Longevity of Digital History?

There is serious debate in the field of digital history over the ramifications of digitizing.  Obviously there are strong arguments made on both sides, but what is the smartest move?  Putting sources online with the vast potential to have millions view it and get involved, or stick to paper format to be used on campus and in libraries only where for the most part preservation is not the most concerning issue.  Accessibility vs. Preservation are two theories that are conflicting in the 21st century.  Some continuity that I find, whether the best outlet to submit digital history to or preserve it, is through institutions.  Due to funding or sustainable resources, digitizing and storing history can be best accomplished through foundations or collegial institutions.

The irony of the new technology age and the availability of presenting history online is that it is changing faster than we know how to manage it.  Yes it’s an awesome tool to promote and share history, but at what cost?  Are the benefits exceeding the risks?  With the damage possibility of CDROMS and the ever changing software of Microsoft from year to year, how can we guarantee priceless information will not be lost in the upgrade process?  It’s a tough question, and a scary thought. 

As with anything I know there are risks, but there has to be better ways to guarantee preservation outside of institutional guarantees only.  The bar has to be set high and the risks have to be low because our work is too important to be lost in the sphere of ever changing technology.  We need to stay ahead of the technology gap.  But how can we guarantee others will work to stay ahead too?

Add comment November 19, 2008 katdp3

Building a web community

One of the most difficult elements, as illustrated in the readings, is getting others to “buy into” your webpage.  To attract attention, the right kinds, to whatever topic you choose for your website .  It’s always great to create a website that you like, but who cares if no one else does!  If you want more and more people to be interested in your resource, marketing, I think, is the trickiest part.  Getting the right capability and buying the right software is annoying and tedious (or can be), but creating a final product that not only gets hits but continues to grab attention is the hard part.  Starting small by collecting emails is probably the best bet, once your webpage gets off the ground, sophistication can come later through blogs and multiple postings and larger networks.  By establishing a healthy and talkative community, history can be generated, developed, shared and enriched. The early stages of establishing a strong community of visitors will be the most difficult; gaining trust, authority and credibility does not come easy.  Especially when Cohen advocates getting an email address from visitors.  If you have done a good job proving your website has been done well, and contains a good mission, odds are people will not come back.  First impressions are huge! 

Using the September 11th archive is a great source for ideas.  By making the mission clear, the creator information available, and giving viewers the option to get involve to either contribute or preserve history, you can get off on the right foot.  The creators of that sight used a traumatic and sensitive issue to engage an audience and enrich/preserve a piece of history.  Accessibility, as mentioned in other articles is very important, as well as clarity to get viewers hooked.

Add comment November 10, 2008 katdp3

Website recognition!

Even though I will not be creating a website for much historical use,  the one I am making I want to make sure students and parents want to come back to!  Have clear, navigable tabs and links that provide good direction and information is vital.  Knowing my community, I want to be certain that the design has some promise.  By making clear, basic titles like “assignments”, tests/quizzes, projects and helpful links”  my community will not be confused or frustrated with the layout.  Providing students will the website and access to the site (through the district’s template) also has to be crystal clear and accurate! 

 I will definitely check out other websites with the same goals to see what is most effective.  Although this chapter was not really targeted for high school teachers, the ideas were useful for consideration.  Worst case scenario would be for me to announce my site for parents, with a bad design and have phone calls and emails of parents complaining about its format!  So it will be a very very cautious project for me and one that I will approach slowly and with a great deal of care.

Add comment November 1, 2008 katdp3

Changing Museums

The more museums cooperate and engage the public the better.  To do that, technology needs to be at the forefront.  Whether through blogs, wikis or tags, museums need to get their act together.  To encourage the public to be excited and intrigued by what museums have to offer, museum personnel have to understand and be educated in using the Internet, and offer as many possibilities they can to interest people to look at what they have or come in and visit.  To attract new audiences, as mentioned in the “Steve.museum” article, new strategies for user “engagement” that build community and a following is a major goal.

Social participation, even from remote locations, can be a great pick up if the technology is offered on a mass scale.  Museums can offer tags, which allow participants to label artifacts in simple terms allowing others to locate and find museum pieces easier than before.  Personal connections between multiple audiences can only increase accessibility and communication.  To provide a crucial dialogue should be a requirement as a means to stay modern and involved with the community at large. 

As mandated by the DCHI survey, museum staff need to be trained with technology and kept in the loop to understand terms such as tags, blogs, wikis, and podcasts.   This is priority number one I believe.

Case Study:  The Museum of Underwater Archaeology—-was created to help underwater archaeologists and maritime historians present their research to public.  The site provides exhibits, project journals, in the field expeditions, blogs and maritime news.  Connecting to Americans of all ages, about the past and current artifacts, this Museum is unbelievably involved cultural landscapes, education and solving water mysteries.  The site also posts a blog for individuals to comment on recent discoveries and current available information.

Add comment October 26, 2008 katdp3

Week 8 comments

From the chapters in Digital History, I thought it was interesting for the author to point out the logical costs and inconveniences of scanning by hand or hiring out for the process.  Costs applied by the helpers provided for meta-data is usually underestimated.  But the convenience of having sources digitized can be worth it to avoid tediously sifting through boxes of primary sources and waiting for archival procedures.  Obviously, online sources are continuing to increase.  I am still not convinced that digitizing is the best way to go, although I think it is the movement of the future.  New accessibility is great, but at what cost?  Costs can be outrageous, plus accuracy, as pointed out, is not always guaranteed!  If I am spending hundreds even thousands of dollars to digitize works, they better give a discount and fix the source if I find errors!

Images and texts online have an enormous amount of value in the classroom, but the expensive process to produce them online, along with how unfaithful the online documents are to the original, casts some doubt.  The Achilles heal of digitizing, as mentioned by the author, is a great point.  I’m sure one that many poorly funded historians or historical societies deal with.  “Ok it sounds good, but maybe later.”  Due to the lack of funding and non-technical capability of many.  A connection to a university is key, their resources and experts would really help the process and save some aggravation.

Jensen’s keynote speech, points to the threat that libraries and publishers are starting to encounter because of digitization.  Are books in their physical form a dying breed??  If E-books are the wave of the future, there should be some serious concern about what use libraries will have in the future, and how research will be utilized online vs. in person.  Are libraries inherently against “change” and “adaptation”?  I think he makes a good point about what universities and libraries can do to still maintain their attractiveness.  Stay in the circle!  By proving their value, communciating and assisting historians, and working with scholarly societies, libraries and universites stay with the grade and show their capabilities and contributions to academics.

Libraries have much updating and modernizing to do and its time for a movement for all local and state libraries to get going with their use of potential technology.  The availability of digital forgery is prevalent on the internet, and more common than the survelliance of it, as pointed out in the Economist.  It is easier today to find misleading photos and fake ones, but the process is slow and is definitely not flawless.

Case Study:  National Archives—–AKA the national Record Keeper!  They hold in trust the famous documents we all know of (Constitution, Bill of Rights, Dec. of Independence) but also the records of ordinary citizens.  The essential documents of the rights of citizens and the action of our government.  It was established by FDR in 1934 and has holdings dating back to 1775.  There archives branch in 14 cities and provide access to millions.  Popular programs include:  American Memory, and the Federal Register.  Located in DC, the “Rotunda of the Charters of Freedom”—-house the Dec. of Indep., the Constitution, Bill of Rights for viewing.  YAY for the National Archives, in preserving our past!!!

Add comment October 19, 2008 katdp3

Week 6: Creating webpages

The Digital History reading was very informative.  As I have mentioned before, I am mostly uninformed when it comes to new technology and Internet possibilities.  I feel as though the “Digital History” online-book provided very useful information if one is interested in creating a new website.  I have never thought about “picking apart” a website before.  I thought it was interesting how the author stated it is not as easy to breakdown a website compared to a book.  A book can also survive generations, while a website can easily be altered and deleted or corrupted. 

Having a vision for your webpage is crucial before starting the project, allowing yourself time to gather your thoughts and staying on track with the information you want to cover will help with the focus and scope of the website.

There is a unique balance in creating an online project.  Too much color or too much text, not enough direction or accessibility can all prove to be fatal.   Many of the thoughts are common sense.  You want to make sure that your web page is readable (watch out for color scheme), easily navigable and relatively orderly.  But other points mentioned were helpful.  Choosing who is to host your site can get costly, the benefits of scholarly institutions include funding and help with website problems.    Deciding what software to use in creating a web page is also something to be cautious about options like Dreamweaver seems to be the most costly while Blackboard would be less costly, but does not provide as many creative options. 

Considering advertising and how that would effect the message you want to send when someone views your site is also something to think about and consider.  The tone of the web page could adversely be effected if ads appear on both side columns or above the homepage of the site.  Funding is also an issue.  That is why having a vision for your site is so important because promoting that vision and finding another institution who shares in that vision will provide the backbone necessary to get your site off the ground. 

A key question that is asked in the book is does the web page “enable and inspire me to think about and grasp the past?”  That is a great point, and great advice when creating a website.  The solid principles of “good design, navigation and accessibility” are also significant.  Steps when including audio include:  posting a time stamp and the total size of the multi-media file are important details to provide for visitors to your site, so they know how long the audio is and if it will stream or download quickly. 

A key component of accessibility is Section 508.  This law makes sure that individuals with disabilities can still navigate through your site.  If the goal is to have as many people visit your site as possible, all angles have to be considered and provided for.  Would your site be pleasing to the eye, even for those who are visually impaired??

The Case study on Podcasts was setup very well and simple to understand.  I think podcasts are a great tool and supplement for historical sites.  It would help with interviews and background commentary for a site.  The four simple steps include:  preparation, recording, publication and marketing.  I have listened to podcasts before and they prove to be very effective to illustrate a point or enrich a site.  I also appreciated the suggested rules to follow if I was to try my own podcast given in “Beginner’s Guide to Podcasts and podcasting.”

1 comment October 5, 2008 katdp3

Week 5:changing scholarship

Case Study:  “Hurricane Remembrance”-  I think the site dedicated to the hurricanes of Katrina and Rita is pretty awesome.  Their whole philosophy is to tell the story of these two hurricanes through eyewitness accounts, blogs, photos, and podcasts.  In remembrance of these two disasters, forming a strong historical record through the use of digital tools is accomplished on this site.  It is a great link to use as a model of what is possible in digitizing history and through the use of collaboration.  As part of their collections, they use sources from the Smithsonian, the Coast Guard, and collegial support.  As with other digital sites, there are questions about credibility of stories and inaccurate accounts.  The creators do their best to keep track of the contributions, every contributor provides their identity and address, so there is some accountability.  The editors do their best within time limits to review and look for appropriate contributions.  The site can be a great source for research, even follow up research if this was an area of interest.

“Our Cultural Commonwealth”-This long piece provides information, feedback and advocacy for the field of digital history.  The article reminded me of a source that I looked at last semester advocating for “historical preservation”.  The time frame for consistency of 5 to 6 years I think was a bit of a stretch considering how much is to be accomplished, but the ideas and motivations were clear and realistic.  The money issue is not something that will ever go away.  The funds, whether through donations, grants, or through budget revisions, are always what set the limitations for a project.  Not only will collaboration be a major component for the advancement of this initiative, but acceptance and agreement especially by the “older, traditional” crowd of college boards, and foundations is NECESSARY!  This will take years and years to accomplish, but first people have to jump on the bandwagon and to get that effect they have to be ready to spend the money!  EEK!  It was a very inspiring article with tons of great facts and information, and will definitely convince people and organizations to get aboard.

“Doing Digital Scholarship”-Lisa Spiro indicates the importance of wikis in research as a great source to network and collaborate.  Her quote of “I’m able to see other perspectives and improve my own thinking.”  I think that’s our course in a nutshell!  To be honest there were alot of references like “THAT camp”, “TAPOR” and ” Wordle” that I am completely clueless to, but she used them to prove her points about the ease of comparing, and managing citations especially.  She discusses the other benefits of tools like “Digital Research Tools” (DiRT), in learning about tools outside of her field and other qualitative data.  Lisa did a good job describing the positives of doing digital scholarship. 

“From Babel to Knowledge”-Cohen’s analysis on Syllabus finder was interesting.  I would have never thought of such a tool, or the availability of such a tool.  That’s helpful!  Also the hints that he provided on a search engine help when distinguishing between sources.  He also explained the perks of H-Bot.  I am aware of this tool, but I have not used it so much in teaching, which I will definitely consider now.  In just entering a couple of words in a search engine, Cohen explains how one could find data best or worst depending on the words you use!

Add comment September 29, 2008 katdp3

Week 4 Reaction to readings and case study

Hello everyone- I will be out of class again due to a car accident so I apologize for not being able to elaborate on the following thoughts in person. 

“Can History be Open Source”-I found this article very interesting.  As I have mentioned in class before, I am very skeptical and usually encourage my students to avoid Wikipedia when citing sources for their research paper.  After reading this article I found some of my worries confirmed and some info attitude changing.  I thought Rosenzweig’s arguments on the accessibility and speed in collecting and reforming information submitted to the wikipedia page has its drawbacks as he highlighted.  First there are common errors always found in articles submitted to Wikipedia, but they could be quickly changed and corrected.  I also agree that through google searches wikipedia is usually one or two for recommended sites, for better or for worse.  I also thought it was interesting that some sites as he mentions such as “Britannica” and “Encarta” might have better reputations, accuracy wise, but wikipedia has up to the minute revised news that for the most part would take longer for those before mentioned sites to provide.  The “free” cost issue is obviously attractive to many, and the growing articles submitted and held on wikipedia has increased exponentially.  I also thought it was an interesting argument made by Rosenzweig that Wikipedia tries to provide a “neutral point of view” in their articles, but because articles can be edited that can change right?  And the articles themselves might elaborate more on the side of an issue and not on another-which inherently shows bias right??  So I thought that was a little tricky.  My biggest argument is who has access to editing and are those individuals reliable enough, if the goal is to make wikipedia a true, accredited source, will that ever be without some type of crack down on who is allowed to edit?  And if there is a crackdown does that change the whole goal that the creators envisioned?  I do like what Rosenzweig mentions toward the end of his article- on adding a limited version to check the “history” of each page.  That would be something that I would totally be for which could let you know not only how many edits, but who used the pages and if those people are very active in editing for Wikipedia.  That inclusion gave me more confidence in this site.  But my argument, as I’m sure most of you will agree, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which doesn’t count in my opinion as a secondary or primary source!  (My students get tired of hearing that!)

“Googling the Victorians”-I like how this article showed the indispensable quality of search engines not only for seeking information but for networking thoughts and ideas.  In giving credit to the internet age, Leary admits the endless possibilities for finding previously uncovered information that is accessible online without solely relying on library databases and librarian knowledge.  Although he reassures that there is a fine balance to library research collection and internet use, he points to the present time as a great opportunity for knowledge and sharing of knowledge, which I completely agree with.  I also agree that mastering how to use google in typing in your subject with quotations or not with quotations or with specific titles or more general is a skill to be mastered to get the information that you are most interested in.

“Digital Maoism”-Maybe it’s part of the concussion I experienced, but I thought this article jumped around so much when Lanier is trying to prove his argument through multiple examples.  I understand that he worries through the craze of Wiki sites and Myspace the individuals voice will be lost.  The collective set up of Wikipedia in putting together an article that is a combination of writers, and editing procedures Lanier argues that this causes the voice of the writer to be indistinguishable and lost in many ways.  This is not the case through self constructed websites that contain the personality and emotion of the creator.  I think that point is very interesting, and can definitely be seen if you compare WIkipedia to website located by google.  Even though the voice cannot be heard on Wikipedia, that doesn’t mean that the information displayed, voice heard or not, is more accurate that Wikipedia might provide.  It seems as though he is more concerned about losing individuality in the process of collaboration.

“No Computer Left Behind”-As a teacher I can personally relate to the message in this article.  Cohen and Rosenzweig seem to be major proponents of eliminating the use of Scan tron tests because it is not a method of challenging student learning or student achievement but rather a tool used to grade easier and access mundane knowledge.  This shortened form of assessment has its place a believe, I think it challenges students to use their knowledge of a subject and apply it to find the right answer among a series of available ones.  Obviously the knowledge has to be there for them to get the right answers.  But as a teacher I always include critical reading questions, and short answer/essay based assessments that allow students to tie their ideas together which draws from what we discussed in class, what they might have learned from primary sources, from online sources, or from secondary sources.  In having assessments structured in such a way, it really does require students to think of “complex and thoughtful” answers which test their comprehension.  I am guilty of using scantron, but they are always paired with an expression based format question, one that asks students to be comprehensive in their analysis.  I agree and share the concern of Cohen and Rosenzweig in their article.

“Know it All”-I first found the part that the “George Bush” article has to be monitored all the time for “vandalism” hilarious.  Sorry to offend anyone, but you just cannot make that up!  “Sometimes more than twice a minute” is just too funny.  But I think it gets to the heart of the article, which is a major critique of wiki sites, how they heck do you monitor the edits when this is a continuously growing site, and how do you know for certain who is running the site.  The fact that this 24 year old guy who claimed to have a theology degree and PHD and who is suppose to be in charge of confirming accuracies has no professional standing to do so is TERRIFYING!  Hence, my case and point of skepticism with Wiki.   Accountability????  I mean come on!

“The Wikipedia Story that’s Being Missed”-Cohen is in support of Wikipedia and it’s partnership with google and yahoo especially, and using wikipedia entries on any particular subject can help with retrieving information.  I agree that wikipedia helps search engines like google because it is a free service and their are lots of new contributions every day.  It is definitely not perfected enough to my liking though.  I’ll stop there before I get repetitive.

“Citizendium”-is a rival site to Wikipedia.  There mission is to focus on reliability and quality rather than on quantity, which I think is a direct jab at wikipedia who is a growing more and more by the minute almost in an unregulated manner.  The site itself admits to its newness and its appeal for both editors and authors to join.  One of the clear differences this site has to wikipedia is real names are used in both “collegial and congenial” ways.  And the branch of Citizendium:  Eduzendium writes for academic credit, which I think is an interesting twist.  Contributions in the fields of: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts, Applied Arts and Sciences, and Recreation are all apart of this site.  This is also a free site, that works toward promoting education, in a nonprofit, global way.

Add comment September 23, 2008 katdp3

“Do History” case study

My computer crashed last night, so I am typing this from work!  Sorry about the late response!  I think the website “Do History” is a fascinating look at primary sources and the strategies of research.  It describes how research on less  known people in history can be just as interesting and informative about certain time periods.  The ability for this site to produce instructions and detective skills using artifacts, diary entries and “small pieces” of info is a new and interesting take on this process. 

For individuals interested in doing their own research it is a great site to visit to acquire enough background knowledge and initial skills.

Add comment September 17, 2008 katdp3

Response to Dan Cohen’s Blog

For someone who is new to the blog scene, I thought it was an interesting take on the benefits of blogging.  I have always been skeptical of learning through blogs because I have thought of blogging as a social tool rather than an academic one. 

With Cohen’s reference to this common stereotype in such a humorous way, I think his argument is made more forcefully and creditably.  I definitely fit into the “blogs are used for expressing opinions or emotions rather than facts that are noteworthy”.  I still am very critical of blogging in general.  But I think with his reference to historian Paul Bushkovitch in using blogs to express historical research and valuable information, the trend is starting for blogs to gain more respect, as not only outlets for new information, but for information of value!

With the availability as Cohen mentioned to link names with blogs, one can easily note whether the author is a reliable authority on the subject matter presented.  Which helps for diehard skeptics like myself.  Public forums are growing continously from blog to blog which allows for fruitful discussions and immeasurable resource sharing. 

Cohen highlights the main arguments for and against blogging, and in doing so, he makes a powerful statement for the new use of this technology.

Add comment September 7, 2008 katdp3