Gazetter entries from British History Online
The parish history pages for Surrey throughout have copyright text gazetteer entries from British History Online. On this page I have removed the original copyright text and provided links to other British History Online reference for the parish history. The gazetteer used on this page does not constitute a parish history and the use of copyright material needs to be attributed to British History Online. The GENUKI page linked in the parish history illustrates that gazetteers are transcribed rather than quoted. Facsimile copies of the original 1858 text are on sale in the UK and have copyright protection. FamilySearch wiki moderators may not be aware of the extent of copyright material that has been introduced into the county of Surrey pages by contributors Penshurst 13:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that parish history sections should not include large extracts from specific gazetteers. Most English parishes have long and varied histories and these gazetteer snapshots do not do them justice. Plus it is an established guideline of the wiki that contributor should Link, don't copy. Would you like to help put together some specific guidelines for contributors adding information about parish histories? There is a English parishes WikiProject, which would benefit from your input. --Steve 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Historical Records for Surrey???
- The question raised does not concern a Historical Records collection for the county indeed there is no evidence in wiki of any intention for FamilySearch to publish any collection in future. There are in fact reasons which may preclude publication in future.
- Surely the question of use of text from a copyrighted source is one for wiki moderators to respond to? I am concerned to find the introduction of copyright material throughout Surrey parish histories both due to the copyright issue and also because a lengthy description of a place contains much which is irrelevent to the parish history and may contain errrata and was published at a time when Diocesan building and development was accelarating and may be quite unhelpful. Many Anglican parishes were revised with different dedications as the buildings were rebuilt and an 1848 gazetteer (although quaint) is not without problems in the description of a parish and it's churches particularly on the South Bank of the Thames where it is important to identify the civil parish as well as mission churches and district churches (rare in 1848). It would be helpful if two actions could result:
- 1) response about copyright text as a consistent moderator response. To some it appears that FamilySearch staff are permitted to add copyright text extensively whilst other contributors have had material deleted and as a result local English former contributors have left the project. There needs to be a level playing field for both American Genealogists and English Genealogists and the small clique mentality which is Salt Lake City centric should not be expressed in public forum posts which promotes alienation of English contributors and those of us who are not affiliated to the LDS church.
- 2) a clear indication of what the parish history should include is offered to contributors somewhere within the England page as guidance when confronted with a template under a parish history heading or a slab of copyright gazetteer text.
- I would add that the introduction of American English spellings to England pages is not well received by either English contributors or readers and would hope that English spelling would be adopted for England (and other UK/Irish pages) again guidance would be helpful.
Crescunt 09:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- These issues will be presented to the wiki community meeting. Klk3 23:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be a consistent response to all contributors, whether they be FamilySearch staff/volunteers or anybody else from the wider community. I think the wiki has a Family History Library bias because the wiki was seeded with information that had been previously published as FHL Research Guides. I do think over time, and with more international contributors, that this bias will lessen. On the question of spellings, the Manual of Style has a section on Spelling which states that Variations of English are acceptable... Each article should use only one variation of English. When editing, use the variation of English already established in the article. I agree with your sentiment about spellings and would like to see an amendment to the MOS that would, for example, allow articles about places in and topics about England to be written using British spellings even if the original article did not. --Steve 17:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I support the idea of amending the manual of style to allow British spellings to be added in articles related to England and other applicable countries. As the moderator for Wales I would be willing to lead an effort to make changes to those articles once the manual of style change is approved. Should we start a thread in the forums to discuss the topic or do we have enough information to take it to the wiki contributor meeting? It may be helpful for me to discuss the topic with a few people before bringing it up in the Tuesday meeting. I'm aware of some of the spelling differences but would benefit from a list that I should look for. Any thoughts or suggestions? Darris G. Williams 02:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)