Yesterday Renee Zamora posted a bit about Geoff Rasmussen's presentation of a Sneak Peek of Legacy 7 at the BYU Family History & Genealogy Conference.
I use Legacy and have since Version 2, oh, a few years ago. Started out with a DOS version of PAF, moved to Family Tree Maker, then to Generations, tried out a few others too, but finally found what I wanted with Legacy.
She has more details on her post, but to summarize, the new and or enhanced features she mentions are:- Will be able to show non-blood related relationships.
- Enhanced IGI Search feature [bw - I'll admit I've never used this feature since until a year ago I was on dial-up access and just haven't taken the time since then to use it.]
- SOURCE TEMPLATES. Legacy has built their new source templates around Elizabeth Shown Mills' "Evidence" guidelines.
- Will have the ability to CREATE FOOTNOTES.
- With Legacy Multimedia you will be able to attach Documents as RTF or PDF format. [previously you could attach them but had to use a work-a-round. Actually you don't really attach files to the database, a link to the file is created.]
- Interview Questions. You can now get a list of tons of interview questions to ask your relatives. You can even select what relative you are interviewing and the questions will be geared toward them.
- Better CHARTS. Legacy 7 will have the combined features of PAF Companion and TreeDraw built right into it.
Renee noted that "Geoff kept saying to us was that he didn't even get to the good stuff yet. He couldn't cover everything in the hour that we had. I was kind of hoping conference attendees would get to buy and take home the new version, but no such luck. Legacy is planning on Version 7 to be ready for release in October."Something else to look forward to! Yee-hah! Actually, I was hoping they would have it ready for the FGS Conference next month. Hopefully they will be exhibiting there and will at least have Version 7 on display.
For the most part, the dilemmas that I've had in this quest are probably the same as most other researchers. You find something that isn't necessarily common knowledge or causes you to look twice at a specific record. Do you record it, or not? Do you leave out a worrisome bit of information if publishing? What are the ramifications either way? Does it depend upon the "severity" of the issue? Will someone be harmed in some way if the information becomes public knowledge? What if the information is already public knowledge but for some reason you are asked not to publish it? How does that impact on your integrity?
The truth of the matter is that there are no easy answers to those questions and all we can do is use our best judgment when it comes to these issues. Sometimes our decisions will end up not being the "right" one, but if we give the issues due deliberation and look at all the available information, we can say that we did what we thought was best at the time.
Okay, I'll admit it. When working on one of the family history books I've published, in one instance, I purposely left out some information and in the process slightly altered a marriage date. The date used was the date I was given by the person, not the date in the marriage record. I felt then, and still feel, that doing so did no harm. Publishing the correct date would have caused undue embarrassment since it was public information but not commonly known.
The genealogy software that I use has several places where information can be recorded, in notes or events. I use the events feature for information that I'll willingly share with people. The notes section is being used for recording personal research notes and information that will not be shared. When reports are printed out or on the rare occasions when gedcom files are created the type of information to be included can be specified. I have never shared my complete file with anyone and doubt that I ever will.
What do you do if you find information that is posted online that is wrong? How can it be corrected?
When I was working on my Bray and Wiseman lines from Switzerland County, Indiana in 1999 I came across a website with information on one of the siblings of my ancestor, which I thought was great. That is, until I started comparing his information to what I had found. He listed his ancestor, lets call him Abraham, as marrying one of the Bray girls. Marriage records showed that Abraham had married a lady with the same first name as Miss Bray, but it wasn't Miss Bray. Other researchers corroborated my information with their family records. I contacted the fellow with the website providing him with citations to the records, etc. but he refused to change his website. At one time he had his information posted on WorldConnect and I left a "post-em" note correcting his misinformation. A short time later he removed his database from WorldConnect... but his website is still online, still with the wrong information.
One of the issues that I struggle with is the use of research done by other people, especially work that is still protected by copyright. If you are publishing, whether in book form or on the internet, how much can you quote from another published source without infringing upon their copyright? How do you determine what is fair use? I've got a lot of New England ancestors and have found a tremendous amount of information on some of those lines already published. In some cases, full lineages, complete with detailed biographical sketches. Interesting stuff, but how much can be used? Does it matter if I'm publishing a book of my own or whether I'm just printing out a report to share the information with someone? What's the difference in making copies of the pages and sending those to someone or transcribing it into my database and printing out a report with all the other information I have on the person?
There are no easy answers. Oh, I already said that didn't I. . .
