Internet Genealogy Is Still Not Scholarly

From the most recent issue of The American Genealogist which just arrived at my door yesterday, p. 157.  Speaking of the Fellows of the American Society of Genealogists:

"The only qualifications for a Fellow are the quality and quantity of his or her published genealogical work, usually compiled genealogy, not abstracts or methodology.  At the meeting this  year, it was proposed that "publications" include those online.  The Society had decided quite a few years ago that digital/online publications did not qualify as permanent contributions to the field.  At this year's meeting, much was said on both sides of the question: Online publication is becoming increasingly common and increasingly excellent, but it remains fluid and its permanence is uncertain."

I do find this sad, but certainly something I agree with.  I've tried to get people to up their games on the Internet and have only been met with indifference to hostility.  For the time being the real work remains in print.

Comments

[Madaleine J Laird]

I really miss your blog, but after reading this post I can see why someone with scholarly inclinations would cut back on digital publication. I do hope you'll pop in now and again to keep us informed about your print publication efforts.

[Erin Taylor]

Thanks for taking me to task last autumn as I began my research on Alice Martin Bishop (Plymouth 1616-1648). You urged I get off the interent and read the primary docs myself. Now you are partly to blame for my obsession -- alicemartinbishop.com. Seriously -- thanks for suggesting higher standards.

[John M Switlik]

They say that the genealogist has lead feet; too, he/she uses rear-view mirrors.

This? So retrogressive as to be comical.

I hope that you continue some of this more forward-looking effort. I have found your blog to be of much use.

http://thomasgardnerofsalem.blogspot.com/2011/06/on-blogs.html