WHY YOU MIGHT WANT A FACEBOOK GROUP FOR YOUR ONE-NAME
PROJECT: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE RUBY PROJECT
This post comes from team member Peggy Chapman, who usually posts the work of others on the blog but has taken on the role of writer this time.
For many one-namers or
genealogists in general, their work is a solitary activity and while they may
receive input from others, it is simply another information source rather than
a project member. However, larger
studies often have group collaboration.
Surnames that cross different cultures may mean participation of
those more familiar with different countries are integral to the study success.
This describes the Ruby project, an
initiative of the Guild of One-Name Studies to celebrate its 40th
anniversary. If you are not familiar
with the project, go back in the blog archive to the first post.
It was always intended that a
closed Facebook group would be a communication tool for the project, in
addition to a dedicated email address and files on Google drive. But it is the
Facebook group where conversation can take place in a more dynamic way than
other resources. February 2018 was the startup date so it is about one year
since the group began and reviewing posts from the beginning to the present leads to some observations.
It is not a surprise to anyone
who has worked in collaborative genealogy projects that the subject of sources and
citation emerged as the #1 topic of discussion!
Many opinions were expressed, all with merit, while the project leader
tried to come to an agreement that took into account factors such as
consistency and ease of transition to databases and websites. Not an easy task with divergent opinions and
record differences from one country to another. Discussion the most intense at
the beginning, but emerged from time to time and proved to be the most
frequently raised topic.
Other common posts, in order of frequency[1]:
o
Sharing information: these were primarily from
the project leader, or from someone working on a specific task, and were of
course, informative and keeping people in the loop.
o
Process:
These were mostly technical in nature and were about working with
different genealogical software, geo-coding, specific ways to represent Census
data, etc.
o
Seeking advice:
One of the best uses of a Facebook group and perhaps underutilized by
this group; running into a genealogy challenge and seeking suggestions
o
Progress updates: separated from general Info
sharing as these specifically provided data on how many people in the database,
progress of the website, etc.
o
Feedback: Usually providing response to a
proposed process item or an experience that did not “fit” the rule. This also includes the crucial function of clarification
for individual(s), and one team member to another over specific families
overlapping.
o
Software and country differences: Grouped together as the theme is basically my
software/country records do not work the same as yours.
What are considerations for a Facebook group for your
project?
o
Make sure it is a closed group
o
Create an atmosphere of free conversation and
try to draw out those less vocal – as with any group, there are always those who
remain in the background
o
Regardless of degree of participation, everyone
who is a member will be able to follow the trail
o
Keep in mind that not all your members will be
Facebook fans and this adds an additional role for someone to ensure these
people get the information by other means
o
There will be natural ups and downs in
participation and this is okay
o
Make it clear at the beginning that the Facebook
group is the main tool for communication, decision-making, updates, so people
are clear of its parameters
o
Use approaches that are targeted: for example,
the project leader at one time identified 5-6 proposals that needed to be
decided – this of course provoked attention and discussion
o
When decisions discussed, ensure a concrete post
advises of the final decision.
It being award season in film and music, I could not help
but identify a few award-winning posts.
First, in best historical overview of a Ruby cluster: Marie, who on 22 February 2018 described the
multiple origins of the Wisconsin Rubies: Canada, Württemberg, Prussia,
Germany, Switzerland, and another US.
Paul, for best musing late at night, on 10 July 2018 waxed
philosophically on quantitative and qualitative aspects of the goals of the
Ruby project.
Fiona, for best sharing of information found about a Ruby being researched: on 15 April 2018 she shared a document on a Ruby Breach of Promise case.
Margaret, for best comment on a post: In response to Fiona’s
post above, drew on Gilbert and Sullivan with “She may very well pass for forty-three
in the dusk, with light behind her”.
[1]
An explanation of the less
than scientific review – I eventually was able to reach to the very first post
but as I tried to follow the posts, the order kept changing and jumping about.
I tried two or three workarounds and searched Google for tips, but nothing
worked out but I was able to get a reasonable, while not comprehensive,
estimate.
Comments
Post a Comment