Talk:Family History Research Wiki

Notability
This Family History Research Wiki article has been challenged as not meeting the general notability guidelines (significant coverage in reliable and independent sources).

I believe the Family History Research Wiki is well and significantly covered in independent sources. By independent I mean sources created by people who are not employees of FamilySearch, while invited to speak at FamilySearch organized conferences, or on any committees associated with this Wiki. Nevertheless, Wiki contributors may be among the authors of some of the following.

Please consider the following citations as part of the evidence of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources:

Books


 * Dunn, Helm and Helm , Kennett , McCullough , Tanner

Periodicals


 * Crossroads, Searchers and Researchers , Voices of the Past , Sedgwick County News , The Echoes , and Genealogy Updates for VGS

Blogs


 * Ancestry, FamTreeMagBlog , GenStar , Meitzler , In-Depth , Legacy , Newberry , PassionateGen , Seaver , Senior , SouthAfrica , and Worldwide

Class material


 * BYU Idaho, Calaveras , Mayhew , PC Club , SantaClara , and Snow

Online articles


 * AinsworthLibr, AFGS , Free Mormon , Hendrickson , Society of Gen , TNGenWeb , and Treasures

Talk Radio Blog


 * FGS Voice

Because of these and other sources, I believe the Family History Research Wiki has general notability. Diltsgd (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Pick subjective or neutral
I am concerned at the removal of two criticism sentences:
 * "But it is under-used by beginner genealogists who could most benefit by it, and who are often unaware of its existence. Even volunteers at Family History Centers, the primary intended audience, frequently seem to overlook its potential to help them answer genealogical questions."

To answer the question (Who's to say what is underused?) asked in the justification for removing the above sentences, expert genealogists would be good candidates to ask if some research tool is under-used by beginner genealogists. Experienced practitioners often have a feel (perhaps even subjective) for what constitutes rookie mistakes in Wikipedia, as well as in genealogy. One person's “subjective” may be another person's “neutral point of view.” Subjective does not always mean inaccurate--sometimes it just means a formal study or measuring has not yet been conducted. The subjective notions of experienced users can be based on valid informal observations. Discussion of the situation may lead to just such a study. Suppressing discussion because it is subjective may discourage research into the situation. I cannot point to a study to prove it, but I believe that if you visited a genealogical conference and asked expert genealogists a majority (a consensus) would agree that generally new genealogists seem to pay too little attention for their own good to the Family History Research Wiki. It is a genuine problem even if it a subjective observation because it has not yet been formally studied. Neutral point of view is also an element of good encyclopedia articles. These two deleted sentences were most of the negative criticism in the article. Loss of a brief discussion of a problem associated with this wiki leaves the article even more one-sidedly laudatory than before. I believe in this case it is better to err on the side of allowing some subjective commentary if doing so creates a little more balance in the point of view. Please restore the two deleted sentences in order to render a little more balanced and thus neutral point of view to the article. Diltsgd (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Think of it this way: What metric is used to specify the amount of use a given resource "should" get, allowing us to state that an amount of use beneath that amount is "underuse"? I don't see that the word "underuse" has any practical meaning here, and therefore isn't informative.
 * The problem may simply lie in the word and its focus. Above, you discuss specifics: researchers are often found not to be aware of this resource, or aren't making use of it. (Of course, in that case, it may be because they aren't finding it useful. The article can't take the position that the Family History Research Wiki would be useful to these people who aren't using it.) If the article stated things in those direct terms, rather than indirectly by drawing conclusions about "underuse", it may help. It's especially important that conclusions not be drawn here from data and other information found elsewhere: this is synthesis, which, as a subset of the greater topic of original research, isn't allowed here.
 * Even then, I believe there could be a problem insofar as making such comments at all gives the appearance of advocating that researchers should be making greater use of this resource, and that it's a problem that they don't. I think it would be tricky to write this so that the article doesn't given the impression that Wikipedia is promoting the site and making judgements on its value. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

First line sounds like an advert
Articles should start with the definition, and then the details/use case, not the other way around. Jurryaany (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

These bullet lists felt like padding
New to Wikipedia, so hopefully I'm not overstepping!

I'm talking about the lists describing "Other types of pages" and the listing out of available languages. I've removed them in this edit. I briefly tried to pare them down to a tighter form, but I think this page is stronger with them removed entirely.

Open to discussion. I know it's a big edit. Midtopia (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)