Projects should be competitive with Wikipedia

Mike Stangel,

What can be done to give us what Dimitri is talking about?

Let me put it this way. Projects as the way they are operating today in fact can be bad publicity for potential newcomers.
Very little information and long lists do not attract visitors. The hyperlinked names do not invite you to click on them unless a small bio triggers your imagination and want to know more about the person in genealogical sense.

It doesn't help if the majority of projectmakers, which still are curators for some reason, keep on making projects which they do not actively participatie in. They create them for the users to play with. These projects still wont be finished in the coming 100 years. Is that
a true goal to achieve, finishing a project or is it not important that quality should set the standard, not quantity?

Indeed, we need a "Wikipedia Strategy".

I wouldn't think of Geni projects as "competitive with" Wikipedia. If we see it as a competition, Wikipedia will win every day. No chance to win there.

Geni projects are complementary to Wikipedia, in that Geni brings the genealogy angle much better than anyone else.

In fact, I think we should add Geni projects as sources on Wikipedia pages everywhere it makes sense. For example, I did it here:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Henri-de-Taillon

and here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Valour_(Canada)

Strategically, I think we want to avoid antagonizing the Wikipedia administrators. These people are fanatics and if alienated, can eradicate any contribution/link we make to Wikipedia.

For sure, we have to be very choosy on which Geni projects we add as a source or reference in Wikipedia. The selected projects must be rich in genealogy content, otherwise they will be removed.

Another point: Project contributors must stop mass copy&paste or large chucks of Wikipedia content into projects. Such a practice is disrespectful of the Wikipedia authors and surely does not encourage collaboration.

Dimitri is right: Geni projects are highly visible on Google. We need to take our projects seriously.

Elaine,

If you cooperate with others I think you could add profiles they are manager of to a project. Most data on public profiles can be edited by anyone and people you cooperate with can see and edit some more fields. So a profile is always at risk of being altered by another user.

I think it is a pity there are so many projects that is is difficult to know which projects exists and which may have relevant information. I agree with Dimitri that it would be nice to have some more possibilities with project pages.
It would also be nice if there would be some standard for project tags and if there could by a hierarchy of tags. It could make it much easier to find relevant projects.

Dimitri - thanks for starting this discussion and for all who are participating. I have complained for ages about managers NOT responding to requests. I have made literally 100's of such requests in order to be able to add profiles to the numerous holocaust related projects. Way too many of these requests have simply gone on with ZERO responses.

I have 3 major questions - -

1) Why can't profiles be added to a project by any Pro user - not just managers ?
2) Why can't profiles "from the Project location" be restricted from any changes being made ?
3) Since so many of our projects are LOCATION related, why does our search abilities NOT allow for this kind of a search, i.e, all profiles born / died / married in a particular community?

I have asked these questions before and I NEVER get any answers ...

Hi, this is a very important discussion because if internal links are implemented as a result they will lead to a better Geni experience for most visitors. I have written for Wiki, and internal links are in my articles because they facilitate interactive learning.

I have created and improved many Jewish Town projects on Geni, and hope that we can learn to use internal links more easily and frequently. It's a great idea. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for opening up this topic. As a former heavy contributor to Geni who no longer adds much due to high-handed practices by curators, and as a decade-log contributor to wikipedia, and as a highly active owner of a substantial buiness database and php forum, i do have ideas. I will onlystatethem, and will not argue for them, as doing so is not worth my time here.

1) the DNA link addition was genius. It has opened up a lot of new thinking.

2) Every profile needs a bio or a "stub" notice (ala Wikipedia)

3) Media links should be obligatorily toggled if any media is added, so passersby do not have to waste time clicking to see "if" media is available and so genealogists do not need to waste time writing messages like "see the media tab for more pictures." LINKS are the way to go and data-driven messages are simple enough: "This profile contains extra pictures and documents."

4) Did you notice thati wrote "pictures and documents" That's because all documents at Geni ARE pictures! Combine the tabs -- and combine the videos too. MEDIA should mean MIEDIA.

5) Adding a person to a profile should NOT require jumping through hoops. Certainly is a person pays for Pro status, he or she should be able o add a person to a project.

I suggest that a dialogue box or screen form should open when one decides to edit a bio. It can contain pre-formed sentences:

[Name] was born on [date] in [place], the [x-numberth] child of [name-link] and [name-link]/
[He/she had [x-number] brother and [x-number] sisters.
[He/she] was a[n] [occupation].
[He/she] was married to [link].
[Name] and [Name] had [x-number] children.
[They] have had [x-number] [descendants-ink].

These simple data fields and more like them can be used to auto-generate short bios for almost every person at Geni. A larger field can then be used for more extensive data. All fields not filled out would not show to the user, only to the editor.

Thanks for reading this.

P.s. and make messages EDITABLE! I have low vision and make a lot of typos because i cannot see my keyboard. If i notice them, my only recourse is to delete and re-upload, which is PRIMITIVE. Wikipedia has editable message--spaces, and so do my forum and database. Every other forum i belong too allows for edits. Facebook does too. Geni is the ONLY forum / database space where i cannot edit typos in my messages or in photo captions.

Just do as most people do when they want to write long messages: Use your favorite editor, and when satisfied with the result copy and past it as a message.

Elaine,

I'm sorry to hear about this practice. Participating in a project should be a choice of the user who is willing to contribute to a project.

I asked earlier - Why can't profiles be added to a project by any Pro user - not just managers ?? It makes no sense - but there NEVER is an answer to the question !!!

Elaine - thanks for "an answer" - but as a pro user, am I not able to make to make those same type of changes. Only difference is the time lines are preserved - correct?

So why not simply "lock" the profile when in the project. Only allow changes through the other channels.!

And please do not tell me or anyone else about deficiencies in the software. If this is an issue, management can correct this problem whenever they so choose .... They simply need to address this issue !!

Richard and Elaine, you both are talking about controle, having influence on the protection of profile data related to projects, am I right? Can you two be more specific related to the main subject of this discussion?

Personally I think quality of data, the protection of it, can never be garanteed the way the Geni software is constructed today. Improviing my suggested interlinking is a step in the right direction to improve this quality of projects.

But this quality in projects are in danger when a user can not protect its information when curators can slip through the backdoor, make changes whenever they feel like, invite anyone to the project without deliberation with the original project maker and collaborators indeed.

My aim is to raise the standard of projects, simply by looking further, across the boundries of Geni and realizing the effect on the public outside Geni. These visitors can easily compare Geni projects to Wikipedia and then the choice is very easy to make. Geni projects do provide some information, but if that info is quoted from Wikpedia one always should reveal this source. Besides profiding long lists of names, this genealogical information is off putting without the interlinking.

And I can not say this to often, naming your sources as much as you can makes projects raise it's standard. The value of navigation makes them more accesable. All together projects can become a serious source like Wikipedia does. Not in a competative but in a mutual complementary way.

Elaine - I add MANY profiles to projects where the profile was created by someone else. However, depending on the security setting, sometimes I am able to add a profile to a project. However, many times I must be made a CO-MANAGER of a profile in order to add it to a project(s).

This is what seems SO VERY wasteful to me - is all of these requests that must be made - THEN ANSWERED - then go back into the profile to add it to the project(s).

I still do NOT understand why one of the features of being a PRO user does not include the ability to add profiles to projects.

I never realised this properly, Elaine and Richard. It all depends on the people you personally collaborate with to have access to certain profiles. If you have to keep inviting people to accept the profile, so that it will be added to a project, this must feel very unsatisfying as you both say. Not worth doing.

Now I have never experienced this situation much since I collaborate with the 'right' people, I guess, and so it is rare for me that I have to send an invite to profile managers.

Another thing is that I have been a curator for 6 months or so, where I have had some experience with project making, developing concepts and so on.

I never realised how rude it was, the way I could enter and leave a project without anyone's consent until it happened to me personally.

My project was invaded by fellow curators demanding all sorts of things, deciding the project it's future. That was the moment where I did not feel comfortable anymore to be associated with these kind of practises.

Geni Projects were / are meant to be for everyone. Geni curators tend to be "early adopters," and we do have the ability to add profiles to projects whether we are managers or not; I have used that right mostly for historic figures, profiles with inactive managers, and at the request of my collaborators.

I appreciate the call to enrich the data contained within projects (the project overview), and hopefully the other components as well (media). One thing to remember is that the technical skills of Geni members vary, and that's OK! So a simple text overview with a clear definition of project parameters works for me also.

Simplicity is fine, Erica. Just as long as quality, a certain standard can be pursued.

But lacking the potential of protecting important data, this is a steep hill to climb if you want to achieve something that might be of some informative value.

It seems that having control over information in projects, curators seem to control crucial elements which do not stimulate ordinary basic users like me or users with a pro account to take part in creating these projects.

Either you take away the curators freedom of accessing projects without consent, free play for all users, or take back complete control and stop bothering users with your projects..

One thing is for sure. You can Google geni-projects, therefore the world is at the doorstep of geni. That is something to think about. How do you want to come across with a curated genealogical website showing mostly messy, and way too long webpages/projects.

Let the curators be fully responsible then and take back control to show everybody that you ARE capable and responsible for maintaining a certain valuable standard.

WOW - for me, there seems to be a LOT of misunderstandings / miscommunication in this discussion ....
1) Why should projects be primarily the domain / responsibility of curators ?
a) Why are they not the responsibilities of their creator and their collaborators ?
b) Other than curators having "power" to do stuff - why are they even in this
discussion - other than as a participant in this conversation ????
2) I have personally started - from scratch - SEVERAL projects. The process is NOT difficult - almost anyone with slightly more than the most basic computer skills has the ability to do so, if they chose to.
a) I have never knowingly refused any request to add someone as a collaborator to a
profile when I have received such a request. This includes BOTH the projects I
have started / created (not sure which is the better terminology ?) and the many
projects for which I am a collaborator.
b) Once I have accepted someone as a collaborator - I have assumed, either
correctly or not, that they have both the skill to work on the project and the GOOD
SENSE to do so properly !!!!
3) The issue for me is MOSTLY surrounding projects to do with the holocaust - the many different ghettos, work camps and death camps. Why should I have to ask ANYONE"S permission to add a profile to one of these projects, when the death location IN THE PROFILE, already states where they died ?!?!?! ???

4) And lastly, - slightly off track - I have asked repeatedly - since so many of our projects are location specific - why do we NOT have the capability to use location ONLY as a criteria for searching ? Perfect example is the Krakow project that Pam Karp (c) has been working on so diligently. Why can we NOT search for someone who was born, married, died or buried in Krakow? The information is already in the profile - so GENI has it in its data base. And then the REAL BIG issue crops up, if I stumble on a profile like that and I am not already collaborating with the manager- I have to go ASK ....

Can you not see this circle we are traveling in ??? Ridiculous and a pure waste of time and energy ...

Thanks for listening.

Re: "Let the curators be fully responsible ..."

That decision was made by Geni at implementation of the projects function and has not changed. I would also say "unlikely to change."

Geni projects are a membership right. They are not in curator domain (except for the functions mentioned above).

Re: 4) And lastly, - slightly off track - I have asked repeatedly - since so many of our projects are location specific - why do we NOT have the capability to use location ONLY as a criteria for searching ?

Because geni has not (yet?) developed it.

It is on the wish list (I'm sure you've put it there if no one else has).

I agree with Rick -- a location sort is highly desired, for reasons too obvious to be reiterated.

I suggest you people startup a new discussion separate from this one in order to get the full attention it deserves for your topic about criteria for searching via location, if that is ok with you.

You can correct me if there is a strong link to the actual subject of this discussion, why 'projects should be competitive with Wikipedia'. If so, then please continue overhere.

re: Geni users are prevented from enhancing the project ....

This I do not understand. Any project collaborator can edit the overview and add media and can request adding profiles to projects if they do not have the rights already.

I've deleted my input - it wasn't going anywhere. Sorry to go off-topic Dimitri.

No problem, Elaine. It is always good to get off topic when dealing with concepts. That's part of the process and sometimes it pays off, sometimes not. All I am saying is that the deviation from the subject was interesting enough to stand on it's own in another discussion according to my humble opinion ;)

re: Geni users are prevented from enhancing the project ....

This I do not understand. Any project collaborator can edit the overview and add media and can request adding profiles to projects if they do not have the rights already."

The concept of projects was intended to be for all collaborators who are welcomed to enhance a project in which they have a particular interest.

I have found that after developing the initial structure of overview and theme, that projects frequently take on a life of their own. They can move in different directions from the concept originally created, truly developing into a combined project for the benefit of all members without the initial creator (or curator) having ownership.

So I am not really not understanding what Dimitri Gazan means by "Let the curators be fully responsible then and take back control".

We want projects to have value, to remain compelling as members freely develop the initial theme, edit and enrich the creativity with suitable images. And of course add profiles. Rarely is a project ever "finished" the original concept just continues to grow.

The quality of information depends on how this information is protected. If the backdoor of a project is wide open to curators to come and go without permission, you have a problem.

If you put collaboration first and quality somewhere else, then yes, I understand you have not one clue about what I am saying lol

Re: If you put collaboration first and quality somewhere else, then yes, I understand you have not one clue about what I am saying lol

Geni "is" about collaboration, and about accuracy.

We have a couple of projects that have been honored by the British Library for permanent archiving, that's an objective standard for how good we can get. We have other projects that are shells, that may or may not develop; but they have project starters and are valid also.

"Protecting the information" implies locking a project against vandalism or indeed other collaborators; the project collaboration and permissions structure works pretty well. There have been very few issues in the last five years, the biggest being inadvertent duplication of topic.

"Re; If the backdoor of a project is wide open to curators to come and go without permission, you have a problem."

I don't see why. If you want a private project, then structure it as so, inform it as so. Write a great big "no curators wanted" on the project overview, I imagine we'll stay away. :)

You state:
Geni "is" about collaboration, and about accuracy.

You do not mention the word 'quality', but talk about 'accuracy' instead or does that include your definition of quality?

You state:
If you want a private project, then structure it as so, inform it as so. Write a great big "no curators wanted" on the project overview, I imagine we'll stay away. :)

Protecting your sources and the with-coming information is possible if you are able to choose who you want to invite to your projects to collaborate with, and free to decline any collaboration request. That system works just fine. no problem with that.

You should be able to work with people you trust and turn requests down from people you don't trust. That is collaborative and selective at the same time which is a good thing.

I do have a problem with situations like I have described in my post on 31/1/2017 at 8:23 PM

quoting myself now lol:

My project was invaded by fellow curators demanding all sorts of things, deciding the project it's future. That was the moment where I did not feel comfortable anymore to be associated with these kind of practices.

Curators should behave respectful to the project system and not navigate like guardian angels, in and out of projects without permission.