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 I’m not sure if this outlook is clearly outdated as it is currently 2013, or if this individual is just overly cynical regarding the free service provided by Google Books, regardless I take some issue with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