dee_burris: (Default)
Dee Burris Blakley ([personal profile] dee_burris) wrote2012-11-19 07:55 pm
Entry tags:

So wrong on so many levels...

This has got to be one of the most elitest things I've seen written about amateur family historians in a long time.

I'm not big on government oversight or regulation of everything in our lives, but sometimes I wonder if we should require folks to have a research license (sort of like a driver's license) before they can publish their "work," in print or on the Internet. At the core of this licensing program would be an understanding of some really important terms, including sources, information, evidence, and proof.

Pardon my French, but I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I have to have a license to publish my GEDCOM, or blog about my own family history.

I made my comment and shared it to my Facebook wall.

Credit Family Tree Magazine for calling the snotty diatribe article to my attention.
ext_794499: (Default)

Interesting . . .

[identity profile] 2012-11-23 01:27 am (UTC)(link)
Dee, I read that post a couple of weeks ago also and immediately thought back to when I first made the decision to jump-start my family research by sharing my research via blog in 2011, I encountered quite a few certified genealogists going on and on in heated discussions online about what makes someone a "professional" genealogist versus just a "genealogist" who researches for the mere pleasure of it. I have to tell you that I rolled my eyes at all of them then, just as I rolled my eyes at Ms. Moody, the author of that post too!