Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Fyi
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bremer,Robert"<bremerr(a)oclc.org>
Sent: 3/7/04 5:30:39 PM
To: "USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com"<USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Subject: RE: [USGW-Discuss] Interesting
I find the proposed USGenWeb bylaw revision (Article VIII, Section 2) cited
in the message below to be completely unnecessary. See
http://home.mchsi.com/~sagitta56/ for the complete revision.
The topic of multiple affiliations of USGenWeb web sites has come up in
discussions now and then over the past few years. The only argument I have
seen people willing to put forth is that our visitors are somehow confused
when our sites show multiple affiliations. I don't believe that to be true
at all. If logos display names, links are properly identified, and each
affiliation is given equal billing, then any person with average
intelligence would likely conclude that the site is affiliated with multiple
projects. I don't see why that should be a problem in that organizations in
all sorts of other subject areas often collaborate to produce print and
online publications.
As the proposed revision is currently written, affiliation with our own
state XXGenWeb projects is not specifically covered. A better approach to
this proposed section might have been to indicate that sites with multiple
affiliations present the USGenWeb affiliation on at least an equal basis
with all the others.
Unfortunately, what seems to me to be the underlying view of some is that
CCs with multiple affiliations are somehow not true USGenWeb CCs. Their
loyalty is in question because they do not solely promote the USGenWeb in
that way that a few think it should be strictly promoted. But, even this
idea is really without any basis.
I have chosen to include my two USGenWeb Ohio counties in two other projects
only because that seemed to be the most efficient and effective thing to do.
Why have competing coordinators wasting time putting up similar pages,
duplicating effort by independently transcribing the very same records
instead of making a coordinated effort via a single county site,
particularly when the three organizations have the same or very similar
goals? I have browsed around other Ohio counties and found several others
with multiple affiliations, and it was easy to see and understand that they
had multiple affiliations. I saw no cases where one project was highlighted
to detriment of the others.
I have participated in the USGenWeb essentially since of the beginning of
the project in 1996. My pages (which currently require some much needed
attention) are there for people interested in genealogy in my counties.
USGenWeb and the other projects are only mechanisms to coordinate and
promote access to the county sites. I participate in several projects, but
I am not an employee of the USGenWeb or any other online genealogical
project. My pages are not owned by the USGenWeb or any other online
genealogical project. They are there for the public, and I should do
whatever would best serve the public. The project should facilitate the
work of the CCs, and this proposed restriction, while surely satisfying to
some who want to control the look of our pages, does not facilitate the work
of CCs. It only restricts it.
USGenWeb is the premier geographically-based genealogy project in the United
States. That's not going to change, so there should be no fear of the
project being knocked off its pedestal by some other "upstart" project.
There needs to be no fear of our pages somehow being tainted by affiliation
with other projects. I see multiple affiliations as having a legitimate
payoff in terms of better coordination and the reduction in the duplication
of effort.
The proposed bylaw section is exclusive, aristocratic, and snobby. As the
largest and best such project around, we should be reaching out to other
projects and genealogical efforts online rather than necessarily seeking to
cut them off and imposing restrictions on our own coordinators. I have
heard stories where some USGenWeb coordinators have had occasion to run up
against the wishes or preferences of local genealogical societies which
sometimes object to any or all information being placed online. This has
always impressed me as an incredibly negative aspect to what genealogical
societies do, i.e., the idea that they "own" or at least must control
information that is in the public domain relative to their geographic area
of interest, rather than working to facilitate genealogical research for
that area. This proposed section of the bylaws is quite in step with that
idea. It only brings the "us" versus "them" mentality to the online
environment of our project rather than promoting a collaborative approach.
Our project showed so much promise eight years ago. It is sad that it
possibly could promote such intolerant attitudes and could possibly
implement such restrictive measures which only serve to control, but do
nothing to facilitate genealogical research or facilitate the work of county
coordinators.
This is just another among several reasons to eventually vote "no" on the
revised bylaws.
Robert Bremer
bremerr(a)oclc.org
P.S. You have my permission to forward this message to any USGenWeb state or
regional list you would like.
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Smoot [mailto:dogtrotxp1@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 8:10 PM
To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [USGW-Discuss] Interesting
Revision
"ARTICLE VIII. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS
"Section 2. USGenWeb web sites may show only a single project affiliation -
that of The
USGenWeb Project. If a coordinator chooses also to host a local, state or
special topic site
with another organization, it must have a separate home or index page. "
Hmmmmmm.
==== USGENWEB-DISCUSS Mailing List ====
--Celebrate the USGenWeb Project! -- Can you identify?
Soldiers, Manchester "This was taken at Manchester, Ohio where we are
stationed", signed Walter sent to Mr. F. G. Haldey, Stamford CT [1908]
http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/oh/adams/postcards/2soldr.jpg
==============================
Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
Louisiana Parish Coordinators,
You might want to review this...
Edward Hayden,
LAGenWeb State Coordinator
-----Original Message-----
From: Heather J. DeGeorge [mailto:heatherdegeorge@writeme.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:09 PM
To: USGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [USGW-Discuss] Should we remove certain transcribed docs?
Importance: High
State Coordinators: please forward on to your CCs...
Please understand that it is not my intent to set genealogical researchers
backward. I understand the goals of USGW and have been involved in the
project since our pages were still titled USGenConnect pages. I have
transcribed countless cemeteries and have helped countless researchers who
were at a distance.
My professional background is technology and my husband's is internet
security. I have been using the internet long before it came into
mainstream use. I have always been keenly aware of the danger that is
involved with genealogy on the internet. Do you realize it? Identity theft
is the number one white-collar crime here in NJ, and I'm sure it's in the
top 5 of most other states. And the lack of understanding about what is
needed to successfully steal an identity makes genealogy sites a veritable
pot of gold for identity thiefs. Add to that the growing number of
"would-be" genealogists who are posting information at will--and some of it
might be your own information. What if some long, lost relative found out
you existed and put up your name, date of birth and parents names (including
your mother's maiden name). If you don't find that scary, then I'm not sure
you comprehend how serious this issue is. That's not meant to be an insult.
I know that many genealogists are suffering to do research as many states
are implementing stringent rules about who can obtain B/M/D records. I
think there is a compromise between what they require and what we desire;
but none-the-less, there is a reason these rules went into place. And I
think we need to take care when we make certain documents available online.
This project needs to take a stand on a national level to ensure that we do
what we can to provide information while at the same time ensuring that we
do not endanger the unsuspecting. I don't know what the answer is, but as
of today I have already (amicably) parted ways with CCing one of my sites
because I wanted to remove information that we had on the site to prevent
problems. In fact, the documents I wanted to remove were copies of
documents that the state vital records bureau had online and have since
removed because of the rampant wave of identity theft and the ease with
which those documents were used to further enable identity theft.
I'm asking that a committee be put together to very quickly find an answer.
For those of you who know someone who has had this happen to them, you have
only an inkling of how it can ruin MANY lives from a single person's
identity being stolen.
--Heather Jones DeGeorge
ASC, NJGenWeb
CC, Somerset Co., NJ
CC, Orleans Parish, LA
CC, West Feliciana Parish, LA
CC, LaSalle Parish, LA
CC, Iberville Parish, LA
CC, Polk Co., NC
CC, White Co., GA
CC, Livingston Co., NY
CC, Morgan Co., CO
CC, Keya Paha Co., NE
==== USGENWEB-DISCUSS Mailing List ====
--Celebrate the USGenWeb Project! -- Can you identify?
The H. C. C. Co. Office - Someone has written "Wiscon." on the back
[post-1907] http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/wi/images/postcards/hccco.jpg
==============================
Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237