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.

Thanks to the Internet

When the question of how the World Wide Web, which I will most likely just always refer to as the internet, has changed the practice of history is posed the answer that first comes to mind is research and accessibility. As someone who has gone through college when internet has always been accessible it is hard to imagine doing research any other way. This isn’t to say I’ve never gone through physical copies of old newspapers at an archive or have never read a physical scholarly journal or secondary source book, but I have always known where I was going or that something I was looking for was actually available thanks to the internet. Furthermore, I have had the luxury of being able to loaf around my home in my pajamas while gathering 20+ full text scholarly articles without really having to try too hard. I’ve even written full papers that were full of primary sources without ever leaving my house, while in the past there was just no way to do this sort of research unless you lived in an archive or a museum. However, despite the ease of access that is made possible thanks to the internet, I would certainly argue that there is not a loss of quality in the work produced thanks to the World Wide Web.

I would also argue that Digital History is not qualitatively different when the appropriate amount of research is put into the history you are presented. Of course this then raises a slew of further questions as to what the appropriate amount of research is or should be, but the basic idea that one needs to cite their sources should always be present when dealing with anything history related. Just because something is digital does not mean it is completely changed and unrecognizable from its original form, and I would argue this should apply to the transition of History to Digital History. At the core Digital History is still History, and the quality of print and conventional History varies, just as the quality of Digital History does. Just because the internet has resulted in various forms of luxury when it comes to creating Digital History, this does not mean that well researched and expertly crafted history is any worse for being created in a different medium, just as the reverse applies, conventional History is not any less valid or lacking in quality because it is on paper.

P.S.