine McGinnis Schulze, “Assumptions vs Working Theories – The Good and the Bad,” Olive Tree Genealogy blog, posted 28 April 2012 (http://olivetreegenealogy.blogspot.com/ : accessed 3 May 2012). Ms. Schulze uses one of the most common assumptions in genealogy to express why we cannot assume anything, instead looking for evidence to form conclusions.

Ed Payne, “Unionist Naming of Mississippi Children–Revisited,” in Victoria Bynum’s Renegade South blog, posted 21 March 2012 (http://renegadesouth.wordpress.com : accessed 15 April 2012). This is a very interesting study of the naming of children in Mississippi during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods–and what these patterns might say about Union sympathies in the Deep South. Very interesting for anyone researching in the South during this era, and anyone interested in the Civil War.

Jeff Hurt, “Small Groups Of Friends Are The Key To Influence Not Swaying Influential People,” Velvet Chainsaw’s Midcourse Corrections blog, posted 20 March 2012 (http://jeffhurtblog.com : accessed 15 April 2012). This article’s intended audience are marketers and those involved in education, discussing one aspect of social networks (the real-life ones, not the online ones like Facebook).