[Genealib] Further musings regarding Ancestrybank

[Traci Thompson]

Ryan,

Thank you for your reply - I love the opportunity for stimulating thoughts
and ideas!

Right now, because of the site, there are several thousand
> documents (and many thousand more than have not been archived yet but
> scanned) that simply would not be available otherwise.


This is certainly beneficial, although I don't agree with the idea behind
the access.

I admire
> people that make their collections readily available...but not
> everyone wants to donate to a library or repository.


This is why I educate the public on the benefits of doing so, and offer the
option of sharing the information without donating.

If people want
> to make money from their documents, that is their choice...


It is...I just don't agree.

Why should the owner and the company benefit?  Why not?  Who are we to
> say that all documents owned by individuals have to go to a library,
> archive, museum or repository?


Because the value of a historical document isn't a monetary value, and its
importance is larger than the owner or the company; it is everyone's
history, and its value lies in its ability to enlighten, educate, and be
useful to all people, even generations beyond this one.

We certainly can't force anyone to donate materials to a library or archive,
but if the owner understands and appreciates the real value of historical
documents, then the owner might understand why it is important to preserve
them for the future and make the documents available to all those who could
benefit by having access to them.

And who are we to say that people should have to pay to view documents
relating to the history of their country, their area, their family?  To whom
does history "belong"?

You need to remember, there are a lot
> of repositories out there charging for access to their images.  How do
> you think the US and British National Archives would respond?  They
> charge as do many libraries.  So who makes the decision that a library
> should make a "fast buck" versus the person who actually owns the
> document and puts in all the work?  Obviously, there are costs
> attached to providing this information as Bill stated.


Certainly there are costs.  I can't speak for all libraries, but most that I
know of (including, while we are throwing out names, the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, which has several outstanding digital collections
available online, such as the Documenting the American South collection
charge what is necessary to recoup costs, not make a profit.  The wording on
the ancestrybank.com website - that owners can "earn" - implies making a
profit.  The emphasis seems more on the money than on the importance of
accessibility, and there is no concern that I can see as to the preservation
of original documents.

Libraries generally charge for copies, and price may vary depending upon the
quality and type of copy, but most libraries make digital images available
for viewing on the web for free (or a patron can print the image for free
from his/her own printer.)  Does Ancestrybank make its documents available
for viewing without charge?

Just FYI, my library does not charge remote patrons for copies of
genealogical material.  We suggest that a donation can be made if the patron
wishes.

Would more
> visitors benefit if it went to a library?  Someone can download a
> document image they found on the site for $5 or they can drive to the
> library/repository...or the library/repository could send the info to
> them and charge a fee for copies like most do.


Yes - because, besides the options of going to the library or getting a hard
copy from the library (at potentially no charge, depending) - many libraries
also digitize material and put it on the web for free viewing, or are able
to send the information to the patron electronically.  For example, we scan
information from microfilm and send it to patrons at no charge.

Also, the primary benefit of placing material in an appropriate library or
repository is to ensure the long-term preservation of original documents,
which will benefit generations to come.

Finding the census
> document in many places is a good thing...what isn't a good thing is
> having to subscribe to a bunch of different services and then find out
> that all they have are the same databases.  That is the point of this,
> is that when someone visits the site, they know this will be a
> completely new database that they haven't explored.


This is why evaluating online information and the sources it derives from is
essential (something librarians help people do)  :)

Second comment, yes we want to make money.  It is a company.
> Companies are not usually created with the intent to fail.  I believe
> it is okay to make a hopefully useful company and actually earn from
> the idea.  I'm not sure why Ancestrybank would be a target of this
> question...you do realize how many companies are out there for the
> field of genealogy...it's the second largest hobby in the world.  I'm
> not sure why people would think that a person would take an idea,
> spend a great deal of time and money, and not hope to do well just
> because the company is in the field of genealogy versus any other
> industry.


I'm all for capitalism, but not particularly for the selling of historical
information.  Yes, I'm well aware of how many genealogical companies are out
there, and no, I'm not thrilled about their methods either.  I've had plenty
of beefs with Ancestry Library/Ancestry.com; unfortunately, they've become
sort of a necessary evil to get access to information.  Your company just
got the conversation about such companies rolling again.

Third comment about incentive to archive should be for love of history
> and to educate and enlighten...that is correct.  I love history as
> well.  The site is just another option.  Sometimes people need more
> than just a love to make it worth their time to share what they
> have...doesn't make them bad.


Why would someone need more than a love of history?  Sharing information
with a library is pretty easy - maybe easier than putting the information on
your site, if the person is technologically challenged - and I think
preserving a priceless historical document for all to enjoy would certainly
be worth someone's time, surely worth more than a check for $25.00!
If not, well...sorry, but sounds more like a love of profit to me than a
love of history. Just MHO.

Fourth comment about fast buck hardly creative or innovative.  I go
> back to there are going to be thousands of documents available to the
> genealogy community that would never have been available otherwise.
> It has taken a great deal of time and money to create this concept.
> It is creative/innovative in that it taps into a large market of
> people who can earn from documents that they own if they choose not to
> donate their collection.  It also pools people together to encourage
> them to transcribe documents.


I still don't see how appealing to the desire to make money is creative or
innovative, though I'm sure it has taken much time and money to get the
business up and running. Yes, the upside is that documents will be
available...but how much more accessible they would have been in the long
run had the owner shared the doucments with a library or other repository!

 I beg to differ that a digital image is a preservation measure
> for original documents.  If it isn't that, then what is it?


It is a widely accepted standard that, due to technological changes,
migration issues, accessibility issues, uncertain shelf-life of portable and
nonportable media, etc., digitization is not a preservation measure for
original documents.  For more information see the 2005 Guidelines for
Digitization at www.ncecho.org (especially the "Preservation" chapter).
There are some organizations, however, that are moving toward accepting
digital products as an archival means of preservation, if the original is a
good candidate for "reformatting".  Most libraries, however, hold the
view "expressed at the 1995 RLG digital selection symposium, that
"digitization appears to have a preservation role in reducing use of
originals ... but appears not to be suitable for preservation of information
that is preserved in no other form.".
(4)<http://www.rlg.org/preserv/joint/gertz.html#endnote4> The
consensus among most American preservation officers is that digitization
alone does not constitute preservation:.
(5)<http://www.rlg.org/preserv/joint/gertz.html#endnote5>" Quote from
http://www.rlg.org/preserv/joint/gertz.html

Since digitization what your company is about, and since you are digitizing
documents that are probably not going to be preserved in any other manner, I
would encourage you to learn about this topic and be informed on these
issues.

You are
> right that it doesn't maintain or restore the integrity of the orginal
> documents, but at least we will have people doing something versus
> nothing.


Perhaps, but better to educate them on the importance of preserving the
original documents and encourage them to share the information, IMO.

Last comment about genealogy being a great community because they
> share information without a price tag.  That is absolutely true.  I
> won't bother to list the genealogy companies, national archives, and
> libraries that do have a price tag though...I hope you are writing on
> the message boards about them as well.  If you need a list of these
> libaries and national archives(for example
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/ ), I will send
> them.  Again, it's just another option.


Oh, I've posted on here about Ancestry Library and others before.  :)

Before I close this email I would like to point out that the next
> messages on this listserve are about the Ancestry Library Edition
> Subscription.  Are they trying to make a fast buck?  I hope you write
> messages about this because based on the premise of these messages,
> the information in their databases should be free.


IMO, at least some of the information should be free (and actually, some of
the information they provide *is* free). I wish the prices were just to
recover costs, and that access to historical information for its own sake
and not profit was the focus.

One of the big differences, though, as you point out, is that much of what
Ancestry Library offers is not unique, and what your company offers is.
Because of this, I can actually have more respect for Ancestry Library; the
sources of their data are generally (but not all - another can of worms!)
available in libraries, archives, and government repositories, and thus
giving more access points to the user and hopefully ensuring that the
original documents are being adequately cared for.  However, I see
Ancestrybank as being deterimental to the preservation and (in the long run)
to the accessibility of documents, because if the owner is making money off
the document, what incentive is there for sharing it in any other way?

Thanks for taking the time to reply - this has made me think about a lot of
topics more in-depth than I would have otherwise.  And as Julie, I believe
it was, stated, it is wonderful that this list allows for such discussions.

Traci Thompson
Local History/Genealogy Librarian
BML
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.acomp.usf.edu/pipermail/genealib/attachments/20061025/274b3c0c/attachment.html