I’m going to write this week’s blog on one of the my favorite subjects; digitization of archival records. Recently the National Archives and Records Administration posted on their blog NARAtions about questions and concerns researchers have about their partnership with commercial entities to digitize records. (The May 13, 2010 blog entry.) The concerns range from quality of the images and indexing to why the NARA has partnered with commercial databases.
When these partnerships were first announced I remember genealogical message boards and blogs being filled with comments on how citizens’ rights to access government documents was being limited by having outside groups that charge for access digitizing national records. The best answer to these concerns is that access to national records is still unlimited, but users of Ancestry.com, Footnote.com, and other database services are paying for the convenience of accessing these records at home. This is nothing new. To order a Civil War pension record from the National Archives costs $75. But if you visit the archives in person you just have to pay the copying fees. Obviously it’s cheaper to go in person, but for many the $75 is more convenient. While researchers have a right to access these records there is nothing that states the government has to give them free access online. Unfortunately many researchers have come to expect just that. While the internet is a great tool to genealogy researchers it is just, “The tip of the iceberg.”
I have to agree that there is reasonable concern about the quality of the digitization and indexing. Particularly on Ancestry.com which has a history of using non-English speakers to index records. For this reason abbreviations for Indiana have been indexed as India. Sad but true. The NARA answers these concerns by stating their goals and methodology for providing users with the best quality images and indexes.
Ultimately these partnerships are for the better. Companies like Ancestry and groups like Family Search have the resources to digitize that the NARA does not. Both groups now use volunteers to index so not only can Americans have greater access to historic records but they can help expand this access. Many libraries have memberships to Ancestry.com so if you want convenience without the high cost visit your library!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not sure which bothers me more, non English speakers indexing or volunteers indexing. Having only been briefly exposed to indexing in Online Searching, and very quickly learning it is a difficult, tedious process; I would have to say that having volunteers indexing would be the greater of the two concerns. Since it isn't clear whether the volunteers have any experience indexing or they receive training, I would suspect the latter. Without accurate and meticulous indexing getting access to specific materials maybe difficult if not impossible. And to have people doing this without understanding the English language and the possible significance of these documents and materials is troublesome. Access is everything when sifting through the abundance of materials available online. While I appreciate the desire to make these materials available, it serves little purpose to index materials if the indexers are ill trained. The saying, anything worth doing is worth doing well, definitely applies.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be what resources does that library have that will serve the needs of the community. Since many people do desire to know about their genealogy, the library purchasing their services seems to be a good way to spend funds. This seems to be an issue for library management. The question that I would ask you is how do you see this impacting intellectual freedom.
ReplyDeleteKathy, I can agree with your fear of volunteers, but I have actually done some indexing for these sites as one so I know not all volunteers are poor indexers. At least I hope I'm not. ;) When I signed up to volunteer there was no test or real training. The software used does try to guide indexers and there is a process where a record is indexed twice and then a third party compares the two indexes to come to a final result. You can appeal an incorrect entry if you find one and I guarantee you will, but that system is imperfect too since many researchers want do not understand that an index should represent what was actually written and may not always be spelled correctly or have correct information.
ReplyDelete