The Virtual Past

I have yet to find an article on Wikipedia that I can contribute/make changes to. However, the forthcoming article by Roy Rosenzweig on the history and processes behind Wikipedia and its subsequent relationship to the historic profession brought up some important points that should be addressed.

First of all, research. I acknowledge Rosensweig’s statement that “Teachers have little more to fear from students starting with Wikipedia than they do with most other basic reference sources. They have a lot to fear if students stop there. To state the obvious Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias have intrinsic limits.” I fear though that not enough emphasis is being placed on the look further aspect of the internet. In my three semesters as a TA I’ve had four/five papers where students cited primarily from Wikipedia without any clear corroboration from important scholarly texts. It’s frustrating, especially in that while, as a class, we have acknowledged the benefits of the digital age, the internet offers up an easy way out for undergraduate students who simply do not want to do the work. It is almost like a poisoned apple shouting out from the bottom of an abyss to a starving person—“here take me at face value—I’m always right.” (I have no idea where that metaphor came from)

Now as historians we know that even we are not always right, but what the reading from this week demonstrates is that while errors in posts can be quickly rectified, there is still a likely chance that the information posted will be limited in representing the complexity of history. I’m particularly intrigued by the idea of NPOV—the Neutral Point of View—which outwardly makes sense but the historian in me cringes because is there ever really a neutral point of view? (Yes, I know Rosenzweig also covers this in his article but I still thought it worthwhile to reiterate.)

Secondly, as a product of public consumption, public construction, and public design—yes there is an element of awe at the level of articles and participation on this site. In effect, this site is an element of public history. The details that are placed on biographical pages—or what individuals chose to record in current event areas—are distinct locus’ of memory based on occurrences in the ‘real’ world. To some extent, the Wikipedia system mimics society—where even with the rules and laws, there is an element of subversion and freedom in what can be talked about and described within this communal web space. How people struggle over these particular details is fascinating and equally hard to track—(although the history of changes is an ideal point of research).

The blogs for this week—were equally fascinating. I hopped from blog to blog reading excerpts by Don Ritchie, a quotation by Donald Rumsfeld (click and go down the entry for March 10) on how no one really studies history anymore…to the History Carnival which set me off on even more tangents. The variety of conversation and discussions out there on multitudes of historical subjects is excellent. And while not as open source as Wikipedia, the do offer individuals the incentive to do something scholarly in the digital world.

And finally–here’s the link to Wookiepedia..yes its an open source Wiki on all things Star Wars…I found it when i was searching for something to edit off of the real Wikipedia site…

Lots of legal jargon in the reading this week: from ‘fair use’ to ‘public domain,’ ‘teacher exception’, and my favorite ‘creative commons.’

Copyright is serious business—and is incredible how much it impacts the daily lives of historians. The Digital History chapter brought up the point that putting an excerpt of a textbook online is permissible as long as its part of a gated system like Blackboard, but I notice that sometimes the e-reserve at the Library won’t allow text to be uploaded if they deem it to be outside the bounds of copyright i.e. too many pages of the book rather than just a mere excerpt.

I did find the discussion on orphan works and simply the ambiguity over works on the web to be interesting—and once again it underscores the newness of the digital arena. There are no hard and fast rules and often it is best for different groups like the Documentary Filmmakers document in the reading to ascribe and describe the best practices. Even though a lot of the rules for fair use seemed to be common sense, it is always best to document the process.

I appreciated the metaphor that was used by Cohen/Rosenzwieg that said that if a copy write violation is brought to the attention of a web designer, he/she can remove the offending quotation/image/audio/video in an instant while its harder within a physical object. In this instance the digital world is a unique center for information. However, in the arena of the creative commons, copy write that falls outside this public domain stifles creative and in our case the presentation of history to a public face. As a side note–can I just say I was astounded by the extension of law that extended the copy write for many great works for a longer period of time….

On the flip side, I always say err on the side of caution (which seems to be a phrase that copy write books seem to like) and that for your own work, be sure to document when and where it may be used. Again though, in terms of research, I also feel that it is critical that it be out there—and that while laying your faith in the world of academic ethics seems to be a rather risky business—sometimes it may be the only recourse/alternative to the dissemination of your materials for critique. Naturally though this taught coincides with the discussion of the Digital arena and New Scholarship…and the tricky terrain that Digital Historians and researchers as well as the public will have to negotiate in years to come.

Yes, this is the same proposal as on Linda’s blog….

Priya Chhaya & Linda Neylon

History in the Digital Age

Final Project Description

Our intention in this final project is to develop a collection site for American University which displays text and images relating to student life and the history of the university. The primary audience is the AU community—which includes students former, current, or perspective, faculty and staff while secondary audiences depending on the collections developed can include researchers on local history and university campus life. To some extent the intent of the site is to provide a place of reflection and to get primary source information about the role of American University in local and student life.

Organizationally, the site will be modeled after the North Carolina State College of Engineering Collecting site [http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/news/memories/index.html] with two separate sections to view and share memories. The view memory section will be divided up based on years, while the share memories will include an e-mail address/web space where text and/or image files can be sent. We shall use a combination of Dreamweaver and Photoshop to build this website using principles described in the Digital History text to make sure that it is both visually appealing and easy to navigate. In terms of design, the intention is to have a core main page which is simple, and has a sample of the collection within while the subsidiary sections provide other examples as well as easy to follow instructions for submissions. In addition, we are thinking about attaching a survey for visitors to tell us why they visited the site including citation information to encourage researchers to use to cite for academic information. Images of AU’s history will also be integrated in order to aid in survey collections as a memory prompt for visitors to the site.

The way this site will impact our personal and professional goals is two fold. On one hand it is a practice in Public History—impacting and serving a unique audience in a particular way. On the other hand it allows for the development of a local history archive, especially many of the American University students went to work and participated in a variety of events in and around the city. At present, there isn’t a distinct argument regarding the site, but perhaps we can say that through the resource we hope to collect we will show the importance and variety of ways in which AU impacted individuals, the city and maybe even the nation.

For this week (or rather next week…following Spring Break) the readings moved away from the theoretical to the practical with readings from Digital History on “Designing for the History Web”, and the importance of standardization.

Thematically, I think the underlying key words for this post is “usability and creativity.” How does one design a website with structure, but also aesthetic elements that are pleasing and professional? Especially when your willingness to learn is tempered by limits in time?

For this semester, (as mentioned in an earlier post) another graduate student and I have been working to redesign the American University History Department Website. Right now, it’s manageable…though filled with lots of white space, and a very unclear design structure.

Consequently, much of what was mentioned in the readings for this book have been pieces of information that Rob and I have subconsciously striven to uphold. For instance…though the site is not distinct in its application of history it still is a piece of the History web world, and so in an effort to make things easier (and the site more manageable in the long term) we have been struggling to learn and implement CSS though after a period that involved the gnashing of teeth, we reluctantly went back to tables–before going back CSS because I was introduced me to wonderful CSS templates through the Center for History and New Media…..

Anyway, that in essence was the hardest part—the basic aesthetic that we wanted to impart had already been written, it was through code manipulation and colors that we have been working to define/brand the site. As a result I find that we are working with those five principles from Robin Williams and John Tollet’s book The Non Designers Web Book: contrast, proximity, alignment, repeat. It is important to us, after looking at the old site, to import a greater sense of order so that someone coming in after us can get a sense an idea of how information has been allocated and communicated. Something as simple as using a neutral base color has made a world of difference…

In essence, each of these pieces: URL’s, images, font, multimedia, thumbnails versus actual size, light versus dark all must be balanced in the overarching effort to create a site that is both useable and creative.

In terms of web standards the list provided is rooted in common sense. Look Professional, Help your Client, Future Content sense and my favorite “Its the right thing to do.” which made me laugh a little. Industry standards aside, I can see how seperating design and structure from content can be a positive thing, opening new avenues for the look and feel of websites…to make things seem sleeker, and more real.

At the same time, and as a final comment, doesn’t that make it a little harder for just anyone to do? More languages, more coding, more graphic design elements…in a world where having your own website is a must, expanding what someone needs to implement that ‘must’ seems to be getting tougher…so what does that mean about the internet being accessible for everyone?

PS: I’m purposely not putting up a screen capture of the new website. We hope to have a prototype for everyone to review by the beginning of April. So stay tuned.

To some extent, much of what was said in this week’s reading expands upon previous class discussions. After reading various articles and browsing the Journal of the Association of History and Computing, I have to say that the impact of the internet on the digital world is one of gradual progression.

Yes, the internet is possibly the new automobile impacting travel, communication, human interaction and the preservation of the past, but it is still perhaps constantly tested medium. Right now there seems to be no limit to what one can do on the internet (except obviously physically interacting with other human beings). At the same time though there are simple, day-to-day problems that effect scholarship in a very real way: eye-strain, accuracy, access and publication. Only through consistent innovation and invention can newer, better ways of presenting scholarship be developed….

Each of these problems also exist in the real world—(how many books does a historian have to read before they find their niche?) How many times has a document been picked up only to be disproved as a forgery or a biased viewpoint at a later date? And access to materials outside of libraries is often controlled by an academic hierarchy of networking. Though most libraries have free access…. Lastly there’s publication which though peer-reviewed is a testament to the rigors of academic life. As they say…Publish or Perish.

So what are the benefits of New Media and Scholarship?

1. David Bell’s anecdotal introduction shows that at the very least New Media saves time, allowing historians to focus on other parts of the research project.
2. Dynamic presentation options. Especially in terms of visual and material culture, the digital realm offers a variety of means in which to display and identify objects and images—allowing direct interaction between the historian, reader and the past.
3. I found the suggestion by Benjamin Hermalin to be particularly fascinating. In order to speed up the peer-review/publish process use digital media to submit to a “family” of journals which would place the article, once accepted into the best fit—saving the author time and effort.
4. Presenting information in a global market. Digital media allows at a low cost, for journals to replicate their content into a variety of languages

I am not a fan of the e-book. I agree with Bell, reading an e-book is fine for literature or fiction where the story drives the narration. In terms of scholarship, e-books stifle and make it hard to concentrate on the argument when it is fed piecemeal through a limited web browser. I suppose my questions for this week rest on what this course has been about all along: i.e. translation. How can we translate our real-world practice of history into the digital realm, how can we take what works and not lose sight of the complex process that doing history devises? I say coherency matters, and that whatever media is with maximum clarity…otherwise new ideas and information may be threathened to languish in obscurity.