June APGQ -- another magazine on the "must-read" shelf

For those who are members of the Association of Professional Genealogists, the June 2015 issue of the APG Quarterly just went on line. Yes, it's late, but it's looking like a quarterly full of articles I want to read and need to read -- and a real incentive for serious genealogists who are not yet members to join APG.

No, I'm not impartial. My own article, "A Field Guide to Indirect Evidence," is in the mix -- that was supposed to be the reason for this blog post! And I do chair the quarterly's advisory committee (but aside from my article, we had no involvement in the process).

Nor have I had a chance to read through it. But who couldn't find several things to love in the regular reviews and interviews, and the rest of the table of contents?

* Lisa Alzo interviewing four professionals on staying professional on social media.
* Sara Scribner on JSTOR and LibGuides. (Yes, I did say, "What's a LibGuide?")
* Barbara Ball on georeferencing.
* Marian Pierre-Louis on making sure you put your best online foot forward.
* George Morgan on organization for presenters.
* Michael Hait on the difference between a report and a case study. (Anyone going for certification without knowing this? Time to find out!)
* Blaine Bettinger on Genetic Genealogy Standards.

What email lists are not

The oldest (and for me the most useful) social media I participate in are simply discussion email lists with a genealogy focus. I moderate one (lightly and rarely) and I participate in another which is members-only. I find them both useful but not everyone does. They have remained informal, cooperative, and non-corporate. They have played a major part in my genealogical "upbringing" and I would be happier if they were better understood.

Two recent episodes, it doesn't much matter what list they occurred on:

(Episode #1) A vigorous discussion developed about a particular proposal to apply mathematical and programming techniques to genealogical research and proof. Some of it was too technical for me, some of it was philosophical (OK by me), some of it was basic genealogy: exactly what it is we do when we research and evaluate sources, information, and evidence. [If these terms are news to you, visit Evidence Explained or one of the ongoing groups tackling Thomas W. Jones's Mastering Genealogical Proof.]

Some folks objected to this discussion because they were relative newbies and didn't understand all of it. The point was made that all of us are newbies to some part of genealogy, and all of us have more to learn. A few people left the list because the discussion continued and was not banned.

(Episode #2) A vigorous discussion developed about a large genealogy corporation changing its search function. Some genealogists objected vigorously on the grounds that they were used to the old one; some on the grounds that the new one didn't work right. Others replied that the new one works fine once you learn it, and was in fact an improvement. They offered instructional links that had been available for a while. A few proposed specific problems they had encountered, and these were discussed. A few more defended the large corporation.

Another group, not visible on that list but visible to me since I also frequent Facebook, made oblique comments, not naming the list, about how pleased they were to have quit the list because they didn't like the ongoing discussion. The comparison was also made to a meeting, where the chair normally will end discussion that has run its course and (in the opinion of the chair) become repetitive -- apparently implying that the list could or should be run that way.

*

My takeaway from these two transitory episodes? Many of us have no concept of what a mailing list is and does.

In Episode #1, some people felt that the list should be like a class that was personalized to their needs of the moment, excluding all else. In Episode #2, an entirely different group had a similar feeling. They felt that it was like a meeting where discussion is devoted to reaching a decision by vote and action by the overlying organization. Both objecting groups seemed to be relying on the premise -- which I would not care to defend -- that a bright line can easily be drawn between beginners and more advanced genealogists, or between just enough discussion and too much.

But of course there is no organization; there is no class. A list is a bunch of people drawn together by an interest in advancing their knowledge of genealogy and fellow genealogists -- and who likely get very different things out of it, whether lurking or participating.

In some exchanges I act more like an instructor, in others more like a refractory and backward pupil, but neither analogy is quite right. Sometimes we share knowledge; sometimes we share ignorance. Some exchanges I delete without reading. Some of us pick up on new ideas faster than others; some of us like to argue and discuss more than others. Some of us are more interested in genealogy education than others; some of us are just fascinated by the ways different people approach this subject. Sometimes we get fascinated with trivia.

As long as the discussion doesn't become abusive -- and neither of these episodes came within a country mile of that -- it all comes with the territory. This territory has boundaries, but they are broader than usual, and often we define them for ourselves by selective departure -- using the delete key without anyone being the wiser.



Harold Henderson, "What is an email list?," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 8 July 2013 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]

Are We Reading Too Fast? And a Chicago Antidote

University of Wisconsin historian William Cronon worries about some aspects of today:

I embrace and celebrate the digital age. I believe historians should use blogs and tweets, Wikipedia entries and YouTube videos, web pages and Facebook postings, and any number of other new media tools to share our knowledge with the wider world. But I also celebrate complicated arguments that need space to develop and patience to understand. And I love long stories that can only unfold across hundreds of pages or screens. What I most fear about this new age is its impatience and its distractedness. If history as we know it is to survive, it is these we most need to resist as we practice and defend long, slow, thoughtful reading.

Perhaps there will be room to maneuver a bit even within those confines. Cronon asserts that "the most effective blogs are typically one to three paragraphs in length," but the most popular post by far in the last month on this blog was a full six paragraphs long.

Meanwhile, anyone with the slightest interest in Chicago or Midwestern history can dig into Cronon's masterpiece, Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. In another life, I had the privilege of reviewing it: "Cronon's research is so thorough, his explanations so deep, his sprinkling of evocative details so apt that the reader sees the 'obvious' with new eyes." Cronon's colleague Kenneth Jackson put it more straightforwardly: "No one has ever written a better book about a city."



William Cronon, "How Long Will People Read History Books?," Perspectives on History, vol. 50, no. 7 (October 2012), http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2012/1210/index.cfm : accessed 5 October 2012.

William Cronon, Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991).


Harold Henderson, "Past Prophecies," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 6 October 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]

Indiana Genealogical Society seminar

Things I wouldn't know about if I hadn't attended the annual IGS seminar in Fort Wayne Friday the 27th:

* the pros, cons, and potentials of Vu-Point and Flip-Pal scanners;

* the latest thinking (from ACPLGC's Curt Witcher and others) on how best to publish indexes and abstracts when paper publication is way expensive (do it digitally while granting libraries permission to print a copy if they see a need);

* newly available on-line indexes for Grant County and newspaper pages for Putnam County;

* how to (and how NOT to) use social media to attract new members to your genealogical society (Tina Lyons).

* a cache of World War I documents including some results of a Women's War Census taken in April 1918 for the Indiana State Council of Defense Women's Committee.


Harold Henderson, “Indiana Genealogical Society seminar,” Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 28 April 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]  

Social media as evidence!

Over at the ProGenealogists blog last month, David Vance commented on how social media worked a century ago in the social columns of local newspapers.

I would be interested in the thoughts of more tech-savvy people on this comparison. (And quite possibly there have been some in the hectic month between his post and this one!)

Vance translated some of the social items into 2012-speak, and it looked to me like the corresponding tweets contained somewhat less genealogical information than their 1912 originals. (Insert your own observation about the 2010 census vs. 1910 census here.)

Meanwhile, here's an example of a top-of-the-line genealogical article that used this kind of source:

Victor S. Dunn, "Social News as a Clue to Ancestry: Hester (nee Rogers) Cunningham of Virginia and West Virginia," National Genealogical Society Quarterly 93 (September 2005): 165-176.

It's available free on line to members of the National Genealogical Society.

Genealogy in social media

A wee bit of civil controversy appeared on the Association of Professional Genealogists mailing list last week (under the heading, "Facebook for Genealogists genealogywise"), as posters took note of the increased popularity of Facebook among our crowd, and the appearance of Genealogywise, which is basically facebook for genealogists.

Do these sites add value beyond sociability and (for practicing professionals) exposure? (There are other sites but I haven't done them -- in fact, the burden of having to track multiple social media was one issue discussed.)

On Facebook, the Geneabloggers group distributes blogging tips and invitations to various carnivals, which are convenient although probably just as doable by e-mail.

On Genealogywise, which is pretty new, the groups so far consist of people listing their surnames or asking if anyone has heard of anything that will solve their problem. For those who are (in Tom Jones's juxtaposition) more interested in genealogy than in ancestors, it was interesting to see Ginger Smith's post in the Indiana Genealogy group of some images from the handwritten grantors index to Putnam County deeds, Volume 3, April 1824 - Aug 1863, for surnames beginning with the letters T-Z. She invites visitors to post their transcriptions.

Of course, it's not like Indiana doesn't already have a major transcription project under way, but doing this kind of thing on Genealogywise might attract some new participants . . . and get people thinking about the stupendous mountain of valuable records out there (the deeds themselves) that are undigitized and likely to remain so.