Difference between revisions of "FamilySearch Wiki talk:WikiProject Professional Genealogists/Purpose"
(Moved comments here from project page.)
Revision as of 07:20, 3 August 2012
- My major concern is how you will distance FamilySearch from poor performing individuals. By listing the names of people, you are implying endorcement of them and their services. Therefore poor service will reflect negatively on FamilySearch.
- Second, why did Ancestry.com discontinue listing professional genealogists? Has FamilySearch addressed these reasons? Klk3 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Klk3. Question: When the wiki links to a fee-based data set or digitized record by a commercial company, does that imply a FamilySearch endorsement? When our printed Research Outlines list a reference book, are we endorsing the publisher, or saying there are no mistakes in the work? We've been pointing to research resources for decades. How is pointing to commercial genealogy services significantly different from pointing to commercial genealogy products?
- Regarding the reason why Ancestry discontinued Expert Connect, we did have meetings with them in which they communicated the reasons. We're not at liberty to share those reasons, but we have thought through the issues. The key driving factor that will determine how we'll do this is whether and how much it helps our patrons. RitcheyMT 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Minimize commercial info on pros' user pages
- From the start of my involvement with the wiki, there have been concerns that relate to the fact that steering readers to the best possible resources may mean directing them to a "for pay" site. In a way, steering them to a professional isn't all that different, but I am concerned about muddling wiki contributor mechanisms for sharing and communicating, with pages for people that have no connection at all to the wiki. User pages should be strictly limited to those who contribute to the wiki, for example. It seems to me that a listing of professionals with fairly minimal information about them would be a better way to remain neutral and "arm's-length" from appearing to endorse researchers. Lise 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback, Lise. Can you try something for me? I want to see what happens if you switch hats for a moment and approach the issue from a different perspective. I've had to take off my "wiki defender" hat and my "FamilySearch defender" hat and put on a "seeker of professionals" hat, and I'd like you to try that too, and re-approach this from that customer's perspective.
- Imagine you're someone who wants to find a pro to help you find your family. Would you be seeking a site with more information about each researcher, or less? For instance, would you want to use a site that only lists researchers and then have to go to each researcher's Website and/or send them an email to see whether they offer the value you seek? Or would you rather use a site where each researcher's professional and volunteer experience, education, credentials, publications, classes taught, services offered, rates, work samples, and customers testimonials were all in one place so you could compare them right there and narrow down the field quickly?
- Another thing to think about is this: Do consumers have a lower or higher likelihood of choosing a quality service provider on a Website containing more information by which to compare/contrast each provider? I find that swindlers don't like to be compared to competitors, whereas seasoned pros shine brighter the more the customer learns about each provider. RitcheyMT 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think we have no way to verify if someone is experienced ornot and will treat people honestly and fairly. We are opening a can of worms here that we do not want to handle. By listing these people we are saying they are ok and we will be liable for anything that goes wrong. We do not allow the publishers of software and people can go elsewhere for referrals. This is something that I do not feel belongs on the wiki. Elder Knox
If I remember correctly, the Family History Library used to have a list of professional researchers that patrons could reference if they needed professional research help. My understanding was that the professionals were vetted, both their research credentials and that they had an honest business.This protected both the reputation of FamilySearch and the Library but also mitigated fiscal exposure if a patron was unhappy with the service they received from the professional. The professionals list on the wiki doesn't appear to have any vetting. It looks like anyone, valid pros and fraudesters alike can add themselves to the list with no more than a working FamilySearch login.Additionally, I'm told that the links and text associated with advertisements were removed from the wiki over the past few years. The policy of putting ads back on the list flies in the face of that older policy opening up wounds from the earlier removal process. --Ldrew 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the comments about vetting these people and if you look at the Guiding Principles of the Wiki, in the Spam section, it clearly states "That said, the wiki may not be used simply as an advertising platform. Pages should not be slanted overwhelmingly to any one vendor's products in exclusion of free sites and other vendor sites. Do not direct researchers to an expensive source when a free one will suffice. Recommend sources to users in terms of what will help them, not what will help your business." I think this project should have been brought before the Wiki Community for input before it was implemented. This goes against the community aspect of a Wiki. averyld 15:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am unable to take off my "wiki defender" hat. I just don't think the wiki is a place to advertise. Are we going to allow Ancestry, FindMyPast and others to advertise ... I think if we make the jump from referring people to paid sites and allowing private advertising on the wiki, then it is a much shorter jump from genealogists advertising to websites expecting to advertise here too. I think what bothers me most is that we are soliciting them, offering free advertising, and placing no expectations on them to add content. If they are as skilled researchers as they are supposed to be, adding a page of content should be nothing for them. Why could they not be required to first add content to the wiki before adding advertising ? At least then I could see a benefit to the wiki in taking this detour around the Purpose and Appropriate Topics. evancol 17:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)