Web History Scavenger Hunt

I found 6 of the required 9 in 30 minutes.  With a little extra time I found the 1998 home page for CHNM.  I was not able to find an online debate on Cuban Crisis, but I did find a lot of primary source information on the topic.  I was not able to find Janet Murray in a picture with the Sims.  Here are the websites that I found:

1. Recording of Leon Trotsky speaking English.

2. 1915 Suffrage Poem with the line: “When all the Women wanted it”

3. A letter from George Washington to Timothy Pickering complaining about “Certain Forged Letters”

4. 18th century Willie Lynch speech in VA. See also: Wikipedia

5. Did not find the online debate on the 1962 Cuban Crisis.  Here is a primary source UN debate

6. Complete version of “Annual Review of Information Technology Developments for Economic and Social Historians, 1993.”  also in JStor

7. Four Syllabi including Hamlet on the Holodeck 1, 2, 3, 4

8. 1998 home page for CHNM

9. Could not find Janet Murray with the Sims

It’s Not Bad, It’s Different

I am one of the many that believes that the migration towards over-dependence on computers is terrible for society.  I further believe that the idea that humans are uploading their brains to the internet so that we are not burdened with unnecessary trivial knowledge is absurd.  However so much I believe that living a wholly digital existence is unpalatable for me, there are many advantages to the evolving digital scholarship.

In her blog post “Doing Digital Scholarship” Lisa Spiro examines several questions discussing digital scholarship.  A few of these questions look into what digital scholarship is, what it takes to produce digital scholarship, and the types of resources and tools included.  This article also discusses the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS)  Commission on Cyberinfrastructure’s report discussing five manifestations of digital scholarship including collection building, the tools necessary to collect analyze and produce intellectual products, as well as authoring tools.

As more and more digital resources become available, the necessity for a sound, encompassing, and open Cyberinfrastructure is increasingly necessary.   Many historians may scoff at this idea, but the truth is that most sources in the US today are “born digital.”  Although historians may have to utilize many different types of resources when constructing a display (digital or otherwise) or writing, we must realize that digital scholarship is not bad, it’s different.

Of course, with the new many new types of materials available (e.g. videos, websites, and emails), there is also a need for collecting and organizing this new data at an ever-increasing rate. Dan Cohen’s piece From Babel to Knowledge describes this necessity, laying out initial lessons in the realm of digital collections.  Basically Cohen is advocating for creating means of digital collection, relying on keeping many of these collections free and open, as well as collecting as much as possible, focusing on quantity over quality.

Of all the readings from this week, Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail, was the most interesting.  This was probably due to the fact that this author had a much different approach to discussing digital media.  It was interesting to read about the freedom that the internet provides for finding a niche market.  Although the article discussed mostly entertainment media, the principles are obviously applicable to digital scholarship.

Anderson remarkably points out that aside from freedom of space restrictions overhead is greatly reduced.  So we can take scholarship that we are already doing in public history, make it more dynamic with integration of different and exciting types of data, occupy space for a fraction of the cost, tailor our product to a niche market, and reach more people.  Digital scholarship is not bad; it is just different from what people are used to. Just because historians engage in digital scholarship, does that mean that the essential core of history is changed?  I believe not.

Past’s Digital Presence

Hat’s off to the folks at Yale for putting on a very nice conference this past weekend.  I thought that the presentations that I saw were very thoughtful, interesting, and current.  As a new Public History grad student, I was excited to receive reenforcement of several of the concepts discovered thus far in my studies.  I heard familiar names such as Rosenzweig and listened to dissertations about the evolution of media, importance of digital archives, and controversies in the field such as Enola Gay.  My one criticism of the event is that it was extremely warm on the second floor.  A combination of a packed room and closed windows almost made it unbearable. 

Of course, this could also have been due to the four slices of pizza that I had at lunch before the third session.  The pizza, however, was amazing at Wall Street Pizza; located just about a block away from were the conference was held.  This is traditional Naples style pizza: thin crust.  Not that Greek pizza with all the extra dough.  I had 3 broccoli and tomato slices and a cheese.  Coupled with a Harpoon IPA, man that was good eaten’.

Overall, it was a nice Saturday.  Who would have thought?

Blogging in General

In an effort to make my blogging more bearable to the sparsely populated following that I may or may not have, I will attempt to make future posts less long-winded.

The reason for this two-fold. First because I realize that people reading on the internet are typically in need for a quick fix of information. Our worlds are speeding up day by day. The constraints of deadlines and the ever-ticking clock forces people to spend less time reading on and on about a topic and also should prompt writers (in this case bloggers) to write in a more concise fashion.

The second reason is that the requirements of my Hist 511 blogging assignment states that “posts need not be long essays but rather one or two paragraphs (300-400 words).”

My past posts have definitely exceeded this criteria. Please forgive me for the narcisism.

Embracing the Wiki

Increasingly people utilize sites such as Wikipedia.  If experts don’t take this medium seriously, countless hours will have to be spent to confront a misinformed public.

Most people in America today use sites such as Wikipedia as their first and only source.  And why not?  It’s quick, efficient, accessible, free, and typically accurate.  Of course, there are some people, I was one of them, who believe that Wikipedia is not a good source because of the possibility of any person to create content or edit published material on the site.  Although these concerns are legitimate, I believe that the benefits of wiki software greatly out weigh the detriments.

The controversy surrounding Wikipedia is its openness.  As Cohen discusses, Wikipedia creates the “Wild Wild West” of publishing.  This medium also offers an innovative way to collect, organize, and distribute knowledge.  Cohen is right that Wiki is the wild west of information, but similar to the American West, there is opportunity.  The opportunity in this case is to spread responsible information to educate the public.

Larry Sanger is known to bash Wikipedia for its dabblerism.  He says that dabblerism leads to amateurish results.  He is probably right.  There certainly is a need for experts to engage sites such as Wikipedia or Sangers newer creation Citizendium to ensure that the good information is available on a consistent basis.  It is important to pay attention to Wikipedia because our students—and most other people—do.

Why is this important to experts?  The answer is simple.  A misinformed public can lead to disastrous events.  How many people still actually believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11?  I know from working with students in grades 7-12 that many young people do. And, I would bet that many of their parents think the same thing.  Is this their fault?  Yes and no.  Is it Wikipedia’s fault?  Probably not.  Whose responsibility is it to correct this problem and others stemming from misinformation?  Experts and educators.

There is, however, a bright side.  The issues that people have with open source sites like Wikipedia are addressable.  Experts and educators are able to contribute to informational sites like Wikipedia, Thomas Jefferson Wiki, and the AHA’s  Archive Wiki. Of course, this does not mean that the everyday person cannot and should not contribute.  They definitely should.  People add perspective.  The beauty of Wiki software is that all people are able to participate in the evolving nature of social consciousness.

Another way for historians to combat the prevalence of misinformation is to teach our students how to determine the credibility of a source.  This includes checking multiple primary and secondary sources for relevant information.  Too often people go to one place to get all of their information and are not able to determine between good and bad information.

Unfortunately, without a little guidance the public may become misconstrued by the megaphone effect of bad information.  An example of bad information is the presentist perspective that is prevalent on Wikipedia.  People without proper training in interpreting the past tend to hold past events up to present standards and judge them accordingly.

Fortunately, the technology is new and is always open for improvement.  Sites such as Citizendium, Thomas Jefferson Wiki, and Wikimapia attempt to use the wiki format to provide better information to the public.  Historians need to actively engage these sites ensuring that the common information is the correct information.  Or, do they fear the Wiki?

What’s In It For Them? A shorter version.

For those people that do not want to read the my last post in its entirty, here is the abridged version.

Probably the most important thing I learned this week is “WIIFT.” Well, actually, I learned “WIIFM” which is a business term meaning “What’s In It For Me.” But, despite what some people (probably many) would say about me, I am not self-centered, so I changed WIIFM to WIIFT, meaning “What’s In It For Them.” I came across this little gem while I was looking up blogging tips and I argue that this is a critical component to defining digital history. Digital History is an open, ever-changing medium for practicing history utilizing “new” technology to reach a specific client.

Utilizing this definition, historians could quickly focus their efforts and shape the quality and scope history on the web. Before we can do this, there are two facts that we have to accept. First, the internet is obviously here to stay. Second, digital history is a growing area of the internet. More and more people are turning to the web to get information and if historians don’t quickly engage this medium the public will be exposed to incorrect and/or biased content.

Digital History is able to reach such a large audience because anyone can publish here, it is an accessible medium, new technology makes history accessible and exciting, and it is fairly easy to reach a specific clientele. The most important aspect of this outlook is the clientele. If the task of history is to make an impact on society, then the means is digital history. The web is the fastest growing medium for people to acquire information. Now is the time to make an impact. Other disciplines have already embraced new technology. When will historians actually realize what’s in it for them?

What’s In It For Them? Defining Digital History

Probably the most important thing I learned this week is “WIIFT.”  Well, actually, I learned “WIIFM” which is a business term meaning “What’s In It For Me.”  But, despite what some people (probably many) would say about me, I am not self-centered, so I changed WIIFM to WIIFT, meaning “What’s In It For Them.”  I came across this little gem while I was looking up blogging tips and I argue that this is a critical component to defining digital history. Digital History is an open, ever-changing medium for practicing history utilizing “new” technology to reach a specific client. 

Utilizing this definition, historians could quickly focus their efforts and shape the quality and scope history on the web. Before we can do this, there are two facts that we have to accept. First, the internet is obviously here to stay.  Second, digital history is a growing area of the internet.  More and more people are turning to the web to get information and if historians don’t quickly engage this medium the public will be exposed to incorrect and/or biased content. 

There is a dangerous potential for people to be exposed to bad history because the internet is open to anyone who wants to publish.  People at an alarming rate are now able to openly contribute to constantly evolving conversation on the web; much of this being trash.  This idea is further explored by Marshall Poe in his work entitled “Fight Bad History with Good.”  In this article, Poe discusses how much of the history available on the web is typically bad history.  He does, however, discuss how historians could utilize digital history to ensure that the ever-changing internet is supplemented with good history.  Among several suggestions that Poe suggests in this article some of the quickest ways for historians to make an impact is to edit Wikipedia, utilize social networking sites, contribute to the History News Network, and post developing scholarship on the web via blogs or personal websites.  I guess the real question then becomes what’s in it for them?

Primarily, what is in it for historians is utilizing another medium for practicing history.  There is amazing potential for the history web to reach an enormous pool of people.  With a few clicks on the keyboard the average person has access to a wealth of knowledge.  The purpose of history is to get ideas out to the people and make citizens consider (or reconsider) the impact of your work.  Why not try to affect the most people possible?  This may sound like a basic idea, but still many professors don’t have the motivation to put their life’s work online…for free.  This is basically tied to the fact that many college and university history departments do not put enough emphasis on publishing on the web.  Why would they?  What’s in it for them?

Although it may seem obvious that the more times that a professor is referenced in blogs or on websites through hypertexting, the more potential there is for a person to be directed to a university website; the holy grail of advertising in the new age of technology.   Of course, the technology of the history web has more to offer than advertisements.  History is well suited to adopt digital technology.  Digital history increases accessibility, integration of multimedia technology, breadth of the history conversation, and use of hypertextual annotation and indexing.  Each of these four areas makes history more exciting and entertaining.  Historians that can successfully execute these aspects of digital history have the potential to garner a following in and out of the history community.  Of course, that is if you can grow and sustain readership, which is not always easy. Why would anyone want to read your work?  What’s in it for them?

This is what it all boils down to.  All of the research.  All of the writing.  All of the revising.  It all comes down to an audience.  When producing history (whether it is books, displays, or websites) you have to know who your audience is, what they want, and how you can give it to them.  Fortunately, the internet allows a historian to focus their research and target their audience.  Before beginning a website a historian must become familiar with what is already done in the field and think hard about the genre.  What is the target audience?  What area of the market do you want to focus on? Education, archives, discussion.  The key to gaining and maintaining your audience is determining what’s in it for them?

Digital History is able to reach such a large audience because anyone can publish here, it is an accessible medium, new technology makes history accessible and exciting, and it is fairly easy to reach a specific clientele.  The most important aspect of this outlook is the clientele.  If the task of history is to make an impact on society, then the means is digital history.  The web is the fastest growing medium for people to acquire information.  Now is the time to make an impact.  Other disciplines have already embraced new technology.  When will historians actually realize what’s in it for them?