Week 1 Responses
It was interesting to compare the websites we were given. I thought the first two were very thorough, but the other two raised some questions for me. History Wired seems like a good idea in theory, but my question is, how would you ever know to look for it? By that I mean it seems like a fun site to browse, but not very useful if you are looking for specific information. Moreover, you’d only come across it if you happened to look in the Educators section of the Smithsonian homepage. Nothing about the site, however, indicates that it is intended for use by educators. This recalls some of the points raised by Agre, namely, that one must consider the needs of the particular user and the community. Or, if the point of this site is simply to browse, its presence on the web should be made more apparent for a curious browser, since he or she isn’t looking for anything specific in the first place.
Perhaps it was that I had just read the section in Digital History about corporate sites, but when I opened the National Geographic page, the first thing I noticed was the “Save up to 62% off our magazines” icon. This made me look at this particular site more critically and called to mind some of my experiences with fact checking. There are certain sites that are acceptable (usually those ending in .gov or .edu). Otherwise, it was up to our discretion to judge the credibility of a site. If I were to consider this site, I would probably see if I could find a better one, because the actual data comprises only part of the site and the rest is corporate packaging. When we use a site, especially for research, we must be careful to recognize who made it and, in many cases, we have to make a judgment call. Perhaps we could discuss further what criteria we’d use.
Lastly, I’d like to discuss in more depth Agre’s assertion that a community’s media, when they evolve without design, can become unequal and undemocratic. Does he mean access to media, or something about how sites/media themselves are constructed and used, such as the example of television versus the Internet? Is this something we can correct in existing media, or should we advance new forms of media that are more democratic to balance out the ones that have already evolved beyond some kind of democratizing realignment?
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:26 pm
It is important to know what influences dictate the information included on or excluded from websites. And the type of advertisements included on the page can tell you a lot; however I think this is where it also becomes a little tricky. For one, many websites rely on selling advertisement space in order to keep the site up and running, but at the same time if individuals see an advertisement for coke or cingular wireless on the National Geographic site it may lead them to question the objectivity/independence of the site.
January 23rd, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Sarah, I agree with you about the ads on the National Geographic site. They were extremely eye-catching and grabbed my attention immediately. While this is great for advertising purposes, it does limit the site’s impact as a scholarly research tool. I know historians cannot be entirely objective, but when information is packaged so slickly and blatantly to sell, it lessens the impact of the historical analysis and data.
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:34 pm
I think the value of the Smithsonian site could be for schools that are outside the DC area. For instance, let’s say that a class is studying the culture of the 1950’s or something…it’s possible that they could check out some sort of object on the site as an example. But you’re right, it’s certainly not a very in depth website, especially if one needs serious research. At any rate, I definitely agree that the museum should either make it more obvious to educators or the general public.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Interesting point about the Smithsonian website. The information presented is very specific and it is very unlikely a lot of people would be looking for a used chewing gum container named “Peggy.” I also tried to find the link for HistoryWired from the Smithsonian homepage, not so easy to do. So I think you raise a good point. However, I think Emily also raises a good point that the website would be useful for teachers. I would assume that teachers would be more likely to explore and use the Smithsonian’s website.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:06 am
I agree with you about the Pearl Harbor site. I was also disturbed by the corporate aspects and apparent partnerships. Whenever something is corporate-sponsored, the accuracy is called into question because it seems that there is an agenda. I would probably find another site to verify facts from it to assess the accuracy, but then that would eliminate the need for the corporate site in the first place.
December 24th, 2006 at 11:48 am
very good post…
…
January 15th, 2007 at 6:50 am
hello, it’s good idea…
…