Historians, according to Cronon, must be concerned ultimately with meaning-making. And narrative, Cronon argues, is how humans create meaning, regardless of whether narrative is fundamental to the way we humans organize our experiences (says Heidigger and Carr) or whether narrative is the cultural mode in which humans are taught organize their experience (says White and Mink). Thus, it is the commitment to narrative that makes people care about each other. Narrative gives history its meaning and, more importantly, its “moral center.” This thought is where Cronon ends his narrative.

But as I write this entry, I am not sure how to end it. (Remember, says Cronon nodding to Aristotle: The end is everywhere the chief thing. The moral of a story is defined by its ending.) Should I acknowledge that, in this entry, I’ve written a story, and try to point out some of the aspects of Cronon’s story that I obscured in my own? Should I acknowledge that I’m writing this entry well after we discussed Cronon in class, and point out the places where this entry story has benefited from it? Or, should I wonder why history needs a “moral center” at all? “Good questions all, [but ending] points for many a story …”? Thank you Professor Cronon, but I’d rather not.

Most people who participated in this discussion did not list a biography of themselves so I couldn’t conclude who, in terms of demographics, was involved. I could tell that there were few, if any, professional historians. While most participants certainly seemed to be reading popular history books and watching the History Channel, they mostly seemed to think about the course of history in simple and traditional terms. Generally people in this discussion group seemed to think that history is marked by a few major events which drastically alter the world. I know that this particular topic might condition people to respond in this way, but there didn’t appear to be a lot of sophistication in the way in which most people in this group think about history. One participant suggested that perhaps there is no one most influential moment in history because every event is shaped by preceding events, but this comment was totally ignored by others.

This discussion attracted first time participants and as well as those who have contributed to History Channel discussions hundreds and even thousands of times. While this particular discussion has only been underway since early October, I found evidence of a loose community (also, I noticed that several of the respondents posted messages on other History Channel message boards so some of these people have been talking with one another for a while). It appears that those who repeatedly communicate with one other are more willing to compliment each other’s comments and affect each other’s opinions. At the same token, regular participants who often vehemently disagreed with one another seemed more willing to launch personal attacks (one regular participant couldn’t refrain from calling another “a Kerry loving terrorist” (and the discussion didn’t even have anything to do with contemporary politics)). People who corresponded with one another more frequently were also more willing to offer each other help. For example, when one regular participant stated that he wasn’t familiar with a number of court cases that someone else sited, a few people wrote back with lengthy explanations of the cases. Newcomers seemed to have a harder time receiving similar kind of help.

I do think online discussion groups serve purposes that are not provided by other media (or at least not provided easily or extensively by other media). None of the participants who listed their profession were working within the field of history; discussion boards might be the only place where some of these people talk about their interest in history. Furthermore, discussion boards offer people the opportunity to talk to hundreds of people who are interested in very specific things.

While online communities may not be as close as some other types of communities, they can represent “real” communities. There were a few instances where a participant would post a reflection or a question and state that he or she was particularly interested in hearing back from a specific person. Frequent participants get to know one another and clearly expect to communicate with one another, even if it is in a limited sense.

Who is participating? Keith Tankard of Rhodes University started H-Safrica in September 1996. Tankard edited the list for the first two years until a rotating and changing team of editors from universities in the U.S., Europe and South Africa took over in 1998. Though the list is open to anyone who is approved by the editors, the people who post are primarily university professors. Their posts, however, are often on behalf of graduate or undergraduate students. Of course, it is impossible to tell who is lurking around these messages, though the logs indicate that there are sanctioned observers of the list and its discussions that are not professors.

What are the rules for interaction? H-SAfrica has clearly defined its community. Text on the site states the list’s purpose clearly. The list is “dedicated to the promotion of all aspects of South and Southern African history and culture, and Southern African studies in general,” is a “cross between an academic journal and a friendly academic newspaper.” The site further defines acceptable forms of communication: international job adverts, book reviews, conference announcements and calls for papers … new computer software, websites, films and videos … mature discussions of on-going research, of articles and academic papers, books and journals, methods of teaching and debates on historiography.” H-Safrica began as a spin-off from H-Africa, and there was intense debate about the creation of the new community on the H-Africa list that was reprinted in the new H-Safrica list in the first few months of its existence. Arguments for the list helped carve out its niche and probably made people feel invested in the community.

What are people saying? I reviewed H-SAfrica’s discussion logs for every September between 1996 and 2004, and also looked at the logs for October and November 2004. In each of these months, there were between roughly 40 and 70 postings. There are several types of postings generally acceptable in this community: job postings, requests for advice/information on teaching, requests for directions to resources, calls for conference papers, debates about a specific subject, often arising out of requests for specific pieces of information, specific historical questions: i.e. “When individuals were captured in Madagascar and Mozambique, were they kept in barracoon-like structures for extended periods before they were shipped to the Cape?” There were also three book reviews between 1996 and 1998, none in 1997-1999, and then more than 200 between January 2000 and the present. The postings also encourage interaction off the list. Frequently, users ask for responses directly to their personal email accounts. It is important to remember, however, that postings are considered to be a form of publication and content can be edited, such as “material that, in the editors' opinion, is not germane to the list, involves technical matters (such as subscription management requests), is inflammatory, or violates evolving, yet common, standards of Internet etiquette,” and sometimes editors consolidate postings. Posting, especially (and especially more recently) calls for historical debates, sometimes go unanswered (or seem to in the official discussion logs) but the list betrays no hard feelings or complaints.

H-Radhist

H-Radhist is an online discussion site dedicated to the discussing “historical, theoretical and political issues that routinely emerge from the study of history from a radical perspective, in which knowledge of the past is informed by the commitment to a radically democratic and egalitarian transformation of the present.”

Over the four year lifespan of the now defunct discussion group, its primary service seems to have been the advertisement of conferences, calls for papers and the posting of articles and humorous material, and other material that might be considered filler. The true discussion side of this group seems to have faded fast. In the first months the discussion board was made up of about half discussion entries and half the aforementioned filler. Over time it seems that ratio tilted heavily in favor of the filler.

The discussions trended heavily in favor of current events and less towards what one might consider to be discussion of historical scholarship. Primarily, the discussions were an exchange of thoughts on various current events such as the conflict in Kosovo and the present and future of radical history.

One notable characteristic of this community is the wide geographical range of its participants. This discussion list draws its users primarily from North America and Europe but a wide range of nationalities from all over the world are represented. The users tended to be academics, a large number of them graduate students, bringing various perspectives on radical history to their discussions. Perhaps one of the most interesting threads were the ones dealing with the question “what is radical history?” because the definitions were so varied.

As for whether or not H-Radhist constitutes, or did constitute, an online community, I’m inclined to say it did in some respects but I believe failed in others. The discussion list did indeed bring together a group of participants with an interest in the subject matter being discussed. By and large the users were academics and may have found occasion to interact with one another outside this discussion group while moving in the various academic circles. However, the geographical separation of the participants makes such an occasion improbable. As such, this discussion group fostered an otherwise unlikely community and for a while produced substantive discussions.

However, it appears that a majority of the postings were made by the list editor on behalf of other contributors. While it is unclear what role the editor played in the posting of these entries, it seems that a true community would be open to unmoderated discussion with the topics and direction of discussion being dictated by the consensus of the participants. Second, the occurrences of postings that can be considered discussion were outnumbered by those that were advertisement for various things. While that may be an important function of the community, it seems to have become its primary function having lost the interaction between users. Had the discussion group really fostered a sense of community among its users it perhaps would not have tapered off into oblivion in the manner it did.

The members of the forum seem to be overwhelmingly the general public. In order to make a post, a person must register. During registration a person can enter biographical data. However, most posters do not provide much, if any, information. Those that do provide biographical information are mostly current and former military personnel and military enthusiasts. These groups probably form the largest, if not near total, segment of the membership. This supposition if borne out by the content of most posts which frequently mention prior and current military service or an enthusiasm for military topics.

Very little evidence exists that academics and university level students make posts to the forum. The only evidence I saw of participation by an academic was a poster’s user name: “Historyprof1.” However, a review of Historyprof1’s posts do not exhibit in-depth scholarly analysis, so it is impossible to determine if Historyprof1 is a professional historian.
The lack of participating by professional historians and students may be a result of the History Channel’s reputation among scholars and serious history students. It has been my experience that these groups view the content of the History Channel, both on its television channel and website, as lacking in scholarly depth because of a need to appeal to a broad audience.

The lack of scholarly analysis is common throughout the Cold War forum’s 318 discussion threads, which have a total of 5,182 posts. Most of the discussions threads center on comparisons of Soviet and American military hardware. This is where most of the value of the Cold War forum lies because of the former and current military personnel who regularly post to the site. Many posts contain valuable first hand technical and tactical information for ships, aircraft, and other military equipment. However, the downside to this emphasis is that the broader social and economic trends that played an integral part in how the Cold War transpired are not discussed in detail.

These shortcomings may be a product of the topic. Because the Cold War was, in essence, a struggle between two opposing societies, its subject matter encompasses a vast range of social, economic, and military specialties. This reasoning does not excuse the lack of scholarly analysis on the forum. Other forums provide this content and their membership contains many professional historians. It may simply be that the Cold War as a topic is not specific enough to generate these types of posts. For instance, a review of three other discussion groups in the same Wars category have much more activity and depth of discussion. Three, Operation Iraqi Freedom, World War II, and the Vietnam War have 2,828, 6,742, and 1,155 discussion threads, respectively. The number of posts for each numbers in the tens of thousands. Tellingly, the Operation Iraqi Freedom site has over 34,000 posts.

This last example, I believe, exemplifies a value of on-line discussion groups that is not readily provided by other media. This value is the sharing of knowledge in a timely manner and the forming of a community in response to a common interest. In this case, the conduct of the war in Iraq and the welfare of American troops and Iraqi civilians are of intense interest to a large number of people around the world. However, there is a limitation to this ability to bring people together and share information. In forums like those hosted by the History Channel that are mostly used by the public, the debate can quickly become a war of opinion that does not serve any useful purpose. Nevertheless, I am still optimistic about on-line historical communities. Those that enjoy widespread participation by professional historians and students do create viable and meaningful communities. While some would argue that these virtual communities are often transitory, the same can be said for real communities. If new historical truths and insights are created by on-line historical communities, it does not matter, in the end, if they eventually become defunct, as long as the information is still maintained. This is no different than journals that are decades old that were written by historians who are now dead. Communities will always fracture, but the information that is produced by them can be preserved.

It is different than membership in an academic organization in that it does not cost anything, it is more open to those who are merely interested instead of limited to professionals, and it is an easier mode of communication that can stretch further in time and space, for example, overseas. Many of those joining currently are tangential to this group, people who might not have reason to pay the modest membership fees for AEJMC, for example, students studying computer assisted journalism research, someone writing a related biography, and academic researchers from overseas.

The enrollment is a bit complicated, as you must fill out two forms and wait for a person to enroll you. Then, material submitted is edited, not posted raw. Each member entry goes through the filter of an editor, and anything deemed too commercial or off-focus does not get sent. Return comments sometimes are not sent to the entire listserve, but rather returned to the individual sender, as happened to one query that I posted. Several people answered me privately.

The content of this online community could be described as primarily academic and professional, not very personal. “JHISTORY is a meeting place for journalism and mass communication historians to discuss academic and professional issues with one another, to send and receive job placement information, and to make contacts with other academics who share research interests.” Much of the conversation in the past few months has been job postings, questions about resources (especially from those outside the main focus, such as students, or foreign researchers), research questions within the field, such as, “I am writing an article about…. What is your quotable opinion on this?”, finding books, invitations to colloquia, to submit papers, and so forth. As described on the Website, “Jhistory has a simple mandate, to send and receive messages relating to journalism history, including: notes and queries about journalism history topics, research ideas, queries about people who are working on similar projects or fields, employment opportunities within journalism and/or history, conferences about journalism history and related fields.” There are also more personal messages, such as the death of a colleague.

Finally, an observation about growth and size: while full details were not posted, and old archives were not actually available, it appears that J-History may have actually become a bit less active than it was at its peak. While they currently claim about 450 members, and that is up from 313 active members in 1999, the number of postings may have actually declined. For example, in October of 1999, they averaged more than two postings per day, a total of 67. In October of 2003, they averaged one a day, 31 for the entire month, and this past October (2004) there were a total of 27 postings. Obviously, this review of numbers is not extensive, nor does it account for other factors, such as high interest questions, but a review of the archives did seen to show a peak in interest around five years ago.

In conclusion, my findings might suggest that J-History is not primarily a “real community,” but rather the online representation of, or communication by, an already existing academic community. However, an important observation would be how the somewhat rigid borders of this academic group has been loosened somewhat by this electronic extension, allowing for more interaction with others outside the primary group. In addition, there are some indications that the bloom of this group is somewhat past its peak.

The first is the Women's History Forum, overseen by Gerda Lerner, a leading author and teacher in women’s history. This forum was an extension of a lecture she spoke at, and she seemed pleased with the end results of the online forum. It only ran for one month, and concentrated on the problems of integrating women’s history with the more ‘mainstream’ history presented to high school and undergraduate students in survey courses. Ms. Lerner started the discussion, and it was thoughtfully continued by several high school teachers, and a few professors who have either attempted, or successfully, combined women into the standard texts required by their schools. One of the main concerns for the high school students was their willingness to examine books and documents not presented in a standard textbook format. Many of the teachers felt that as long as proper foundation work had been established, the students would feel more comfortable with possible conflicting accounts of an event, and possibly gain a better understanding of a particular timeframe in question. In one of her response entries, the discussion says that perhaps text books make the past too clean and straight-forward, a view that many high schoolers, and perhaps many college students, hold. Ms. Lerner makes the interesting comment that “The past is no neater than the Present.” Something that is good for everyone to remember as well.

The second site that I explored was from the suggested list, http://www.h-net.org/~women/threads/. It took me a few minutes of looking around the site to find the discussions, and not the events and calls-for-papers area. This site is a bit more open to enthusiasts, although many of the responses were from people who were associated with a university or college. Unlike the Women’s History Forum, it does not appear to be overseen by one specific person, but more of a casually discussion of history questions between the members of the forum monitored by several editors. Discussions were broken up into separate categories, and several of the threads had been edited for length purposes. Some of the discussions are more slanted to the ‘women’ aspect rather than the ‘historical’ aspect, but they serve their community purpose and bring people together over a common interest. This on-line method is certainly not the only method, but perhaps the most effective. People can answer or read at their leisure, and can refer back to threads from many years past; most of the discussions I read were dated from the late 1990s, although I’m sure more recent threads are available.

In general, I think history forums are on the right track. Like most of the internet, they can be quite useful, or quite ineffective. History on the web is getting its feet wet and learning the ropes that were established by other interests. Almost every genre I know of has forums available to its members, but the degree of their usability is dependant on the forum experience of its users and administrators. Just as it is with the rest of history’s integration onto the Web, the forum aspect is another facet to consider and develop.

For this review I selected a discussion list associated with the popular history-oriented cable television channel, assuming it would be used by, or at least intended for, approximately the same audience. I sampled the discussion logs going back a little over one year, and reviewed the “terms of service” that participants were expected to adhere to. I also sampled the limited self-descriptive information listmembers provide.

This list appears to be organized primarily, if not entirely, around “enthusiasts.” Some participants appear to be--or self-identify as--educators or writers, but I have not identified any professional academic historians. The list is moderated in the sense that participants are requested to adhere to a set of community standards, and that posts judged unsuitable can and will be removed by the list operators. Overall the list is on-topic, civil and frequently evidences a solid familiarity with both popular and academic literature as well as a broad range of interests (except, for some reason, naval). The amount of personal information members volunteer is very limited and there appears to be no evidence of any interaction outside this list.

In sampling various topic “threads” to review the quantity and “ebb and flow” of the discussions, I note that overly broad questions that require lengthy analytical exposition to answer adequately at all, and/or would involve longstanding controversies of interpretation, tend not to generate much substantive discussion. It may also be that these topics have been covered before in the year (evidently true in some cases) or that the regular listmembers do not particularly wish to write basic historiographic essays every time some otherwise unknown visitor asks “what was the cause of the war?” or similar. However, more narrowly framed questions inviting analytical discussion, such as how and why was the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dismantled, are very likely to generate substantive discussion.

Books are frequently if usually rather briefly discussed, usually in terms of either recommendations or queries about listmembers’ opinions or experience in locating. Books are a more frequent topic than websites or other media, and the conversations suggest a wide familiarity with the relevant literature on the part of the more frequent posters at least. Much of the remainder is short discussions of specific topics such as individuals, events, weapons or tactics.

This “book-oriented” character of the list is also evident from time to time in responses to the “crayola” questions--a ridiculously broad question, often featuring woeful spelling and grammar, or clearly someone hoping the listmembers will provide the answers to a school research project. While some of these queries are ignored or occasionally receive a mocking reply, the replies to most are divided between somewhat brusque suggestions to try something called a library and short helpful essays giving the originator some basic guidance and pointers to useful reading--probably more of the latter. I briefly compared this list to another, “popular” list on the same topic on another website, and noted a slightly lesser volume but more emphasis on books on the History Channel list even though some of the same members appeared on both.

Turning to the community of listmembers itself, there seems to be a core of frequently recurring posters--roughly 20 I thought--that are both knowledgeable and tend to sometimes address one another. There is also a much larger element that seems to post a few times over the course of a year. The content of their questions and replies does not really seem inferior in knowledge to that of the “core” element, but perhaps they are too narrowly specialized, too uncertain about jumping into the conversation, or simply have too little time to do much more than monitor a discussion list that interests them. Finally, there is some unknown element of “lurkers” that only listen. It seems unsurprising that there is little demographic analysis of such public discussion lists despite their wide availability as so little can be ascertained statistically beyond frequency of posting, and attempts to collect or require more might run into privacy concerns. This might be contrasted with academic lists such as the H-Net series, where members are “vetted” and discussions actively moderated.

To conclude, these member dynamics overall correspond to “real” clubs and organizations which typically have a leadership core and a considerably larger group of participants and supporters. The presence of a moderator, even if very “light,” has a significant impact on the community development similar to how face-to-face interaction tends to enforce social norms of behavior and expression. The contrast in character and content to truly unmoderated lists is noticeable. Is this virtual community a real community? I believe so. The breadth of interaction available in a “real” community is traded off for broader opportunities for participation. Yet the basic dynamics of sustaining interest and interaction remain similar and the existence of a moderator actually contributes to maintaining its similarity to a traditional community.

The list membership, at least judged by the posts that have been made in the past week, is primarily made up of academic historians at universities or colleges. There are some private individuals that have no academic affiliation or have an affiliation to a military organization such as the US Army. Many of the posters, both academic and non-academic affiliated, are published authors. Just off of the top of my head, based upon the last week of posting (Nov. 21-28) there have been posts by four different authors with major works on military history published in the past few years. In addition to these impressive scholars, there are some graduate students, such as myself, who subscribe to the list. One doctoral candidate at GWU is an editor of H-War.

Over the past week, there has been a variety of topics addressed on H-War. Many of the approximately 117 posts have dealt with esoteric topics of interest to only a select few military historians, such as the use of the beret in field and dress military uniforms. However, there is a significant number, such as the thread discussing the reputation of US Army troops in the European theatre of WW II that could have long ranging implications for future scholarship. The thread is currently discussing an assertion made by one list member that the conduct of US troops at the end of WW II was not as professional as many would believe. This thread branched off a thread earlier in the month discussing the rapes and murders committed by Soviet forces as they advanced on Berlin in 1945. This type of discussion has the potential to spark new research topics by younger historians into subjects that may have been neglected by previous historians of WW II. This thread also has spawned a new query into occupation policies after WW I that could lead to new research on that topic.

One of the advantages of H-War is the ability of subscribers to submit questions to other list members concerning any topic dealing with military history. This creates a sort of collaborative research effort because list members can direct posters to unknown primary or secondary sources, or simply answer a direct question and provide sources to read on that topic. For instance, well regarded historian Al Nofi this past week asked for suggestions on sources dealing with the Central Powers occupation forces and policies in several countries during WW I and Allied occupation policies in the Rhineland and Turkey after the war. This query has led to suggestions on several sources, in several different languages, for Dr. Nofi to consult.

The relative immediacy of any number of helpful suggestions by list members (the suggested books for Dr. Nofi occurred 3 days after his original post and most queries are answered quicker) is a real bonus. This can help a historian researching a specific topic cut through the morass that is a library catalogue search engine and help direct the initial stages of research.

However, as wonderful and helpful as this discussion list is for academic and non-academic historians alike is, I would hesitate to call it a “real” community. The list is specifically designed to discuss military history. Any posts that do not deal specifically with this topic are not forwarded by the list editors for distribution to the members. Thus one does not know anything about the personalities of these list members. I would also hesitate in any suggestion that list members “get to know” each other because of this strictly professional communication.

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project’s definitions of online communities, the Early Modern Social History group is one that could be classified as “a group for people who share a hobby or interest.” The topics and discussions, for the most part, center on modern history, including US, European and World history. Some of the discussions can be very relevant to social history, while others can be way off mark. Consider, for instance, the discussion on “FDR, Japan and the Pearl Harbor Attack” as compared to “Adolf Hitler Was Jack the Ripper.” One is very relevant to history, while the validity of the other is questionable. In examining the various discussions, the more relevant to history and the more credible a topic is, the more responses (or “threads”) it generated. The discussion on FDR and Pearl Harbor generated 255 threads, while the discussion on Hitler as Jack the Ripper only 1 (the original poster). Surprisingly, there were few, discussions that related to issues of the day. For instance, there were no discussions related to John Kerry, George Bush and the 2004 election, or the presidency in general during the weeks leading up to the election.

It appears that much of what is being discussed is as Barry Wellman and Milena Gulia contend: "anecdote" rather than "evidence." While there were some postings that showed historical knowledge of a topic, few conversations offered concrete, scholarly evidence to support or refute the question at hand; rather many times shallow responses were given, the origins of which might have come from the History Channel or book by a popular historian, as opposed to some scholarly journal. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however. It shows an interest in the subject and desire to gain knowledge and understanding of an issue.

So, then, who are the members of the discussion community? Scholars? Students? Educated? Uneducated? Hobbyists? Armature historians? Young? Old? Male? Female? While it is difficult to truly ascertain who exactly the members of the Early Modern Social History community are (after all, posting in an online community is rather anonymous), it is clear from the questions being asked, the language being used, and the stories and replies being posted that there is a mix of all of these groups. For instance, a student posted saying he needed help with answering how the “early 19th-century fur trappers traveled *upriver* on the Columbia River in Washington.” If names of the individuals are any indication as to the gender of the people posting, then on the Early Modern Social History group, males would be the predominant posters. Numerous discussions had the same people exchanging posts over a period of time, therefore showing a desire to engage in an ongoing discussion. For instance, the discussion on Smallpox had an original post date on October 14, 2004; the last posting was two days later, on October 16, 2004. During this two day period, eleven people engaged in a discussion on the effects of smallpox on the colonization of North America. In short, there was a healthy, yet brief, exchange on this subject.

In reviewing this community, it is apparent that online communities and discussions are unique in many ways, having advantages over other forms of media, such as newspapers, magazines, books and television in facilitating the exchange and dissemination of ideas and information. For example, these communities offer students a resource for getting information that they wouldn’t normally find through other outlets, such as the aforementioned student who was writing a short story on the “early 19th-century fur trappers.” Online discussions allow people to vet their ideas and get responses and ask questions about issues they can’t find answers to through other sources. Since the discussion board is open and not monitored, and since postings are anonymous, the boards lend themselves to a free exchange of ideas. The discussion community is the 21st century manifestation of the “soap box,” allowing individuals to express themselves, unmolested and unintimidated by a crowd or the authorities.

While these communities exist in cyber space, they appear to be “real” as opposed to just virtual communities. As with any community, people choose to join it based on shared ideas, values or circumstances. Second, a community is something people can identify with and, in turn, become possessive and defensive of. In reviewing the postings on Early Social Modern History, there appears to be many individuals who frequently post over time, thus indicating that they visit often and draw an association with this community. One person, desperate for help answering a World War Two question but couldn’t find a community that addressed the subject, posted the question on the modern history forum. The individual received a response with a closing note saying, “And you've got the wrong newsgroup,” thus showing a possessiveness and defensives of the group. Third, as with any community, members turn to it for help in solving problems. Consider again, the student that visited for help in answering a school question.

Whether on subject or off, online communities such as Google’s Early Social Modern History site add value in the increasingly tangled web of the internet by facilitating discussion and providing an outlet for debate that might not normally ensue through normal media outlets.