[Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki, wishes to become a wiki project

• Previous message: [Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki, wishes to become a wiki project
• Next message: [Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki, wishes to become a wiki project
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>This strikes me as somewhat irresponsible.  Some GEDCOM files are huge.  
>Are you suggesting that we just accept them as valid without any 
>standards for verifiability?  We also need to address the privacy 
>issues.  The copyright question may turn out to be a less critical problem.
>
>Ec
>  
>
The best privacy policy I've seen regarding geneological information is 
to not list anybody who is currently alive, or in other words does not 
have a listed death date and is less than 110 years old, under the 
assumption that people over 110 years of age are so unusual that they 
deserve special mention anyway, or can be generally assumed to be dead. 
 I think it might be safer for 120 years instead, but that is a fine 
point to quibble here.

Some exceptions might happen for very famous people, but that is 
certainly something to express concern over.  It is also something that 
can be automated directly in the software if a policy is set up, where 
the information can be added but not displayed if it fails the living 
person criteria.

A good point to raise, however.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning

• Previous message: [Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki, wishes to become a wiki project
• Next message: [Foundation-l] Rodovid.org, family tree wiki, wishes to become a wiki project
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]