Discussion:
Richardson review in TAG--and contents for this issue
(too old to reply)
a***@alltel.net
2005-06-10 17:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Several of the GEN-MED folk have asked me about the articles that will
appear TAG's next issue of The American Genealogist [TAG], which will
go out to subscribers next week.

In the contents listing below, note the articles by Kelsey Williams,
Leslie Mahler, and Nat Taylor, all frequent contributors to this group.
This will answer the question about when TAG will review Douglas
Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry. The review is in this issue--but it
is actually a review article of some ten pages by Nat, who is one of
the leading experts in medieval genealogy.

This is indeed the January issue. As I have written before, we are
behind schedule because of lingering health problems. We are, however,
moving ahead quickly on the remaining 2005 issues. (It has become
almost a tradition for some scholarly journals to appear late. I am a
member of the American Antiquarian Society, and recently received the
current issue of its Proceedings--dated April 2003!)

DAVID GREENE


The American Genealogist

Whole Number 317 January 2005 Vol. 80, No. 1


CONTENTS

THE WALL FAMILY OF ESSEX: Part One: The English Origin of Anna
(Wall) (Jacob) Moody, Wife of Samuel2 Jacob of Ipswich, Massachusetts,
and of the Reverend Joshua2 Moody of Portsmouth, New Hampshire
William Wyman Fiske 1

SOME DATES FOR NATHANIEL2 SHEFFIELD AND HIS WIFE, MARY
CHAMBERLAIN, OF NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND: A Correction to Austin's
Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island Marya C. Myers 10

THE SCOTTISH ANCESTRY OF PATRICK1 AND WILLIAM1 STEWART
OF THE CAROLINAS Kelsey Jackson Williams 11

NEW INFORMATION ON MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONISTS FROM
KENT, ENGLAND: William1 and Rachel (Bate) Bachelor of Charlestown,
Isaac1 and Elizabeth (Winchester) Stedman of Scituate, Simon1 and
Mary (Sharpe) Willard of Concord, Patience1 (Bigg) Foster and Her Son,
Hopestill Foster, of Dorchester Leslie Mahler 23

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, 1781 William B. Saxbe Jr. 26

SARAH (CHANDLER) (CLEAVES) (STEVENS) (PARKER) ALLEN OF
ROXBURY AND SANDWICH, MASSACHUSETTS: Documenting Her
Several Husbands Helen Schatvet Ullmann 27

CALIFORNIA, HERE I COME! 37

THE JOHN1 AND SARAH (SMITH) MILLINGTON FAMILY OF WINDSOR
AND COVENTRY, CONNECTICUT John Bradley Arthaud 38

THE BENEFICENT ONION: or Lacrimae Rerum 52

NATHAN AND DEBORAH (BARROWS) FISH OF FALMOUTH, MASSA-
CHUSETTS: Revisited Robert E. Bowman 53

HOW DID CHARLIE PEPPER DIE? Steve Henkel 56

DOUGLAS RICHARDSON'S PLANTAGENET ANCESTRY: A New Reference
Work on Medieval English Royal Descents (A Review Article)
Nathaniel L. Taylor 58

ENIGMAS #20: Did Sarah3 Hatch Marry Obadiah2 Wheaton of Milton and
Scituate, Massachusetts? William B. Saxbe Jr. 68

INGERSOLL CORRECTION (And an Editorial Mea Culpa) 78

EDITORIAL NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS: Where are we now? An editorial
jeremiad on genealogy and cyberspace · The Genealogist · Reviews
· Index
and title-page/contents pamphlet for 2004 79

BOOK REVIEWS see editorial note page 80
Chris Bennett
2005-06-10 17:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@alltel.net
Several of the GEN-MED folk have asked me about the articles that will
appear TAG's next issue of The American Genealogist [TAG], which will
go out to subscribers next week.
I note one of the items is

EDITORIAL NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS: Where are we now? An editorial
jeremiad on genealogy and cyberspace

Any plans to make this available in cyberspace??

Chris
a***@alltel.net
2005-06-11 13:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Not if we can help it!
Chris Bennett
2005-06-11 18:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Pity -- Judging by the title, cyberspace is where its most needed! -- Chris
Post by a***@alltel.net
Not if we can help it!
John Brandon
2005-06-10 18:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Since Doug's *new* book (Magna Carta Ancestry) has removed the Dudley
lines hypothesized by Marshall Kirk, Nat _may_ find himself as
discomfitted by Doug as _vice versa_.

But, of course, Nat's review may be positive. We'll have to wait and
see ...

I have a few thoughts on Douglas' new book, which I'll post later today
(need to scurry around and check a few more facts!).
Nathaniel Taylor
2005-06-11 03:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brandon
Since Doug's *new* book (Magna Carta Ancestry) has removed the Dudley
lines hypothesized by Marshall Kirk, Nat _may_ find himself ...
discomfitted ...
I'm not sure what's intended here. I've always been disappointed that
Marshall's theory was grafted into the compilation literture without
ever receiving the kind of published treatment *as a theory* which it
certainly deserves. I think Doug's removal of the line is probably a
step in the right direction (if Doug wants to limit his included lines
to those which deserve the kind of certainty he likes to assert for
them). If Doug has a particular argument which counters some aspects of
Marshall's (and Dave Kelley's) speculations about Dudley's paternal
ancestry, it would be great to have it discussed here.

But John, your words have been taken out of context by at least one
Post by John Brandon
Does this mean I am no longer a Magna Charta Dame? I haven't
yet received my copy of Douglas Richardson's book yet, but
John Brandon seems to indicate this in soc.genealogy.medieval
today. What is going on?
I would reassure her (and others) that Thomas Dudley has demonstrable
descents from Magna Carta sureties--including Robert Fitz Walter, the
ringleader, worth extra points--through his mother, Susanna Thorne.
They may be easily traced at Leo's genealogics site, or elsewhere. I
imagine these lines are also in Doug's Magna Carta compilation? (I hope
no one joined a lineage society by having lines approved based on
Marshall's *theory* on Dudley's paternal ancestry!)

And by the way, I think there's a piece by Brandon Fradd on some of
Susanna Thorne Dudley's (more recent) ancestry in the latest _The
Genealogist_.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
John Brandon
2005-06-11 19:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Brandon
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
But John, your words have been taken out of context by at least one
Does this mean I am no longer a Magna Charta Dame? I haven't
yet received my copy of Douglas Richardson's book yet, but
John Brandon seems to indicate this in soc.genealogy.medieval
today. What is going on?
I would reassure her (and others) that Thomas Dudley has demonstrable
descents from Magna Carta sureties--including Robert Fitz Walter, the
ringleader, worth extra points--through his mother, Susanna Thorne.

Well, deeply sorry to have sent a 'Magna Carta Dame' (whatever that is)
into a tizzy (don't need that on my conscience!). But, yes, the lines
through Purefoy are still there.

I don't accept the idea that we need to be constantly vigilant lest we
be misinterpreted by ignorant people.
Nathaniel Taylor
2005-06-11 03:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Dave, for your kind--though in my view exaggerated--words. I
consider myself a historian who is interested in the history of
genealogy as a discipline--both as it was practiced in the Middle Ages,
and as it is practiced today, especially by people focusing on
pre-modern ancestors. I am nowhere near as good or as diligent at the
compiling of specific lines of medieval ancestors as many others on
s.g.m.

In response to another correspondent's query off-line, my piece on
_Plantagenet Ancestry_ follows my own particular interests by looking at
the book's place in the history of such efforts. While the piece does
address the book's methods, goals and aspects of its execution (and some
of my observations have been echoed here by other posters over the past
months), it is not a compendium of corrigenda. Many specific
corrections or clarifications have been raised here by various posters
in the months since the book appeared, and can be easily searched on
line.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
a***@alltel.net
2005-06-12 17:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Okay, Chris, you talked me into it. (Actually my previous comment on
the editorial was meant to be joking.) Below is the cyberspace
editorial from the issue of TAG that is in the final throes of
printing; the editorial is unsigned, but it was written by me.

DAVID GREENE

EDITORIAL NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS


WHERE ARE WE NOW? AN EDITORIAL JEREMIAD ON GENEALOGY AND CYBERSPACE.
We have several times noted in these pages the obvious fact that we are
in the midst of a communications revolution. Even though there are
academic specialists who use probability theory to predict the future
and there are software programs that attempt the same thing, we have
long thought that such predictions are highly uncertain. Paradoxically,
the more precise the prediction, the less likely it is to come true.
Beyond the truism--like the prediction of astrologers that "during
the coming year, there will be trouble in the Middle East"--that
cyber communications are going to be more and more important in every
field of learning, we hesitate to be definite about where we are
heading.
This communications revolution has already changed the field
significantly, not only for those who are just beginning in genealogy
but even for the most advanced experts; these changes have been both
valuable and worrisome. Currently, there are vast amounts of resources
available online, including primary sources. Through several
subscription websites, it is now possible to check any surviving
federal census record from 1790 through 1930 in a facsimile of the
archives copy; these sites also include indexing features that make
such searches infinitely easier (so long as one does not put too much
trust in the indexes). It was not long ago that we had to examine the
censuses on microfilm at libraries or other institutions, and we made
plans long in advance of such visits to be sure that we covered all the
family groups and surnames within a geographical and/or chronological
period. And still earlier, genealogists had to contact professional
researchers in Washington to search the originals at the National
Archives. Deeds, probate records, cemetery inscriptions, and newspapers
are also more and more frequently accessible online. Here we should
mention the extraordinary and increasing variety of transcriptions that
are available to its members through the New England Historic
Genealogical Society's website: <www.newenglandancestors.org>. The
central means of finding online genealogical material continues to be
Cyndi Howells's essential gateway website "Cyndi's List"
(<www.cyndislist.com>), but sometimes important information can be
found simply through a general search engine, like Google-whose name
is increasingly used as a verb by the general public.
Having so many primary sources available through home computers is a
major benefit to genealogy. The problem, however, is that so much
online is unreliable secondary sources and compilations. It is
distressingly easy to download all sorts of errors and incorporate them
into already error-filled pedigrees. The honest websites encourage
users to seek evidence, but most who access them fail to do so,
especially if they are beginners. Of course, this is the same type of
problem that scholars have long bemoaned: the belief that if something
is in print [or online] it must be true. But now errors are being
created and shared at a faster rate than ever, usually by those who
believe that all one needs to do genealogy is access to the Internet.
A major concern with online material is that it is, by nature,
impermanent. Some websites change from day to day; others simply
disappear. There are now some facilities for "archiving," and their
availability will probably increase, but it seems likely that the
essential impermanence of websites will remain. That is one reason why
we look askance as the increasing number of discussions about how to
"publish online." Publication surely carries with it the
implication that the material will remain available permanently, and
currently it appears that acid-free paper is likely to outlast digital
impulses.
This increasing dependence on online sources, often to the exclusion
of anything else, has recently been affecting societies and libraries.
Attendance at genealogical libraries has decreased markedly as has the
use of book-loan programs. We understand that the National Genealogical
Society, whose recent financial problems have been well publicized, is
experiencing a membership decline and that the membership of the New
England Historic Genealogical Society is holding steady only because of
its website. The NGS's library is now held and supported by the St.
Louis Public Library, but what would happen to serious genealogical
scholarship if the NEHGS's magnificent book and manuscript collection
were no longer maintained? Fortunately, the distinguished journals of
both societies, the National Genealogical Society Quarterly and the
venerable New England Historical and Genealogical Register, are not
under immediate threat-and the latter now has its own substantial
endowment.
But what will happen to the independent scholarly journals if the
support they now receive from subscribers were directed elsewhere?
Fortunately, TAG's subscription base has--thus far--not been
affected by the cyber revolution, probably because most of our
subscribers are committed to the field and realize that printed
journals are essential for the publication (and permanence) of new
scholarship. But we are also receiving, often from non-subscribers, an
increasing number of demands--not just re¬quests--that each issue
be made available online as soon as it appears, including several
commu¬nications that specify that there be no financial charge for
accessing the articles "because charging is not in the spirit of the
Internet." Unfortunately, while we are not excluding the possibility
of online publication of older issues at some time, making current
issues available gratis would make survival of the journal impossible.
This is the sort of editorial that is sometimes called a
"jeremiad," that is, a lamentation that may appear to shout a bit
(the word comes from the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah). We believe that not
only is there no turning back from the revolution in communications but
also that all serious genealogists need to continue taking advantage of
these changes. We should not, however, go into them with unalloyed
rejoicing, although many have already done so; instead, it behooves the
entire field to consider carefully how these changes are affecting
genealogical scholarship as a whole, and what is necessary in the
future to maintain its quality and permanence.
m***@mac.com
2005-06-12 18:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Great piece and right on the money. For those who insist that the
Internet remain "free" I would point out, what is in my mind, the
failure of free websites such as www.usgenweb.com. Many of those
county websites are not maintained after the initial flurry of getting
them up. Few have any primary research or documents. The large amount
provide just directory information, most of which is now out of date.
So, when things are "free" on the Internet, the volunteer base doesn't
hold up it's end of the bargain. Contrast that to paid sites such as
ancestry.com where the census is available and the indexes have
improved.

Certainly the point is that there is no current scholarly place for
genealogy on the Internet. [certainly this list is one place, but there
is a distinct ebb and flow to scholarship and sniping]. Online forums
mainly act as query lists and if there is a certain scholar on a family
then that forum might be a boon to others researching the family. We
need a place where works in progress can be published and read and
criticized [much like the social sciences do with papers]. We need
more people willing to put primary source materials on the web for
free, or at least at a reasonable cost. We need more advertisement of
what the best secondary sources are in print, where to find them, and
how to access that information.

We are at a critical juncture and for people like me, who can handle
computers, but love libraries [we have our feet in both worlds], it is
our responsibility to see that we have a scholarly niche for genealogy
on the Internet.
Chris Phillips
2005-06-12 19:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@mac.com
Certainly the point is that there is no current scholarly place for
genealogy on the Internet. [certainly this list is one place, but there
is a distinct ebb and flow to scholarship and sniping]. Online forums
mainly act as query lists and if there is a certain scholar on a family
then that forum might be a boon to others researching the family. We
need a place where works in progress can be published and read and
criticized [much like the social sciences do with papers]. We need
more people willing to put primary source materials on the web for
free, or at least at a reasonable cost. We need more advertisement of
what the best secondary sources are in print, where to find them, and
how to access that information.
One organisation which is trying to contribute in this area, and is
interested in all the areas you suggest, is the Foundation for Medieval
Genealogy (http://fmg.ac/).

The Foundation is certainly a potential means of encouraging scholarly
interaction via the Internet, and of making more resources available. I know
they are very open to suggestions. I'd encourage people to get involved if
they are able to do so.

Chris Phillips
a***@alltel.net
2005-06-13 14:30:39 UTC
Permalink
I am very interested to read the responses to TAG's forthcoming
editorial on genealogical scholarship and cyberspace--and I hope that
there will be others who will also provide insight.

I agree with Chris Phillips that the Foundation of Medieval Genealogy
(of which I am a member--and I hope that many GEN-MED folk are, as
well) is excellent. I would only add that it makes its journal,
Foundations, available both online and in hard copy.

Martin: Thanks very much for your kind and thought-provoking comments!

Will: I cited the call for making TAG available for free through the
Internet as an example of what demands we receive, not because it is
logical. We could make TAG articles available individually for a fee,
but a more likely possibility is to make such issues available only
after they are at least five years old. That possibility is now under
consideration.

The emphasis of my editorial was on the problem of permanence. Despite
increasing "archiving," there remains an inherent impermanence and
instability in online/website, etc. material. I was sure that someone
would say something like "get with the program," "catch up with the
21st century," or something of the sort, which suggests that you should
re-read the editorial rather than avoiding the central problems
discussed in it by making a vague appeal to the future.

The editorial was already long, so I avoided discussing the function of
a scholarly genealogical journal--which we have already discussed in
previous issues of TAG. One of the main ways that good genealogists
learn is by reading two or more of the scholarly journals straight
through every time an issue arrives; doing so helps tremendously in
seeing how problems should be solved, records interpreted, and
standards of probability applied so that researchers avoid special
pleading with the "improbable possible." I do not know of any leading
genealogist who does not immerse himself or herself in the current
journals. You can't do that if you only access articles online when
they involve specific families.

And--without seeming too critical (I hope)--I don't know of any leading
scholar in the field who doesn't know that TAG is privately published
and does not have an "association" sponsoring it; in fact, the
editorial itself makes this clear. TAG has, in fact, been independent
since it was founded by Donald Lines Jacobus in 1922--I am the fourth
owner in succession.

DAVID GREENE
Dolly Ziegler
2005-06-13 16:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Hello to Dr. Greene and the list. The current discussion makes me wonder:
Would it be possible to post, online, tables of contents for all back
issues of TAG?

I would like to be able to see the article titles; and since (all?)
current browsers have a "find in page" feature, this would be a type of
index, also.

At www.americangenealogist.com I find the table of contents for the 75th
anniversary issue, 1997, and for "recent issues," 2002-2004. Have I missed
something here?

The website does mention that [references to] articles may be found in
PERSI, at ancestry.com. (PERSI is also available at heritagequest.com,
which is free through many public libraries.) This will not meet my wish
for tables of contents, however.

I know about Jean Worden's index to subjects in TAG, vols. 1-60; and I
also see there's an every-name index to vols. 9-41 available on CD.

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland
Vickie Elam White
2005-06-13 19:55:44 UTC
Permalink
David,

Is there any consideration being given to
releasing CDs of TAG, similar to NEHGR?
I use that CD set constantly.

I will be among the first purchasers if/when a
TAG set is released.

Glad to see you are feeling well.

Vickie Elam White

<***@alltel.net> wrote in message news:***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I am very interested to read the responses to TAG's forthcoming
editorial on genealogical scholarship and cyberspace--and I hope
that
there will be others who will also provide insight.

I agree with Chris Phillips that the Foundation of Medieval
Genealogy
(of which I am a member--and I hope that many GEN-MED folk are,
as
well) is excellent. I would only add that it makes its journal,
Foundations, available both online and in hard copy.

Martin: Thanks very much for your kind and thought-provoking
comments!

Will: I cited the call for making TAG available for free through
the
Internet as an example of what demands we receive, not because it
is
logical. We could make TAG articles available individually for a
fee,
but a more likely possibility is to make such issues available
only
after they are at least five years old. That possibility is now
under
consideration.

The emphasis of my editorial was on the problem of permanence.
Despite
increasing "archiving," there remains an inherent impermanence
and
instability in online/website, etc. material. I was sure that
someone
would say something like "get with the program," "catch up with
the
21st century," or something of the sort, which suggests that you
should
re-read the editorial rather than avoiding the central problems
discussed in it by making a vague appeal to the future.

The editorial was already long, so I avoided discussing the
function of
a scholarly genealogical journal--which we have already discussed
in
previous issues of TAG. One of the main ways that good
genealogists
learn is by reading two or more of the scholarly journals
straight
through every time an issue arrives; doing so helps tremendously
in
seeing how problems should be solved, records interpreted, and
standards of probability applied so that researchers avoid
special
pleading with the "improbable possible." I do not know of any
leading
genealogist who does not immerse himself or herself in the
current
journals. You can't do that if you only access articles online
when
they involve specific families.

And--without seeming too critical (I hope)--I don't know of any
leading
scholar in the field who doesn't know that TAG is privately
published
and does not have an "association" sponsoring it; in fact, the
editorial itself makes this clear. TAG has, in fact, been
independent
since it was founded by Donald Lines Jacobus in 1922--I am the
fourth
owner in succession.

DAVID GREENE
Jerry W. Murphy
2005-06-14 14:17:25 UTC
Permalink
I was just wondering about this as well. Will past issues of TAG ever be
released on CD?

Jerry W. Murphy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vickie Elam White" <***@nycap.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: TAG editorial on cyberspace (was Re: Richardson Review in TAG)
Post by Vickie Elam White
David,
Is there any consideration being given to
releasing CDs of TAG, similar to NEHGR?
I use that CD set constantly.
I will be among the first purchasers if/when a
TAG set is released.
Glad to see you are feeling well.
Vickie Elam White
I am very interested to read the responses to TAG's forthcoming
editorial on genealogical scholarship and cyberspace--and I hope
that
there will be others who will also provide insight.
I agree with Chris Phillips that the Foundation of Medieval
Genealogy
(of which I am a member--and I hope that many GEN-MED folk are,
as
well) is excellent. I would only add that it makes its journal,
Foundations, available both online and in hard copy.
Martin: Thanks very much for your kind and thought-provoking
comments!
Will: I cited the call for making TAG available for free through
the
Internet as an example of what demands we receive, not because it
is
logical. We could make TAG articles available individually for a
fee,
but a more likely possibility is to make such issues available
only
after they are at least five years old. That possibility is now
under
consideration.
The emphasis of my editorial was on the problem of permanence.
Despite
increasing "archiving," there remains an inherent impermanence
and
instability in online/website, etc. material. I was sure that
someone
would say something like "get with the program," "catch up with
the
21st century," or something of the sort, which suggests that you
should
re-read the editorial rather than avoiding the central problems
discussed in it by making a vague appeal to the future.
The editorial was already long, so I avoided discussing the
function of
a scholarly genealogical journal--which we have already discussed
in
previous issues of TAG. One of the main ways that good
genealogists
learn is by reading two or more of the scholarly journals
straight
through every time an issue arrives; doing so helps tremendously
in
seeing how problems should be solved, records interpreted, and
standards of probability applied so that researchers avoid
special
pleading with the "improbable possible." I do not know of any
leading
genealogist who does not immerse himself or herself in the
current
journals. You can't do that if you only access articles online
when
they involve specific families.
And--without seeming too critical (I hope)--I don't know of any
leading
scholar in the field who doesn't know that TAG is privately
published
and does not have an "association" sponsoring it; in fact, the
editorial itself makes this clear. TAG has, in fact, been
independent
since it was founded by Donald Lines Jacobus in 1922--I am the
fourth
owner in succession.
DAVID GREENE
______________________________
a***@alltel.net
2005-06-14 15:01:36 UTC
Permalink
We had an agreement with the New England Historic Genealogical Society,
which wanted to issue TAG on CD-ROM as a sequel to the Register in that
form. But the bottom has fallen out of the CD-ROM market, and the NEHGS
has dropped its entire publication program in that medium. So we agreed
to cancel the contract.

There is a fairly good possibility that TAG will be made available
online in the future, but it will have to be done so that it doesn't
destroy our subscription base--either by not including the most recent
five years, or by making it accessible only by subscribers to the print
edition, or both.

Sorry that I can't tell you any more!

DAVID GREENE
D. Spencer Hines
2005-06-14 19:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Why have a print edition at all?

Just have a subscription on-line edition of TAG.

You could also tighten up your publishing schedule and make up for some
lost time.

Printed journals are gradually becoming obsolescent.

By the 22nd Century they may well have gone the way of the dinosaur, the
dodo and the passenger pigeon.

I'll bet you could lower your costs too and thereby increase your
benefit to cost ratio.

DSH

<***@alltel.net> wrote in message news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| We had an agreement with the New England Historic Genealogical
Society,
| which wanted to issue TAG on CD-ROM as a sequel to the Register in
that
| form. But the bottom has fallen out of the CD-ROM market, and the
NEHGS
| has dropped its entire publication program in that medium. So we
agreed
| to cancel the contract.
|
| There is a fairly good possibility that TAG will be made available
| online in the future, but it will have to be done so that it doesn't
| destroy our subscription base--either by not including the most recent
| five years, or by making it accessible only by subscribers to the
print
| edition, or both.
|
| Sorry that I can't tell you any more!
|
| DAVID GREENE
Doug McDonald
2005-06-14 18:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Why have a print edition at all?
Just have a subscription on-line edition of TAG.
You could also tighten up your publishing schedule and make up for some
lost time.
Printed journals are gradually becoming obsolescent.
By the 22nd Century they may well have gone the way of the dinosaur, the
dodo and the passenger pigeon.
I'll bet you could lower your costs too and thereby increase your
benefit to cost ratio.
There is a big debate in academic circles about "no-print" journals.

Basically, it devolves down to ownership. There is also the worry about
how long non-print media will last, who will guarantee that the content
will be preserved forever, if electronic storage media change. If,
however, an organization OWNS a paper copy, it is known how to preserve
it. But what about ownership of the electronic-only media? If someone
or some organization subscribes today, do they get reading rights
forever ... just as if they had a paper copy? How can this be
guaranteed? Contract law can change. Businesses can change their minds,
and if they are big (which genealogy journals are not, of course) they
can pretty much do as they please, unless the Government has in place
laws that are extremely rigid. Nature Publishing Group has already
pulled some nasty stunts. And politicians can be bought ... remember
that as far as copyright goes, they actually ARE owned by Disney.

It's a problem. Currently, the prudent will keep paper copies,
which they OWN.

Doug McDonald
The Thill Group Inc
2005-06-14 18:39:21 UTC
Permalink
hint: If they publish them on line in a PDF format they can lock it down
where it can not be copied, printed or changed, only viewed. If people want
a copy, once paid for they could be given access to a PDF link to one that
can be copied or printed, but not changed.
Just a thought.
Becky T, from under her rock.
ttg-***@comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <***@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:15 PM
Subject: The American Genealogist [TAG] In Print & On-Line
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Why have a print edition at all?
Just have a subscription on-line edition of TAG.
You could also tighten up your publishing schedule and make up for some
lost time.
Printed journals are gradually becoming obsolescent.
By the 22nd Century they may well have gone the way of the dinosaur, the
dodo and the passenger pigeon.
I'll bet you could lower your costs too and thereby increase your
benefit to cost ratio.
DSH
a***@alltel.net
2005-06-15 01:56:18 UTC
Permalink
In the Cyberspace editorial that began this long thread, I covered a
number of bases. Two of them are:

1. Except in the most general terms (e.g., digital communication is
becoming increasingly important), it is very difficult to predict the
future accurately. Printed journals may well go the way of the dinosaur
(et al.). Or they may not.

2. Currently, the permanence of cybercommunications, websites, online
journals, etc., is very chancy, despite the increasing presence of
"archival resources" (which may disappear when their commercial
sponsors do). At this point, the survival of genealogical scholarship
is best assured by its being printed on acid-free paper, which should
last at least 500 years. Digital communications have not been around
long enough for anyone to suggest their real survival rate.

Recently, the American Historical Review hosted a forum on the problems
facing scholars in the cyber revolution. Can digital communications be
permanently perserved? How will be they be accessed as programs change
rapidly (right now, modern computers can't open early CD-ROMS)?

In other words, as the editorial pointed out, we as genealogists need
to take full advantage of what the revolution in communications is
continuing to offer us. But we must always strive to maintain the
quality of scholarship (in the face of instantaneous communications of
thousands of new and old errors) and its permanence.

(I'm glad that you didn't say that printed journals "may well have gone
the way of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker"!)

DAVID GREENE
Coeditor and publisher
TAG
Gordon Banks
2005-06-15 19:43:00 UTC
Permalink
I wonder what the Library of Congress is doing about archiving digital
journals. It would make sense that they should be doing it. It is
within their broad mission. But it may be that that would only last as
long as the United States. Of course, paper only lasts so long. I
think the future is going to bring answers to the archival questions and
there will be a permanent way of archiving things. It just hasn't
arrived yet.
Post by a***@alltel.net
In the Cyberspace editorial that began this long thread, I covered a
1. Except in the most general terms (e.g., digital communication is
becoming increasingly important), it is very difficult to predict the
future accurately. Printed journals may well go the way of the dinosaur
(et al.). Or they may not.
2. Currently, the permanence of cybercommunications, websites, online
journals, etc., is very chancy, despite the increasing presence of
"archival resources" (which may disappear when their commercial
sponsors do). At this point, the survival of genealogical scholarship
is best assured by its being printed on acid-free paper, which should
last at least 500 years. Digital communications have not been around
long enough for anyone to suggest their real survival rate.
Recently, the American Historical Review hosted a forum on the problems
facing scholars in the cyber revolution. Can digital communications be
permanently perserved? How will be they be accessed as programs change
rapidly (right now, modern computers can't open early CD-ROMS)?
In other words, as the editorial pointed out, we as genealogists need
to take full advantage of what the revolution in communications is
continuing to offer us. But we must always strive to maintain the
quality of scholarship (in the face of instantaneous communications of
thousands of new and old errors) and its permanence.
(I'm glad that you didn't say that printed journals "may well have gone
the way of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker"!)
DAVID GREENE
Coeditor and publisher
TAG
--
Gordon Banks <***@gordonbanks.com>
W***@gmail.com
2005-06-15 23:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon Banks
I wonder what the Library of Congress is doing about archiving digital
journals.
Very little. The two major sticking points at this time are the format to be
used to archive the journal(s), and the whole business of copyright. The
Library of Congress appears to be keeping its eye on how the technologies are
changing, and picking up whatever is available, but letting the market decide
what is to be made available, and letting the courts decide how and with whose
permission it is to be made available.
Louise Staley
2005-06-17 01:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear David et al.,

Has the possibility of having TAG made available through Proquest, Web
of Science or one of the other academic online databases been
investigated? While this would only make TAG available to people
affiliated with universities (or people able to visit university
libraries) I understand this does mean that you, as copyright holder,
would get paid for every accessing of the full text of the articles. The
full archive or only a portion could be digitized in this manner.
Additionally the current year, or more, could be left in paper form
although I suspect the database people would want you to make the
current issues available for what they would regard as a highly
specialist journal. This would not please the "I want it now free
brigade" but it would make individual articles available to
non-subscribers while you still get paid. It would also allow the
continuation of the paper journal.

regards
Louise
Post by a***@alltel.net
In the Cyberspace editorial that began this long thread, I covered a
1. Except in the most general terms (e.g., digital communication is
becoming increasingly important), it is very difficult to predict the
future accurately. Printed journals may well go the way of the dinosaur
(et al.). Or they may not.
2. Currently, the permanence of cybercommunications, websites, online
journals, etc., is very chancy, despite the increasing presence of
"archival resources" (which may disappear when their commercial
sponsors do). At this point, the survival of genealogical scholarship
is best assured by its being printed on acid-free paper, which should
last at least 500 years. Digital communications have not been around
long enough for anyone to suggest their real survival rate.
Recently, the American Historical Review hosted a forum on the problems
facing scholars in the cyber revolution. Can digital communications be
permanently perserved? How will be they be accessed as programs change
rapidly (right now, modern computers can't open early CD-ROMS)?
In other words, as the editorial pointed out, we as genealogists need
to take full advantage of what the revolution in communications is
continuing to offer us. But we must always strive to maintain the
quality of scholarship (in the face of instantaneous communications of
thousands of new and old errors) and its permanence.
(I'm glad that you didn't say that printed journals "may well have gone
the way of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker"!)
DAVID GREENE
Coeditor and publisher
TAG
W***@aol.com
2005-06-12 20:25:38 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 6/12/05 10:46:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@alltel.net writes:

<< But we are also receiving, often from non-subscribers, an
increasing number of demands--not just re¬quests--that each issue
be made available online as soon as it appears, including several
commu¬nications that specify that there be no financial charge for
accessing the articles "because charging is not in the spirit of the
Internet." Unfortunately, while we are not excluding the possibility
of online publication of older issues at some time, making current
issues available gratis would make survival of the journal impossible. >>

This doesn't quite make sense.
The main, useful, sources of genealogical information on the internet DO
charge. Although as you say you can view the census from 1790 to 1930 that is not
free. Both www.genealogy.com and www.ancestry.com charge for that service.
There is no reason why your association cannot also provide an index to
their publications and then charge to read the entire article.
In other words, this is 2005, the logic that applied to 1970 no longer
applies. Just like www.procat.com, provide an index and extract and then charge
for the full document. It's time to come into the current age.
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-06-12 20:28:02 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 6/12/05 12:01:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@mac.com writes:

<< We need
more people willing to put primary source materials on the web for
free, or at least at a reasonable cost. >>

Everyone should start with themselves on this. There is already a free site
at www.wikisource.com for original documents in any language. And
www.rootsweb.com allows unlimited (yes unlimited) space to anyone who wants it to make
their own sites on genealogy/history.

So anyone who bemoans the lack of primary documents online, can just get on
the bandwagon and start changing it. No one has your arms tied.

And yes, I do have a few hundred pages myself of primary documentation
online, before you ask.

Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-06-13 14:39:55 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 6/13/2005 7:32:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Post by a***@alltel.net
The emphasis of my editorial was on the problem of permanence. Despite
increasing "archiving," there remains an inherent impermanence and
instability in online/website, etc. material.
Not necessarily. For example the web pages at www.rootsweb.com are free and
permanent. They don't go away if you don't sign in, or if you die. They
published something recently that said, if the executor of the estate, or the
heirs specifically ask them to remove the stuff they will but otherwise not.
Since www.rootsweb.com is free, always has been, and yet is associated
with a commercial company, it seems the logical place to put anything you want
to last forever online. Since that's basically their claim.
Also since you will obviously be storing copies electronically on your own
system, you could always re-publish any old information to a dozen different
sites if you wanted to, or switch from year to year. It is not the internet
that is stopping you from making access permanent.
Will Johnson
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2005-06-13 15:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 6/13/2005 7:32:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Post by a***@alltel.net
The emphasis of my editorial was on the problem of permanence.
Despite increasing "archiving," there remains an inherent
impermanence and instability in online/website, etc. material.
Not necessarily. For example the web pages at www.rootsweb.com are
free and permanent. They don't go away if you don't sign in, or if
you die. They published something recently that said, if the
executor of the estate, or the heirs specifically ask them to remove
the stuff they will but otherwise not.
Since www.rootsweb.com is free, always has been, and yet is
associated with a commercial company, it seems the logical place to
put anything you want to last forever online. Since that's basically
their claim.
Also since you will obviously be storing copies electronically on
your own system, you could always re-publish any old information to a
dozen different sites if you wanted to, or switch from year to year.
It is not the internet that is stopping you from making access
permanent. Will Johnson
To raise another consideration, would TAG want to be associated with
the uncritical and unresearched and unreferenced material that is the
staple fodder of Rootsweb?

Rootsweb has now been bought by a commercial outfit as Rootsweb is such
a good magnet for enquirers. The commercial outfit is earning money and
can support this "service".

But the likes of TAG and FMG are in different markets and have to
support themselves differently. Web space cost money, someone has to
pay; secure web-space costs more money. And maintaining good standards
merely raise the complexity of the solution.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
W***@aol.com
2005-06-13 17:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
But the likes of TAG and FMG are in different markets and have to
support themselves differently. Web space cost money, someone has to
pay; secure web-space costs more money. And maintaining good standards
merely raise the complexity of the solution.
Whatever amount is charged is probably better than keeping the index,
extract, and contents sequestered to only those who know that such a resource exists
in the first place.
You might counter by saying that if people don't know of TAG then they
shouldn't be concerned with what's in it. But I often stumble across things just
doing general searches that then prove to be vitally important. And I doubt
you can go wrong with *more* marketing, rather than less.
However there is something I overlooked. I believe in order to *sell*
something through a free rootsweb site, you have to be a "genealogical society or
association". Of course I have no reason to suspect that that actually
*check* to ensure that that is true. So I'm sure TAG could pass that test.
Will Johnson
J***@aol.com
2005-06-14 20:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Dear Spencer,
Even in this day and age I doubt that every
Genealogist has or maybe even wants a PC readily available. plus, There are the
occasional access problems along with the copyright questions.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
D. Spencer Hines
2005-06-14 22:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear James,

The Law on all these matters has not caught up with the Technology -- as
is very Meet, Right, Just and Natural.

Print media are going to fade out -- it's inevitable -- not in our
lifetimes -- but gradually.

We'll die off and be replaced by people -- including Genealogists -- who
are more comfortable with Digital Media.

The sooner the dinosaurs and dodoes understand and adapt to The Digital
Revolution the better.

I LOVE Books, Magazines, Journals & Newspapers -- I own about 50,000
books -- but I realize they will become artifacts.

These trends are good for Libraries too -- they can store far more
modern material, safely and securely -- if it is digitized.

Cheers,

DSH

<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@aol.com...

| Dear Spencer,
| Even in this day and age I doubt that every
| Genealogist has or maybe even wants a PC readily available. plus,
| There are the occasional access problems along with the copyright
| questions.
| Sincerely,
| James W Cummings
| Dixmont, Maine USA
W***@aol.com
2005-06-15 20:05:02 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 6/15/05 12:43:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@gordonbanks.com writes:

<< I wonder what the Library of Congress is doing about archiving digital
journals. It would make sense that they should be doing it. It is
within their broad mission. But it may be that that would only last as
long as the United States. Of course, paper only lasts so long. I
think the future is going to bring answers to the archival questions and
there will be a permanent way of archiving things. It just hasn't
arrived yet. >>

For permanence, I think you could do worse than contributing a microfilm reel
to the LDS underground bunker where they store all the records they collect.
I don't think they are going anywhere soon.
Will Johnson
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...