It’s a
great feeling when you find an ancestor you didn’t know you had for the first
time. It’s an AHA moment, a moment of recognition. You might let out a little
sigh or scream or swear word. But when you have been doing genealogy for a
while it’s not as much of a thrill. You start thinking Okay I found another 4th
cousin twice removed from my great uncle’s third marriage, where do I stick
them in my family tree? If you can even be bothered. But what I find really
interesting and gets me really excited is when you find an ancestor that you
didn’t know you had, you Google their name and you find THEY HAVE THEIR OWN
WIKIPEDIA PAGE!
Yes
sir, there is nothing like a Wikipedia page about one of your ancestors. I
can’t say I have many. But when I find one you could peel me off the ceiling.
It’s an amazing feeling. All that information about an ancestor’s life, often
with a picture of them, and with references underneath. Genealogical Heaven!
I propose
that there should be a competition to see who has the most number of ancestors
that they can find in their family tree who have a Wikipedia page dedicated to
them. I think it could be called something like the WIKIPEDIA ANCESTOR
CHALLENGE. It could be a national or international event held every year. First
prize would be something like a life subscription to Ancestry.com or a copy of the
12 volume Encyclopedia of Ahnentafel (2014 edition), or a well written book
that someone has written about their family history (eg Eckhart Tolle’s book
‘The Power of Then’)
Eckhart Tolle's Family History Memoir
There
would have to be some very strict rules to the competition to make sure it’s
fair. I propose these seven rules to begin with.
Rule
One: You cannot count any ancestor who has a Wikipedia page that you created for
them. For obvious reasons.
Rule
Two: You cannot count any ancestor who created their own Wikipedia page (sorry
Dad)
Rule
Three: You cannot count any ancestor who has a Wikipedia page that another
family member has created for them. For a similar reason to Rule One.
Rule
Four: The Wikipedia page about your ancestor must solely be about him/her. (ie
you cannot count a Wikipedia page where they only get a mention.)
Rule
Five: You cannot count any ancestor more distant than a second cousin from your
direct line of descent. (Okay if you can’t find one we will accept your 5th
cousin twice removed of you Great Great Uncle by marriage but we will only make
that acception once. The judges won't be totally devoid of genealogical
compassion.)
Rule
Six: You must be able to verify your connections to each Wikipedia ancestor you
claim you have.
Rule Seven:
Queen Elizabeth II or any member of the Royal Family of Great Britain is
forbidden to enter this competition. They
would win it hands down every time.
Queen Elizabeth II
Now for
all of you who might be saying, but I don’t have any ancestors who have their
own Wikipedia page, I say to you, humbug. You’re just not trying hard enough. You
will have to spend some time at a genealogical boot camp. Have you looked
through page after page of the parish records of your ancestor’s village for
300 years to find the record that has been misread by Ancestry.com’s OCR
(Optical Character Recognition) program that you can’t find? You know that the
parish priest back then, who had a drinking problem and needed glasses,
couldn’t write his Os and Rs legibly especially when he was in the throes of
delirium tremens. Do you expect Ancestry.com’s computers to pick out your
ancestor’ name from that illegible mess? Come on, I have no sympathy, you’ll
just have to try harder.
I want you to be up at 5am doing genealogical push ups
out in your back yard. I want you to be cleaning your genealogical toilet with a
genealogical toothbrush. You’re in the Genealogical Army now and you’ll have to
start carrying your weight.
Genealogical Boot Camp
(Training Centre, Kapooka, NSW)
You
might say you have no Wikipedia ancestors just out of modesty. Total hogwash! Modesty
is not a virtue when it comes to the Wikipedia Ancestor Challenge. I think
people who say that should have their Wikipedia ancestor’s names tattooed on their
foreheads for all to see or banners with their Wikipedia ancestor’s names on
them displayed from their houses.
These
days the word Pedigree has fallen out of fashion. It has connotations of
elitism, racism, snobbery, exclusion etc. It’s all bad. I think though it
should be replaced with a new exciting word. Wikigree. It’s not who you
inherited your genetic makeup from that is important it’s how interesting your
ancestors are! How many of them are worthy of having their own Wikipedia page. Can
you drop a few into a casual dinner conversation and see who can be the most
interesting.
The
word Wikigree could have a number attached to it depending on how many ancestors
in your family tree have a Wikipedia page. This would be your Wikigree number.
You could be a Wikigree 3 or a Wikigree 7 etc. This could be quite useful for
many things, for example, when visiting genealogical dinner parties and events.
The Genealogical Dinner Party
(by Peder Severin Kroyer 1851-1909)
Obviously
you don’t want to go to a party with other people who have a Wikigree number
different than your own. If you had a high Wikigree number you went to a party
for people with low Wikigree numbers you might find the conversation a little
dull. You would be bored. Similarly if you had a low Wikigree number and you
went to a party for high Wikigree number people you might find that you run out
of things to say and felt a little out of place.
It
would be interesting to see who we’d get if our national leaders were
chosen by the person with the highest
Wikigree number. For Great Britain it would be one of Queen Elizabeth II (or
one of her grandchildren), So not much change there. For the USA it would be
easy too. It would be a Kennedy and with the occasional Schwarzenegger thrown in as
well. Australia would be a tricky one. Would it be Malcolm Turnbull, Paul
Hogan, Dick Smith or Ray Martin? It’s very hard to say until people have worked
out what their Wikigree number is.
So this
is what I urge you to do. Go out there and work on your family trees. Right
now! No excuses! You shouldn’t be wasting your time reading other people’s
silly frivolous genealogy blogs. You should be researching and writing one yourself.
DO IT
NOW!
G'day, I enjoyed this post which I have included in GeniAus' Gems this week at http://geniaus.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/gags-geniaus-gems-24-october-2014.html
ReplyDeleteVery funny post with wise words behind it. I very much doubt I have any/many wikigree numbers but I shall look!
ReplyDeleteThanks Pauline, I bet your wikigree number is higher than you think. Keep looking!
ReplyDeleteNice post! When I first started researching my tree 12 months ago I was very excited when I thought I'd found an ancestor in Wikipedia. It turned out I had the wrong Frank Wilson...
ReplyDeleteHaven't searched since then, but I've uncovered a lot of new ancestors so definitely worth going back and trying again! Maybe I'll find someone this time - I'll let you know!
Thanks Derek, I find It's always worth doing a straight Google search with your ancestors names and maybe their birth and death dates and a place name. You can find amazing things that way sometimes. It's such an obvious thing to do and not everyone thinks to do it. Cheers
ReplyDelete