boyle

As I participated in last week’s class about collecting and searching, I realized that I am somewhat haphazard about database searches when beginning a project. This is pretty unusual given my personal penchant for organization. However, thinking about research for my own projects, the approach is generally not as refined as it could (or probably should) be. I tend to simply select a promising database and begin entering what I consider relevant search terms. I rarely use wild card or Boolean searches and I generally do not think about entering alternative phrases (like the example of shell shock and battle fatigue) until I receive limited results on my initial inquiries. In contrast, other aspects of my research is more structured. For instance, if I find something useful in searching, I access the relevant article, review it for content, and possibly use the citations and sources to locate other potential materials. I never really reflected on my database searching approach before and it is surprising to me. While my method may be more creative and open minded, it is not necessarily effective. I got particularly frustrated with the initial research phase of a project last semester and this scattershot approach is the likely culprit.

This week’s reading and Web sites made me think of the We’re Not Afraid grassroots-style activism Web site that appeared after the terror bomings in London last summer. I just visited it for the first time although it was featured on the news last summer. People from around the world sent in photos of themselves, their kids, and pets with comments like “I’m Not Afraid,” “We’re Not Afraid” or “No Fear” printed on them. In addition, the site is like the 9/11 site with blogs, links to the BBC Web site for news or even links to peace organizations.

I thought all of the Web sites for this week were impressive and had good collection pages. All of these sites could serve future research needs. I also was especially pleased to see the Business Plan Archive restricts general visitor access on the site. Although it collects failed business plans, the information in old plans could still be somewhat viable and too easily copied.

Maybe because I lived in New York during 9/11, I spent the most time on this impressively in-depth archival site, paging through the testimony and the documents. As a result, I wondered how nostalgia or historical memory plays a role in the success of these participatory sites versus the simple cathartic act of sharing your thoughts. For instance, it makes sense that a monumental historical event like 9/11 would draw forth thousands of responses to the site for the day has assumed historic importance and still evokes painful memories. However, the Hurricane Katrina, Rita, etc. Web site had far, far fewer submissions. Is this because the event is still too fresh and has not had time to assume its full historic importance? Do future participants on the site still need time to gather perspective? Or is it a practical matter - are the people that could share their stories still unable to even get to a computer to do so or too busy rebuilding their homes and lives?

This last point raises other questions as well. The Library of Congress clearly had to act quickly to archive Web sites on the day of 9/11, but how soon is too soon to create a Web site that seeks collections and recollections about an event? Could a Web site be seen as trying to “profit” from a tragic event instead of serving as a legitimate tool for collecting historical data?

And for a historian, is there a best time to capture personal recollections? I’ve never taken oral history here at AU and wonder what classmates who have taken the class think? Is it better to get immediate reactions because there is more detail? Or does it enhance the research to wait? Clearly waiting allows for the possibility of a story being changed ,but the fact that it changes could also provide interesting scholarship.

After reading through and viewing the materials for this week’s class, I wanted to share a number of thoughts and reactions as part of this introduction to history online.

In Digital History, the authors quote a law professor who notes that his popular Web site reflects his “idiosyncrasies.” It is not a traditional, scholarly archive. The authors later refer to the Web as potentially “anarchical” when writing of wikis. These comments brought to mind the controversy over the accuracy of online scholarship. For instance, the recent challenges that Wikipedia faced because of erroneous postings demonstrate how the collaborative and open nature of the online world leave it vulnerable. When visiting the memory book portion of the Pearl Harbor site, a disclaimer appears stating: “National Geographic Online does not review, censor, approve, edit, or endorse information placed on this forum.” One of the early posting obviously falls into this questionable category: “omg like dude i was on the uss arizona n i was like dude n it exploded n my frend died i was like dude n then dude n dude” As the contemporary language and abbreviations suggest this was written by a relatively young person, the author is likely not a Pearl Harbor survivor.

While the advantages of digital scholarship outweigh these troubling examples, they raise legitimate concerns about the participatory nature of history online allowing for misleading or false information to be posted. However, are these concerns also illustrating potential fears of the professional history establishment that the more democratic and accessible nature of the online world is diluting history scholarship? As someone who wants to work in public history, I think any medium or tool that encourages popular excitement and interest in history is terrific, but I’m not sure the academic world views the situation the same way.

On this general subject of oversight in the digital world, while reading through the Journal of American History guidelines for reviewing online sites, I began to wonder about national or industry guidelines for doing history (or any other academic discipline) online. For instance, capitalization and spelling is not consistent in the three documents that we read when they refer to online sites. The JAH guidelines refers to “websites” and “Web sites” in the same document(!), Digital History refers to the “History Web” (a proper noun) and to “web,” such as in the phrases “web-based browsing” or “advantages of the web,” and to “websites,” and Designing Genres for New Media writes simply of the “Web.” Granted, these documents were written at different times by different authors, but is there currently a standards group advocating for greater consistency?

The guidelines also spurred another set of questions as they compared books and online sites. Although a book may be updated as part of a new edition, the author and publisher must agree upon a final form before it is physically published. Conversely, Web sites may be continuously tweaked after going live, perpetually serving as works in progress. Therefore, how soon should online scholarship be evaluated? On opening night, like a play, which also has the ability to be revised over time? Or when a significant amount of new content is uploaded?

Finally, it was simply interesting to note how the theme of war played such a prominent role in early (and contemporary) Web sites. Digital History writes of how so many pioneering works in digital history focused on the American Revolution and Civil War, like the Library of Congress online photography collection of the Civil War or the Ohio in the Civil War site. Three of the four Web sites that we reviewed focused on war – the French Revolution, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. These violent and pivotal events are fascinating to both professional and amateur historians and this interest clearly resonates in the online world as well.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!