I'm not falling for that trap again, Denise. The last time I brought
up an issue and deliberately did not mention names, someone else
*did*drag specific names into it, and then I was accused of launching
a personal attack which was the furthest thing from the truth.
As you've stated, you know full-well exactly what example I'm
speaking of, and you also know the details of this particular
incident. When a CC opts not to provide information on where and how
to inexpensively obtain documents, and instead chooses to charge a
much higher *fee* of several dollars to email scanned images when
researchers can obtain photocopies for 25¢ from the county, I believe
there exists a blatant conflict of interest and ethical dilemma that
needs attention and resolution.
This isn't rocket science. It's a matter of ethics and conflicts of
interest by CCs who are using this project to run their personal
businesses. You either address it and take measures to stop it, or
you accept it and defend it by pointing to a loophole in the national
project's bylaws and "jurisdictional" difficulties with county
project lists operating on Rootsweb servers. That's a pretty straight-
forward choice, and you seem to have made yours.
Frankly, I think we need to adopt state project ethics rules
addressing these conflicts of interest. They should not be allowed.
-Sandy
On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Denise Woodside wrote:
Sandy,
Please give me an example of a county site which is doing what you
are claiming:
"Just set up shop as a USGW Project "volunteer" and use the project to
obtain clients and sell your "services." Omit information that
informs researchers of the easiest and least expensive manner of
obtaining records for *themselves*, and then "serve" them by charging
them with your services."
The only site that you have brought to my attention privately has no
mention of selling services that I've found and has 100s (if not
1000s) of pages of data online. In fact, I would be embarassed to
have either of my county sites compared to the tremendous amount of
free data that appears on this site.
Denise
On Nov 16, 2007 9:48 AM, Sandy <teylu(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Not much of a deterrent to those who have obvious conflicts of
> interest, is it?
> Just set up shop as a USGW Project "volunteer" and use the project to
> obtain clients and sell your "services."
> Omit information that informs researchers of the easiest and least
> expensive manner of obtaining records for *themselves*, and then
> "serve" them by charging them with your services.
>
> A little cagey use of the "non-project" Rootsweb email list you set
> up *for* the US/NCGenWeb county project, and voila - what a business
> plan.:) Just "announce" that you have the data - but don't
> specifically "sell" it until researchers email you asking for it.
>
> We've had problems in the past with obvious conflicts of interest
> from some genealogy societies who hosted county sites and
> intentionally precluded the "free" sharing of data in which the
> society had a vested financial interest. Not *all* societies took
> that approach, mind you, but some did, and it definitely created a
> furor because it violates the whole purpose of this project.
>
> There is likewise a clear conflict of interest when those who run
> genealogical research *businesses* also serve as US/NCGW Project
> "volunteers." Their actions are a slap in the face to those of us who
> have kept the spirit of this project by serving researchers at
> absolutely no charge, and who do not attempt to finance our own
> personal computers, scanners, or anything else by charging fees to
> those who come to the Project for research assistance.
>
> Perhaps what's needed are some clear rules concerning conflicts of
> interest. In most quarters, these are known as "ethics" rules.
> Developing ethics rules for our project would at least help. No doubt
> the vast majority of CCs are on the up-and-up, and have no desire to
> use the project for their personal financial gain, and we certainly
> should not have to tolerate those who are.
>
> -Sandy
>
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:02 PM, Elizabeth Harris wrote:
>
>>
>> Our project guidelines for volunteers
>> (
http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Encgenweb/volunteer.html) include the
>> following:
>>
>> Solicitation of funds for personal gain is forbidden. You may
>> however
>> provide links to personal web pages where research services or
>> materials are offered for sale. You may also list materials for
>> sale,
>> for example publications by your local genealogical society, but
>> these should not be listed on the main web page for your site. You
>> may however provide a link to these listings from your main page.
>> You
>> may also acknowledge the server or organization that provides your
>> web space.
>>
>>
>> On my "resources" pages I list names of people who will do research
>> for a fee, and leave it to the reader to contact these people. I
>> don't endorse anyone.
>>
>> Personally I never accept money for any research, lookups,
>> copies, or
>> other assistance. To me this seems unethical in a volunteer project
>> like NCGenWeb. If somebody offers to pay me, I tell her to pass the
>> favor along to another genealogist or make a contribution to charity
>> or a local genealogical organization.
>>
>>
>> From the beginning, county e-mail lists at Rootsweb were not
>> allowed
>> to mention research for hire, or genealogical materials for
>> sale. So
>> far as I know, this rule hasn't changed.
>> --
>> Elizabeth Harris
>> ncgen(a)mindspring.com
>>
>> Personal genealogy webpage:
http://www.duke.edu/web/chlamy
>> Winston-Salem NC area genealogy:
http://www.fmoran.com/
>> HOLDER DNA project:
http://www.mindspring.com/~holderdna/
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-
> DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NCGENWEB-
DISCUSS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message