combs

Comment#1: William Turkel’s Teaching Young Historians to Search, Spider, and Scrape was interesting and informative. Before reading Turkel’s blog the terms scrape and spider had very different meanings. A spider was an insect of sorts and my own definition of the word scrape had nothing to do with computers. This got me to thinking about language and how it is constantly evolving, eventho the terms themselves remain the same there definitions or meanings shift over time. After reading his blog I realized that I have been doing everything he described: both spidering and scraping. The thing I found interesting was that prior to this reading such actions had no meaning or definition in my life, they just came naturally to me. Which lead me to question how one learns to do something that is not defined within their own world? What I mean by this is that I was spidering and scraping with out even knowing it. In fact, what Turkel defines as spidering I referred to as searching prior to reading his blog, but now I feel that I must or should use the term spidering. Is this a form of socialization? Will I now be socialized or pushed into using these terms?

Comment#2: In Daniel Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig’s chapter on collecting history on the web the avenues through which historians can take advantage of the internet are explored. Cohen and Rosenzweig explore the ever evolving medium of digital history (collecting history online). ”Another form of interactivity on the web remains less developed but has the potential to create novel forms of history in the future: using the Internet to collect historical documents, images, and personal narratives, many of which would be lost if historians did not actively seek them out,” argue Cohen and Rosenzweig. (1) Thier discussion lead me to ask the question: What if all historical documents were available or stored online? How would that change the tensions felt when natural disaster or wars lead to chaos and the subsequent loss of historical documents. Eithier at the hands of these, fires, or rising flood waters? It is important to note however that I do not beleive digital copies of historical documents are as significant as the originals, but at least the information would not be lost under such circumstances. 

In additon, it is significant that Cohen and Rosenzweig address the problems with internet reporting such as newspapers and blogs in regard to recording history online.  The internet and online databases are distinctive aspects of modern culture: aspects that should be recorded. However fleeting certain blogs or chat rooms may, be given the fast paced nature of our society, it is important that we record our generations cultural history. Who or what organization will take up this task? The Library of Congress, following September 11th, 2001 took the initiative to archive online news reports about the days events; however it is unclear that such organizations continue to archive online newpapers, etc. to this day.

Commnet#3: I spent the most time exploring the September 11th Digital Archive site. Partly becuase it is an event that I lived through as well as the fact that I ended up posting a message on the site regarding where I was on the day in question. This lead my to ponder the issues many of my collegues had with the postings on the National Geographic site. How are the postings sorted or edited? How can each story be validated or checked? I am not sure that they can? Individuals just have to trust that my account is truthful! By the way it is, but there is really no way for them to decipher that it isn’t. At least none that I know of.  

Comment #1: I must admit that when I think of online chats, blogs, or forums the first image that pops into my head is not one of a tenured professor discussing history methodology with a colleague or even graduate students discussing the significance of the weeks readings. The representation that does come to mind however is one of Star Wars junkies discussing their favorite film or perhaps an online chat room for singles looking to mingle. This got me to thinking: “Why is that?” Why are many of us, including myself, conditioned to visualize these images. Is it the media or journalists as Philip E. Agre alludes to in his article “Designing Genres for New Media”? Considering that most commercial advertisements regarding the internet or online forums center on dating services one could conclude, “yes”. The internet is not marketed as a source for historical documents or discussion, but as an avenue which through individuals can buy clothing, books, furniture, and search for movie times.

Comment #2: Another issue that rose to mind in regard to Agre’s article is the relationship between community and internet forums. Agre’s argument seems to come into conflict with previous assertions held by social historians such as Warren I. Susman who in his work Culture as History argues that technology has served to fracture social cohesiveness in the sense that people don’t really talk anymore. For instance instead of someone coming over for a visit or individuals spending time with one another face to face our world has increasingly become more fast paced. Individuals rely more and more on email and cell phones to keep in touch.

Comment #3: Learning more about the history of the web has changed my perception of its importance. It has also led me to ponder the question of just how differently individuals, of my generation, would view the internet if say they had been born ten or twenty years earlier. Having had the resource of the web nearly all of my academic life has in some ways led me to take it for granted.  I can’t imagine a time when computers or the internet were not a daily part of my life. Technology and history have gone hand in hand for me throughout my academic career. Thus to discover that staples such as H-Net have been around for just thirteen years or so, puts things into perspective. In addition the infancy of technologies such as the internet, visualizations, and websites only contribute to debate regarding the appropriate mediums for historical prose and sources. Debate which Daniel Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig touch upon in their chapter entitled “History Web.” I found the authors concerns regarding categorization and listings to be quite valid. Simply because they speak to the question of what is deemed important and historical versus what is not. Often times, particularly in regard to the way internet sites are categorized gives a false sense of accuracy to the sites in question and to the individuals using the browser. Debate over the appropriate medium for history in regard to the internet got me to thinking about how that related to concerns historians have regarding history and film. Historians cringe at the reality that most Americans get their history from films such as the New World, Pocahontas, The Alamo, etc. Just as these films are not historically accurate there are numerous websites that claim to be sources of historical fact that are not. How have historians dealt with this dilemma? I know that there are guidelines for websites as in the JAH guidelines used for posting web reviews; however I wonder how well they are monitored or put into place? Is this a point of contention regarding historical websites? I wonder how, as mentioned above, the influence of the media has influenced historians’ perception of the web as a source? And how that has influenced debate over the issue of the appropriate medium for history?

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