week 1
This digital history thing, it works. When I first looked at the Philip Agre article, I noticed on the first page it said, “Please do not quote from this version, which may differ slightly from the version that appears in text.” Now I thought, what good is this then, if I have to go somewhere else to quote from it? Then I realized the webpage provided a link to The Network Observer, where the article originally appeared. And there it was, the original copy of the article.
The first chapter of Digital History provided an excellent overview and introduction to digital history. I was amazed at the immense potential of digital history. At the same time though, the chapter made certain to point out the numerous constraints and limitations to doing digital history. Even though, I only vaguely remember life before the internet. It is pretty amazing the progress made in less than 15 years. Obviously, the field of history has been slower to utilize new technology to expand the field and its audience. Do you think there will come a time when digital and visual history will be considered on the same intellectual level as traditional history? Or will there continue to be a distinction between “history” and “digital history?”
Philip Agre stressed the importance of knowing the goal of the media and the target audience. In the website examples that we looked at, each website had a different audience. The Smithsonian always has a large diverse audience including the general public and the scholarly community. The National Geographic website on Pearl Harbor seems to mainly target the general public. And The Valley of the Shadow website clearly is intended to be used as a research tool. Does a website’s target audience or purpose influence how credible we, as historians might see it? And if so, should that be the case?
I was really impressed by the Smithsonian’s HistoryWired website. The website is so easy to use. The numerous categories and subcategories allow the visitor to easily search and draw connections. However, thinking about it, the website is only a very small sample of many of the artifacts in the Smithsonian’s possession. Just as curators must decided which artifacts are displayed in each exhibit, for this website the Smithsonian selected a fairly large sample of their favorite artifacts not on display in the museum. Of course this website contains just a tiny fraction of the Smithsonian’s collections. Conversely, the Journal of American History points out that many history websites (especially archival sites) are too large for viewers to possibly read everything. Is one approach better than the other? Providing only selected documents on a website or trying to include as many documents on a website?
January 23rd, 2006 at 7:05 pm
I think that the line between history and digital history becomes thinner each day. Clearly the web is becoming more and more important in all research. Where as teachers used to ban using web resources, today they are among the first to admit to turning to Amazon and other websites to find a list of potential sources on a topic. As more and more print media becomes available online and in downloadable files, the importance of knowing about and how to utilize digital tools becomes greater.
Target audiences, as you point out, change the way the website is presented and, in turn, viewed. I think that websites made for scholars are more respected by scholars because the information is often more detailed. However, this respect does not make the information on more general websites less valid, although a broad picture often misses some of the nuances of history. I think this argument could also be applied to the number of documents referenced in a website or contained in an archive.
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:12 pm
I am not sure if there will ever be a time when digital and visual history will be considered on the same level as traditional history. Such issues are at the center of current debates within the field of history. Although I beleive such mediums as visualizations and digital history to be as informative as written prose. Hopefully scholars will some day relize the advantages of utilizing technology in regard to history.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:11 am
You pose a good question about digital and visual history vs. traditional history. It seems that historians have a tendency to categorize everything and we’ve talked a lot about how history often runs on parallel tracks (i.e. public history vs. academic history). I would guess it will take a long time for alternate forms of history to really get the respect they deserve in the academic world. Which is really too bad since the field of history could definitely benefit from using technology and visualizations a little more.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:52 am
I think that visual history is quickly rising to the standards of the “academic” history. People are beginning to realize the benefits of sources other than texts. Yes, academia is not the most open to new ideas, but the newer fields, such as public and cultural history have gained more acceptance, and will continue to grow.
Unfortunately, I think that the purpose of a website can affect how credible the audience views it. I know that when I saw the advertisements, etc. for the movie on the Pearl Harbor website, I began to be a little more critical of the website, though it was from the National Geographic.
January 24th, 2006 at 8:56 am
You raise a good point about the amount of information a Web site can offer and how this may (or may not) create problems for viewers. Personally, I’m torn. I like the idea of having unlimited access to a slew of archival material online if I am researching a topic for scholarly reasons. However, if I’m Jodi the average consumer who is interested in popular history and I don’t have a clear research objective in mind, I’m intimidated by the sheer volume of information available online. I don’t find it to be valuable to have to hunt through pages of text and data to find what I’m looking for - as a scholar or consumer.
Your last comments also touch the issue of copyright when you mention offering just selected documents online. I know in the AU archives where I work, visitors may only copy a certain portion of books because of copyright and you can only access photos online at this time. Other archival sites offer finding aids or collection guides online, but no documents in digital form. That seems to bring us back to the issue of standards and authorization - this really is a complicated issue!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
“Does a website’s target audience or purpose influence how credible we, as historians might see it? And if so, should that be the case?”
I don’t think that the target audience of a given site should influence whether or not the site is credible. Rather, the target audeicne should be considered when evaluating the information and analysis offered by a site. A site targeting academic historians should not be expected to appeal to a popular audience while a site targeting 4th graders should not be expected to engage in a complex historiographical debate. However, on the issues of bias and evidence, all sites should be held to the same high standards.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I just realized that there’s another Sarah in the class. The comment that posted at 2:24 was mine.
December 24th, 2006 at 11:47 am
hello, nice day…
…
January 15th, 2007 at 6:50 am
hello, it’s good idea…
…