Delusions about crowd-sourced data

By way of comment on the broad meandering responses (most of which make perfectly good points) to a project entitled “Geni as an Illusion,” I would suggest that this is due to a fuzzy understanding on the part of the Project of both Geni and the appropriate use of phenomenological terminology.

1. Geni is not an illusion. The crowd sourced tree on the internet is a fact. It exists.

2. The illusion being referenced is the illusion of accuracy. As there are many Discussions and Projects about how we distinguish fact from fiction on Geni already, the point that Geni users are deluded by the illusion of accuracy is not a given at all.
(The illusions of the genealogy community as a whole to the possibility of accuracy could bare more scrutinising in this regard.)

3. The delusions of this project about the manner in which crowd sourcing data actually works would be a Discussion that we haven’t had on Geni yet, and one that might help many people understand more lucidly the expectations we actually have about the data being recorded in the process of crowd sourcing.

On the project's assertion that Chris Hodges spells out how our civilization has become less real and more illusion in his best selling book "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle" (New York: Nation Books, July 2009)..
- the point being made is difficult to understand, given that Hodges is a Presbyterian minister, and so would presumably believe that the profile for Jesus on Geni should be represented as the son of a profile for God.

Perhaps the more interesting question to be asked is the degree to which Geni is a SIMULATION (representation of an underlying reality), or a SIMULACRUM (a representation of an underlying irreality, that becomes a truth in the process of presentation).
This is the question to be asked about History and Genealogy too.

It is less about spectacle, and more about the performance of history and memory in the narratives we record in the present.

Is it possible for Sharon Lee Doubell to Write some of her written thoughts to the text in the Project ? May be also change the text too ?

Arnfred Nilsen

I see analysis of the impact of crowd-sourced data as a valid pursuit and one that is best served by a separate Discussion. Delusion comes to those who accept the illusion of accuracy of data from crowd sources. In this regard I believe it is helpful that Sharon Lee clarifies that the illusion referenced in the project "Geni as Illusion?" is the illusion of accuracy.

I also believe that a Discussion about the manner in which crowd sourcing data actually works is one that might help many people understand more lucidly the expectations we actually have about the data being recorded in the process of crowd sourcing.

Would it be more relevant to think of this discussion topic as "Delusions about accepting crowd-sourced data"

I understand Chris Hedges in Empire to Illusion to be saying we have become a culture of bread-and-circuses for the masses. He argues there is an increasingly small number of people who are literate in the old-fashioned sense of understanding and caring about reality, and simultaneously a growing majority of people who care only about the entertainment value of information.

I don't discount Hedges' points. I've had the opportunity to talk to many book publishers who've made the same or similar observations about the changing taste of the American public over the last generation.

Other friends in the TV and movie industries have said nearly the same thing. You can tell a lot about the interior life of the American by looking at the themes behind the entertainment they choose. In the 1960s the American public had an insatiable appetite for Westerns (good guys versus bad guys) but now it's "all vampires, witches, and reality shows", where reality is ultimately malleable. I would add it's also forensic shows, where no matter how strange it is the experts are able to figure out what happened.

When I've had these discussions with friends I often throw in genealogy (not just Geni) as an example of the entertainment value of information. Some of our biggest brawls on Geni have been with modern Grail kings and Dragon knights. They've read books like The DaVinci Code or The Dragon Legacy, then they come to Geni looking for and expecting to get validation that they truly do belong to the Secret Holy Bloodline as they've always expected.

At a more pedestrian level, as genealogists we encounter more than the usual number of Secret Royal Heirs. Out of proportion to the general population, at least. Then too, one of the biggest sources of friction on Geni is the ongoing debates about disconnecting fantasy lines that take well-documented lines back to Roman emperors and beyond. (Not to mention the friction from deeply religious users who are perennially outraged when Geni doesn't conform to the teachings of their faith).

There might be some observational bias here. I get caught up in some of the academic debates, so I might be seeing more of this sort of thing than really exists. Even so, my sense is that for many users Geni is not a research platform, but an entertainment medium.

When we talk about the "illusion of accuracy" for crowd-sourced data we should perhaps separate that idea into three different strands. One is the idea that crowd-sourced data is more accurate as opposed to the more accurate idea that crowd-sourced data trends to greater accuracy.

Two, the related idea that Geni's data actually has actually been crowd-sourced to any meaningful extent. That might be true of a relatively few high-traffic lines, butnda in most of the lines on Geni for them to have benefited from any dialog.

And three, the problem that many users do not actually understand how Geni works or that the information is "crowd-sourced" only in a certain narrow way. For example, I saw a message a few days ago where a user was ranting about how sloppy it is that 70 profile managers have all accepted a date that is clearly incorrect. It's obvious she didn't know that
69 of those managers had probably never seen the date.

I might also add a fourth idea intertwined with these three. My personal impression from the many messages I get is that many users don't know anything about Geni. To them, it's simply a reference database like any of the dozens of others they look at.

=Would it be more relevant to think of this discussion topic as "Delusions about accepting crowd-sourced data"=
'Delusions about illusions about crowd-sourced data', would be more accurate :-)

=You can tell a lot about the interior life of the American by looking at the themes behind the entertainment they choose.=
As a South African, I can't speak for the taste of the American public, except to say that the spectacle of Donald Trump's road show is better than any zombie vampire movie to those of us in the rest of the world. The status of his hair piece as simulation or simulacrum is definitely worthy of it's own Discussion :-)

=He argues there is an increasingly small number of people who are literate in the old-fashioned sense of understanding and caring about reality, and simultaneously a growing majority of people who care only about the entertainment value of information.=
Even were I to answer 'Yes' to this; the question is still "And so...?'

This is a statement from a minister of a religion that is based on a spectacle on a hill that looms so large across history as to have become iconic! If this is a literacy of reality in the old-fashioned sense, it is no less an illusion than the understanding of information as entertainment, and arguably far more.

= My personal impression from the many messages I get is that many users don't know anything about Geni. To them, it's simply a reference database like any of the dozens of others they look at.=
Yes, and that is my impression of the motivations behind this project: the illusion that Geni is attempting and failing to offer a reference service: and they'd be able to succeed if only people could be taught the difference between illusion and good old fashioned accuracy.
The Truth is out there, if only the masses could be trained to recognize it as we, the educated, do.

Sharon you say, 'Delusions about illusions about crowd-sourced data', would be more accurate :-)

Ah, yes, the essence of the matter!

lol :-)

It could be because I more often work much lower down the tree (circa 1600-1700). But I find Geni members quite concerned about accuracy, and will go to great lengths to correct illusions & delusions, and willingly participate in research projects.

I do think "not knowing how it works" is much more truthful. And some of it is a natural reticence to "interfere" in "someone else's" work.

> Even were I to answer 'Yes' to this; the question is still "And so...?'

I think we must be reading this differently. Do you ever listen to Chris Hedges' lectures on YouTube? He might be a minister with a theological underpinning but his is a good, old-fashioned American "social gospel". Salvation by saving the world. He is concerned that corporations, government, and media are giving the masses bread-and-circuses to distract from the "real problems".

This is where our reading is different. You (Sharon), ask "so what?" I think, "Oooo, fun question." Is it possible that Geni (at least in one of its incarnations) is nothing more than a fantasy-style entertainment?

I've said above why I think Geni might be a way of validating an active fantasy life for some users, but I'm not keen on globalization. It could easily be true that Geni has different appeals for different audiences. Even if Geni predominantly appeals to one group, it could equally serve another group.

So, I see the point of asking even though I don't think a discussion can get very far within that particular framework.

If I were posing a question about the nature of Geni, I think I would use the old trope that genealogists are divided into Hunters and Gatherers. The Hunters formulate the research strategies, do the research, and come to conclusions. The Gatherers copy the information.

Cute metaphors aside, this is basically a Producer / Consumer analysis. It might be revealing but it can't be applied rigorously because most genealogists do a bit of both. However, it does seem that Consumers far outnumber Producers. I get the impression more of Geni's users are here to gather data than are here to produce new data.

So, if the question is about "'Delusions about illusions about crowd-sourced data", there are clearly two angles. One is what the Producers think is going on, and the other is what the Consumers think is going on. Those two perspectives are going to be very different.

Erica, I wasn't so much suggesting that users are unconcerned about accuracy, as I was pointing out that Geni was selling the process of coming to a consensual 'accuracy', rather than a static finished product.
To criticize Geni as though it could ever be the latter, is to make claims about its illusions from a position of your own delusion.

Justin: =This is where our reading is different. You (Sharon), ask "so what?" I think, "Oooo, fun question." Is it possible that Geni (at least in one of its incarnations) is nothing more than a fantasy-style entertainment?=

Nope, I think my response is exactly the same as yours. When I say, "So what", I'm suggesting that Hodges intends it as a criticism when "He argues there is an increasingly small number of people who are literate in the old-fashioned sense of understanding and caring about reality, and simultaneously a growing majority of people who care only about the entertainment value of information."

=So there are clearly two angles. One is what the Producers think is going on, and the other is what the Consumers think is going on.=
I would go further and say that GEni cannot be 'consumed' without participating in its production. It is the delusion of the possibility of old-style passive consumption that creates the question of the Geni product as an illusion.

> I'm suggesting that Hodges intends it as a criticism when "He argues ...

I agree. Hedges does indeed intend it as a criticism. He's a reformer who wants to change that dynamic. But we (some of us anyway) share that criticism when Geni is used in ways that are not compatible with our own goals. If a user creates a fake line to Jesus, there is often instant hostility. It's not that Jesus couldn't theoretically have descendants but there is no proof, so the information threatens the integrity of the tree.

In short, we share Hedges' judgmental attitude about using information for entertainment.

> I would go further and say that GEni cannot be 'consumed' without participating in its production.

It certainly can be, and it is. People copy information, even download gedcoms, without producing anything, then take that info out to private databases either at home or elsewhere on the web. I often see narrative information I've written for a Geni profile copied pasted elsewhere, often without attribution.

Geni's users are a spectrum. At one extreme are the people who are just copying data. Then there are people who are just a bit more involved. They're the ones who send messages saying "This is wrong, please go do the research and fix it for me (so I can copy it)." At the other extreme are the people who spend most of their time on Geni researching and collating and fixing. I doubt there is anyone who spends all their time producing and never does any consuming. If there is, maybe it's Erica ;)

Re: "I doubt there is anyone who spends all their time producing and never does any consuming. If there is, maybe it's Erica ;) ..."

I think of myself as an ultimate consumer / copy + paster. What have I done that's original, not reliant on something or someone else?

So I take what others produce and try to make sure it's a presentable product. So others can copy / paste.

"all art is failed imitation."

No, I'm not agreeing with Hodges so far, sounds like just another C.O.G. on a Jeremiad.

(It's Hedges, not Hodges.) Maybe he's an acquired taste, although I wouldn't have thought so. He's one of the darlings of the folks who hang around volunteering at soup kitchens and other social outreach programs at churches and synagogues. Maybe not the right politics for this crowd ;)

Oh, a do gooder? I should probably look him up. I think I'm reacting to the judgmentalism. Reminds me of the very elitist Bell curve, great books, all that. Hip Hop kicked that butt!

Maybe we'd be better if we don't go there. You've just slammed my entire life outside Geni.

LOL! We need to funk you up. I'm sending you some George Clinton (who is still rocking).

Erica, I think you have the self-righteous Left and self-righteous Right hopelessly confused. We're the ones with soup kitchens and Project Literacy. They're the ones with "Get a job, ya deadbeat" and lists of Great Books that everyone has to have read. We already have George Clinton ;)

Over 50 years of the self righteous left in my life. :)

The self righteous right is far more entertaining. The Hair Piece on The Donald beats the Bernie Sanders nimbus is risability.

Erica, I read that as you saying you have over 50 yrs more of self righteousness left in you. :-)

Justin, in order to download a gedcom you have to have first added yourself into the tree, but I take your point.

I'm pointing out that it's exactly the people who expect to be able to passively copy info from Geni who are complaining that we are under the illusion it is perfectly accurate. I'm saying the phrasing of these complaints reveals that it is they who have deluded themselves about what GEni is, and is not.

Me too Sharon, I thought Erica was sharing a surprisingly specific premonition with us!

I don't know if your conflation of delusion with downloading is accurate (or did i mean illusion?) but what seems suggestive to me is the posting of random statements in discussions to the extent that "John Doe is my n-th great grandfather", it is especially disconcerting when they appear in the middle of a debate about accuracy of a particular profile or path the outcome of which would potentially alter the relationship path that they are referencing.

Although the banter is entertaining (I am writing on my tablet from the lineup in the soup kitchen) I would like to reinforce Sharon's statement that Geni cannot be consumed without participating in its production. So, as an archaeologist, I see Justin's introduction of the image of Hunters and Gatherers as helpful. We all are part P and part C and, since there is a tide in the affairs of men (and women) (Justin's spectrum?), we all are in flux about the degree of production and consumption in our own genealogical actions. If we apply a co-efficient to the mix today I may see myself as P90/C10 but yesterday I may have had a different focus and saw myself as P40/C60. The important issue is self awareness. Delusion comes if I am acting like P5/C95 but see myself as P95/C5. Our autonomic nervous system does not ensure self regulation.

I don't know how Hedges uses his 'reality vs spectacle' distinction to apply to the field of information (Is Real Information the opposite of Media? Is it Written vs Visual info? Is it Non-Fiction vs Fiction info?);
& what is the test of the moment when information becomes spectacle rather than reality? (Is it when you're enjoying it?) It sounds to me like puritanism wrapped up as .. a book-selling spectacle! But, as this is a man who names a book 'I Don't Believe in Atheists' he obviously lives in world where binaries are automatically profound conundrums - even when they're not.

So, how is Geni a Spectacle?
Simply because it is visible to the masses? It can't just be because people get off on linking themselves to kings - that would make old school Genealogy and History a spectacle too.

Or how is Geni not Reality?
Simply because there are ongoing negotiations about what constitutes accurate data? As Richard Rorty points out: “Truth is what your peers will let you get away with saying.” Again – this is the problem of History, not a specific illusion of Geni’s.

I would suggest that what is being objected to here is the ease of accessibility to the masses of a game that was previously only the playing field of historians: recording the past in the light of our own prejudices and desires (because there is no other way). This is a question about Truth, not Reality; and it isn't specific to Geni-generated illusions. (Although it does tell us something about the project creators' illusions about GEni).

History – written / memorized by the survivors - has always been a record of human projections onto events. Our brains are designed for pattern recognition, and we narrativise the gaps almost as a function of who we are. Hence father God, Odin etc. If your peers let you get away with recording it, it becomes Truth.
The Geni world tree is the creation of consensual reality writ large. If its size makes it a Spectacle – that doesn’t make it the binary opposite of the ‘reality’ created by small scale historians or genealogists.

This is a thought provoking discussion; i find myself nodding in agreement with each point made. Even when the next post contradicts. :)

I'm not seeing the Hedges "the world is getting worse," message as a gate closer, though. More as an "open the gates and let how to do good information flow on out, bathing is in its holy light.".

Apparently his book is semiotics based. So if we're going to sign & signifiers, that may run counter to part of the anonymity of Geni.