The Digital Age

     More than anything, what seems to be the most inevitable change to history in this digital age in which we live is the contribution of those who many not be trained historians to the field. We are already seeing this in websites such as Wikipedia and other various places around the internet. Though this is not to say that trained historians do not contribute on the internet, but rather there are more and more individuals who are interested in history that are now contributing on a topic they wouldn’t have been able to do in the past without being published in a journal or writing a book. Furthermore, many websites run by groups that are focused on preserving history are taking contributions from the public. These days, people can scan items and send them to organizations, and if they are deemed important or relevant to the purpose of the organization, they may be included in their database or collection.

     Though this does have a positive side, in that people are able to contribute to what is preserved and things that may have been in personal collections or out of reach for historians are now available, not everything that is contributed on the internet is valid. With massive numbers of people, anonymity, personal agendas, and lack of training the possibility of there being wrong information is very real. In addition to this easy access to the internet makes the possibility of spreading misinformation very real. Ultimately we as historians need to do is contribute. The more historians that contribute to legitimate causes, organizations, and sites that want to inform the public and put forth true information, the better the state of our field will be. And though there will always be those who are trying to spread misinformation or promote a cause, through our contributions and expertise hopefully we will be able to direct people to information that is grounded in reality, trust, and valid research.

Education Through Digital Projects

     One of the most interesting things I found in the readings this week is the point Mr. McClurken made regarding the assumption that exists that those who grew up with computers are “digital natives”. While there are those who take to new technology and other aspects of the current age very quickly and without trouble, this is clearly not the case for everyone. I believe that her notion that we need to introduce students to technology they don’t know, technology where not knowing how to do it makes them uncomfortable, is both a very powerful and sound notion. As some may know, people learn the most when pushed slightly outside of their boundaries, essentially making us uncomfortable while not causing us to give up. Though students may be comfortable with computer use in general, basic projects that are repeating the same principals are not doing much to teach something new. Even if new content is learned, the technological side is still lacking.

     Through sites such as Omeka where students are able to create something for the public, while doing something new in the terms of technology, educators are able to help students do something not only practical, but also marketable. While the rest of this article talks about getting students working with Omeka, through how-to videos and actually decided if Omeka will be useful for the project, I found the most compelling information at the beginning of the article. Engaging students in projects such as this helps to support and promote not only general digital literacy, but also various forms of literacy as more and more programs and softwares are being made available for use. The one thing I found lacking is the fact that the author did not discuss how helpful this could be professionally for students, as they are making a public finished project which they could use to show their skills to potential employers.

Not All History Projects Are Made Equal

 

Though a bit late, the two exhibits that I took a look at this week, in order to compare them to one another, were Bone Commons and Our Move. Starting with Bone Commons, this project was created as a means of collecting archaeological material to use as teaching resources, engage the public, and to share discoveries with the public, among other things. Bone Commons offers a slew of collections and items that can be browsed on their website. This includes photos, publications, and access to conference run by the International Conference for Archaezoology. In addition to what ICAZ offers on this website, they are also looking for contributions from those willing to put up their own material, which can be submitted on the “Contribute” section of the site. One of the most interesting thing this site allows access to is in the “Datasets” section where the data on all of the materials that have been gathered is both accessible and searchable.

Whereas Bone Commons offers greater accessibility and interaction with the content that they are hosting, Our Move seems to take a more traditional role on their website. Though the goal of Our Move is to act as a digital repository for materials related to American-Soviet citizen diplomacy, it does not allow as easy access as the material that is on the Bone Commons site. In addition to this contribution seems more difficult as anyone who wants to contribute must first go to another website and then contact them in order to begin discussing what one could contribute to the project. It is for this reason that, I believe, Our Move is seriously lacking in material compared to Bone Commons. Granted Bone Commons has been in existence longer than Our Move, I believe that were it easier to contribute to Our Move they would be able to host significantly more material that is relevant to their focus, though I do not know what they currently are working on and have gathered but not hosted yet. In the end, though some may criticize open calls for material from historical websites and repositories, if those who would be going through these materials are careful with what they accept and host, then there could a wealth of material that normally would not be accessible by the public.

 

“Big Data” and How to Handle It

     Though there are clear issues with “Big Data”, mainly the “Big” part that leads to “Big Data” being difficult to handle, there are numerous advantages to this form of data. One of the first advantages is the fact that we are able to store this material and not lose them. Usually as historians, and in particular public historians, we must make hard decisions regarding what we can and cannot keep in collection. However, through “Big Data” we are saved from having to make these decisions. With “Big Data”, though it may be difficult to access in some cases, the fact that we are still able to maintain these materials in some form is important. Although there will always be those who question the importance of things that they deem to be “frivolous”, it is my belief that if we can keep it, why shouldn’t we? The more we have now, the better insight those in the future will have to their past.

     But once, the “Big Data” has been gathered and stored there comes the problem of how best to recall and handle the data. This is we run into trouble to an extent. Due to the massive amount of material that is stored, the problem of how to access and sort through it arises. Ultimately, what is required is making the material searchable which is generally done through keywords. Rather than being required to sift through all this material to find something very specific, key words allow us to root out what is not relevant as programs work to gather the material that is linked to the keyword. Though this obviously take time to create, once these ends are met access “Big Data” becomes significantly simpler. With programs such as Google Books’ Ngram Viewer, we are able to search terms and see trends over periods of time. In addition to this, Google Books’ allows me to select time periods where keywords are found and view the books in which they occur (that Google has access to that is). In the end it is through program such as this that we are able to make sense out of seemingly infinite “Big Data” and make it useful to our needs.

Everyday Lives of the Past

The title really says it all about the importance of GIS projects such as the Digital Harlem Project. Though people may have a basic understanding of the larger overall events of the time period and locale of Harlem, it is through project such as this one that really helps to bring history to light. This coupling of history and technology is really one of the best things that can be done to help garner interest in an important era and location. In this case the subject matter is Harlem from 1915-1930 and the everyday lives of the individuals who lived there during this 15 year time period. One of the greatest assists that this project has is the overlaying of the primary source document map sections with the modern Google maps like tech of today.  Not only can you see the location as it stood then but you can also see the progress that occurred in the neighborhood as time based by.

 In addition to this there are numerous blogs that have been written that correspond with the maps. It is through these blogs that the website really comes to life. Through research and synthesis individuals have used the maps and their own material in order to paint a picture of the past. One such example is the blog post “Harlem and Baseball in the 1920s” which details the popularity of the sport in this area during this time period. Through the use of the map one can find where there were baseball fields in the area and compare this visual with what is being brought forward in the blog post. Though this is but one example of how this sort of pairing of technology and history can be useful, as long as a map can be employed similar projects be created.

Why So Critical?

     This is mainly in response to a blog that bashed Google books in 2007. I’m not sure if this outlook is clearly outdated as it is currently 2013, or if this individual is just overly cynical regarding the free service provided by Google Books, regardless I take some issue with this overly critical view.  The first statement I have to say is: Something is always better than nothing.  The flippant attitude about how the individual running this blog believes that Google won’t actually fix problems within their own system is clearly the attitude of someone, who also admits to there being others who know much more about technology than him, who doesn’t understand the way that those working in a field such as the individuals who run the Google Books system work. Yes, faulty metadata is a problem and adding more to Google Books could create a very real backlog, but his overall point that this means that not everything will be available because of copyright law leads me to the point that I’d rather be able to access some material than none at all. The very fact that Google is trying to get as much material available as possible means that there will be more material for more people to access, and if these individuals are doing their research correctly, they will be looking at the source as well as the metadata and will realize mistakes as they arise. To me the metadata issue is something that really isn’t that big of a problem if you don’t take everything at face value and you actually take a moment to check the information you are getting.

     Furthermore, I find the overall complaint about scan quality to be a superficial one at best. Again, I don’t know if this is because of how dated the article is, but I am yet to run into anything on Google books that has the issues that he has brought up. Regardless though, if there is a problem with one of the scans: so what? This happens the individuals who are scanning this material are still human and mistakes are made. The correct course of action would be to bring this issue to the proper “authorities”. I honestly believe that this entire blog was an exercise in how to drive people away from listening to, and backing, professional historians as this individual seems to be a part of the lofty ivory tower league of historians who look down their noses at everyone and leave a bad taste in the mouth of the layman. And if I am off base on this assumption, he sure did a great job of convincing me that I wasn’t. 

Being Personable on the Internet

     Compared to many of the blogging historians that I have followed recently, my overall persona and writing seems to be much more laid back. This is not to say that historians on the internet are all writing stuffy manifestos, but they still seem to have a general aversion towards a casual conversation/dialogue and are more focused on how they are an official voice on the topic. This is not to say that these individuals do not know what they are talking about, or are presenting their information poorly, but rather their outlook may be one of the issues with why there is so much misinformation and resistance to academics on the internet. By all means, I personally enjoy academic writing and don’t mind being told about a topic in an official feeling blog post, but there are those who take the academic approach as something that is to be considered rude or arrogant. And though jumping to this conclusion about academics is not the right thing to do, this will not stop anyone from jumping to it.

     I believe a more effective way to reach a greater audience would be for academics to loosen up a bit. I would argue that what I have said thus far on my blog would not be out of place on a blog of any other academic or even professor, but I feel I do this in a more laid-back manner than many other I have encountered online. The real way to reach people is to appeal to a sense of belong, and the best way to do this is to present what you have to say in a way that anyone can dive right into. Furthermore, though we should never feed the trolls and we have the rights to shut down comments if we want, the ideal would be to leave our blogs and article open to discussion and threads so that we can start a dialogue with the individuals we are looking to reach in the first place. Honestly, the number one way to create a following or to draw attention to a blog is to appeal to potential followers as fellow people and individuals who share a common interest, while not alienating people who haven’t found out they are interested yet.

 

     A great example of someone who presents historical content in a fun and interesting way would be Kate Beaton, who has created the website Hark a Vagrant! to host her often history based drawings. 

Ignoring Copyright: Victim-less Crime?

     This week’s articles about copyright concerning higher education, historical scholarship, and what should and should not be free didn’t do too much to cause my views to stray. Generally I believe that the more that is available to the general public, the better. I would go so far as to say that it would be great if scholarship was open and free for anyone with an interest to find and look into, but I understand that this is very unlikely to happen. However, I believe that if this material is not to be free it also should not be ungodly expensive, and the average person should have no trouble accessing this material. Luckily if an individual goes to college or has access to a local library, this access tends to not be a problem as many library organizations tend to invest in database packages for their patrons. However, this still results in large gaps of what can be access for anyone who does not go to a high priced learning institution.

     Though I do not know terribly too much about the amount of money that could be made in the world of scholarly writing, from what I can gather not too much is made by the scholar itself. And if there is money to be made it is often by those who are publishing or hosting the material. Furthermore, scholars who are given funding by the government that at one point started with tax payer money should most certainly have the synthesis of their research be available to the public that led to their funding. I would also argue that like musicians, scholars make much of their money through what they do rather than the recorded synthesis of their work. Just as a band makes most of their money from concerts, scholars who are often professors, or other professions, make most of their money from their actual job.  

     Granted many of these organizations like JSTOR are not for profit, they still make quite large amount of money and charge steep prices for full access to their databases. It is for this reason that I believe that there really is no harm done by the actions of individuals such as Aaron Swartz. I believe that this is one of the situations where the crime committed is either victim-less or near to it. The acts of individuals such as Swartz will not cause realistic damage in the long run to an organization such as JSTOR that works internationally with thousands of organizations. 

 

Also as this is a commentary on copyright I think I’ll try my hand at fair use, in this instance provided by Arsis

The Pro and Cons of Digital Archives

For today’s blog I took a look at the Library of Congress’ free internet archive called “American Memory”. I will say that the number one positive aspect about internet archives is that it allows individuals who normally would not have access to these sources a way to further explore a topic that they are interested in and normally would not be able to handle. Furthermore, this greater access allows people who may not be able to go to a location like the Library of Congress or to an archive elsewhere the ability to still be able to work with the materials that they need or want. As for how digital archives changes how I look at sources: it doesn’t. Just because a photograph has been uploaded to the internet on an archive doesn’t mean that it is suddenly of a greater or lesser value. Granted, there could be issues with how an online archive is handled if the individuals managing the online archive are not uploading what you would be handling if you went to the actual archive.

For example, if one were to look up newspaper articles about the Vietnam War and only the article were available rather than the full page of the paper that it was on, I would argue that the fact that the article is available to more people is a positive thing. Despite this, it is unfortunate that the whole page the article is on is not available. In this case there is some give and take regarding archives and how they can both be a positive and negative force. Though I would argue that greater accessibility is very important, as long as those individuals in charge of the archive are working to create a more complete collection online then the slight imperfection for the time being can be overlooked. However, I would not say that these are hard qualitative differences for both analog and online archives lend themselves to the historical community as valuable resources that help to create a fuller picture of our past.

 

PS- Unfortunately I don’t have a metal band that sings about archiving but I do have one that makes references to Greek mythology and Japanese culture.

 

Of Gods and Men

     For this blog post I have decided to take a look at the talk sections of three Wikipedia pages related to Norse mythology.  According to the Wikipedia page for Norse Mythology it is, “…the body of mythology of the North Germanic people stemming from Norse paganism and continuing after the Christianization of Scandinavia and into the Scandinavian folklore of the modern period.” The three chosen pages are those of Odin, Thor, and the Æsir. While most people will surely recognize the names of Odin and Thor, I’m sure there are many who do not know the mythology that surrounds them and the characters from popular comic book adaptions of these pagan gods. Furthermore, I am sure that if there are individuals who do not know much about Thor and Odin they almost certainly do not know, or do not realize, that they belong to the Æsir, which is essentially the race of gods that make of the main pantheon of the mythology.

     With some background on the subject material that is covered in these pages, one must also understand how the review and editing process for Wikipedia works to fully understand this post. Though many people are ready to point out that anyone can edit Wikipedia, many people do not know that there are numerous moderators and other individuals who review and fix the material that is put on the various pages. One of the main driving forces, which could be likened to peer review for the site, that decides what changes and remains on a Wikipedia pages is the talk page.  At the top of every page there are two tabs: the “Article” tab and the “Talk” tab. It is in this talk tab where issues are raised with various sections of a page and suggestions are made for changes or expansion on a section. As for the actual things discussed in the talk pages for these three things there are some distinct similarities from page to page.

     One constant in almost every Wikipedia page is the call for more citations, or merely citations at all if a section lacks them, which helps to dispel a fair amount of what the naysayers of Wikipedia really push as to why Wikipedia is a blight on historical writing. For example, on the Odin page there is a section that has been deleted that refers to Santa Claus as a possible basis for Santa Claus. Within the section detailing why it was deleted the individual is asking for access to a book that is cited and states that this “semi-fringe myth” just simply does not have enough backing to remain on the page at the moment.  Another topic often raised in talk pages is how a topic is viewed in the modern day or how modern culture makes references to the topic. On the Thor page for example there are numerous discussion concerning references to Thor in the modern day ranging from the Marvel Comics character, to the Neil Gaiman book American Gods, and to the concept album Twilight of the Thunder God by the band Amon Amarth. In addition to this there are also references to modern Norse paganism and whether or not pagans of the past would wear a Mjölnir pendant, as modern some Norse pagans wear them in a similar manner as Christians wear a cross or crucifix. Finally, on the Æsir page there are numerous questions about technical aspects of the name of the topic itself such as correct pronunciation, translation, and the roots of the term itself.  These technical questions and issues often come up in a Wikipedia talk page as individuals work to create the most technically correct and factually based pages as possible as they come together behind the scenes to make Wikipedia a neutral and informative website available for all with internet access.

 

P.S. – Interested in more music? Listen to the title track from Twilight of the Thunder God by Amon Amarth.