FamilySearch Wiki talk:WikiProject Professional Genealogists: Difference between revisions

Replied to the two contributors' comments.
m (Changed heading size)
(Replied to the two contributors' comments.)
Line 45: Line 45:
:Second, why did Ancestry.com discontinue listing professional genealogists? Has FamilySearch addressed these reasons? [[User:Klk3|Klk3]] 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:Second, why did Ancestry.com discontinue listing professional genealogists? Has FamilySearch addressed these reasons? [[User:Klk3|Klk3]] 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


<br>
::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. [[User:RitcheyMT|RitcheyMT]] 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


: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. [[User:Lembley|Lise]] 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Lembley|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? [[User:RitcheyMT|RitcheyMT]] 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
4,497

edits