Reflections

When I first signed up for the course, I had a good idea going in what I was going to be in for, but still was surprised. We didn’t discuss historical video games at all, which is something I wasn’t expecting to have discussed much but would have liked an opportunity to go over it, as it’s becoming a platform for many to learn history (Or monuments in video games, of which there are at least one article written). Of the articles and assignments, I really liked the historian blogger one we did around Halloween, which was a great deal of fun to listen to and talk about. The actual crowdsourcing of transcribing and tagging was also fun and interesting to talk about, and something I will be doing in the future.

Admittedly I had read similar articles about open source websites like Wikipedia and twitter when writing my white paper on digital history for Prof. Glaser. I still enjoyed them as well, and the conversation about them. I did try to comment on another persons posts every once in a while, but wish I did instigate more of a discussion online over the course of the semester. As far as the readings go I felt they were helpful, though truthfully I read a good chunk of the Rosenzweig book over the course of the summer to help give extra context to the course and supplement the readings. While we did have some readings out of that book, I was more ambivalent about it. It was new information to discover the non-permanence of the internet, as we were all told that once it’s on the internet it’s there forever, which isn’t always exactly true. I’ve also decided to make the exhibit my capstone, which there is a lot of material to go off of and is something I look forward to.

Reach for the Ropes: Tag You’re In.

What a week! I apologize on being a day late on posting this, but I’ve got some exciting news to share! (At the end of the post).

First things first, the link on the page appears to be partially broken taking you to the archives.gov page. Once I created an account, it was a little daunting at first, looking at posters and such and questioning every single tag idea that came through my brain before I remembered I’m there to make the viewers life easier. Truthfully I had a little trouble finding items I felt comfortable tagging, but it got a little easier when I found a few items relating to Weir Farm that had no tags associated with them.

While entertaining, they did not provide a large amount of instruction on what to do or what exactly they were looking for. Signing up for an account certainly would help diminish the risks of trolls or people messing with items. While I’m sure a determined person could always create a new email with name, the amount of effort and energy expended to go through with that would seem to be not worth the effort. It also allows them to track down the trolling to a single source and revert any damage done from a single account much easier.

Transcribing is a bit easier, and certainly something I find oddly relaxing. I have found I can read a number of poor penmanship, and while my skills aren’t quite unrivaled I’ve found I can decipher most chicken scratch that gets sent my way.

All in all it’s a pretty great activity, allowing citizens and fledgling historians to get into the nitty gritty and help out with digitization and digital history efficiently and effectively! I’m very impressed with the website as a whole, and hope to continue to use it!

On a side note, I’ve been asked by the Ridgefield Historical Society to help run their website and contribute a post every once in a while. I’m likely to say yes, and the said it ran on WordPress, which I have a little bit of experience using from this blog! This week ties in pretty well with this opportunity, so I’m rather excited with how things are turning out!

Twitterstorian

Admittedly, I don’t use Twitter all that much. The platform I don’t really favor, and I primarily used it to vote on which team in the LCS I thought was going to win. I only recently changed my picture from that of Justice Leagues “The Question” and started moving in the direction of taking the platform more seriously. I followed a few Twitterstorians (after searching the term) as well as checked out a couple of the twitter diaries I had seen previously and referenced in the white paper I wrote for a previous class. Many of the twitterstorian posts didn’t necessarily have to deal with being a historian. I blame the hype of the election, but quite a few were more vocal about that than about history. There were a few who were asking for advice on potential sources, topics, and other ideas, as well as sharing links to different articles to keep their followers informed on the topics they thought valuable. War Through Art I rather enjoy, as they post posters and they celebrated national pickle day by posting two war posters about pickles, which gets them points in my book for such a niche post.

My twitter is still a hodgepodge of different subjects, several retweeted reviews of internet celebrity critics I found interesting or who raised good points, a couple pictures of cats, some League of Legends related posts, and sharing a page about puns. Admittedly there isn’t really anything remotely history related on my twitter page, though I think most of that is due to my reluctance to even use he platform in the first place. I would try to “harness he power of the digital web” in other ways truthfully. I liked the podcasts we looked at a couple weeks ago and doing one of those could be fun. Historical YouTube series like Extra History, which were both entertaining and good for brushing up on my history of Christianity and made for good discussion as I was able to go into greater detail with my friends who were watching with me. For my exhibit, I could incorperate a short podcast on the history of Ridgefield and the Weir Family up to the first World War to help provide a background information for the listener that can help visitors greater understand the items on the website.

Missing the Things You Missed

The blog I decided to check out was “Things you Missed in History Class”. I was first greeted by ads, which I am actually OK with. The podcast episode in particular was about the Hagley Woods Murder. (Fitting, it’s Halloween!) One of the benefits and drawbacks in the availability of ads and how easy they can be put on to these podcasts. It is about a mysterious murder of a woman who’s body appeared in the middle of an elm tree. She was suffocated to death by forceful asphyxiation, and had been dead for a year and a half. Chilling, it immediately caught my attention as I love murder mysteries.

I love podcasts, but I never listened to a history one before. I usually listen to Roosterteeth or TFS as they are pretty popular gaming/personality podcasters who discuss their various going ons. I actually like the people talking on this one, they have good chemistry and a likable personality. It’s good for easy listening and helps translate the information well, as it feels like I’m part of a lecture or conversation which helps me retain the information better. It also allows an easier and quite literally discussion between experts across multiple fields which can help greater transfer information to interested listeners. Books on tape were the sort of predecessors to this, as my father and I would listen to them commuting to work or during long vacations, listening to a wide variety of book ranging from the Chronicles of Narnia to “Goodness without God”.

The upsides of podcasts is they can reach audience quickly and transfer information quickly and easily. The formality of a podcast is also variable, with it being more personal to help create a greater connection to their audience. The downside is linking source information and diving into the nitty gritty of the source material is less prevelent and potentially boring detracting more casual listeners, as well as the problem of not being able to quickly skim for information or gut as can be done in a PDF., article, or book. Still, it works well. I like the podcast I listened to and certainly am going to give them more of my time in the future.

Wikipedia: Leaders of WWI

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and I wholly support its usage. For the most part it is factually correct, and generally resistant to change even with evidence as it is overly skeptical of those adding information’s qualifications. There has been a call to greater academic authority added to wikipedia to help give it more credibility. Furthermore, wikipedia isn’t going to go away, and if anything is only going to grow in popularity. It is often the first page that appears when an inquiry is made in the more popular search engines. The logic would dictate “if you can’t beat them, join them”, and while that mentality isn’t often a good one, in this circumstance the added credibility to articles from experts proves helpful in educating the masses.

The three pages that I looked at the talk sections for comparatively are Douglas Haige, John J. Pershing, and Joseph Joffre. All three were allied commanders during the First World War though they differ on notoriety with regard to American audiences. An interesting comparison could also be stemmed from using the appropriate country’s URL and looking up the commanders to compare the commanders own peoples opinions of him.

The talk section of Douglas Haige was poignant in that he received very sharp criticism polarized in that he is attributed to being a mass murderer, with others defending him saying that he could not have known how the war would go or how deadly it would be. This polarizing resentment perpetuates the talk section, with people questioning his later charitable actions and the reasoning behind them.

Pershings on the other hand is more to technical stuff, whether or not the stars on his uniform after the war were gold or silver, changing the language used to make it easier to understand for readers, and whether or not he was present during the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake.

Joffre on the otherhand has a small point on a book which would help add more information, as well as debating if he was in a campaign in Romania. There is a rather limited talk section for him.

Three leaders with three very different talk sections. Of them, one extremely divisive, one with a constructive conversation about the page, and the other still a fledgling discussion.

Week 7: The Man, The Boy, The Donkey, and the Poorly Designed Website

The web has become the second home to much of humankind. If we are planning on going out to eat, we check out reviews. If we want to know something, we google it. If we are lost, we simply look up the address. If an institution desires to be successful, it must have an effective online presence.

The duplicity of website design is if anything the aesop fable of the man, the boy, and the donkey. A website needs to appeal to the common person but also uphold academic standards, as well as be flashy but not too flashy. Ads can be distracting, but provide much needed support for smaller websites as well. I think it’s also obvious not to use obnoxious fonts like papyrus or comic sans and don’t put four animations on a size 113.5 neon spinning title, as while that will attract attention it will quickly frustrate the reader and cause them to migrate elsewhere.

On a side note, I actually already have and run a website (or rather, a wikia) for my Dungeons and Dragons group. What started out as a way for me to keep track of all my NPCs without having to worry about losing a notebook or leaving it at home over the course of three years has turned into a network of hyperlinks connecting players, NPCs, story arcs, homebrew additions, recaps of previous sessions, and discussion pages. While many of the features of wikia are not exactly ideal, they have helped me nail down aesthetic by a noticeable margin.

One of the first and most important things is the organization of the page. Repetition of the font and format isn’t required but it helps the reader get immersed into the reading. Each one of Cohen’s articles we read opened with the first letter in the large ornate decoration depicted as being done by monks, yet online.

One of the things I haven’t really seen from historical websites but have seen from wikia, Worldcat, and wiki is the use of hyperlinks and links to related inquiries. For each one of my entries when I reference another setting or character I put a link up to their appropriate page. This allows any new players with questions on who a person or place is and how it relates to the article they are reading can jump to that page, read the synopsis, and then go back to what they were reading with a better understanding. This may be a personal preference, as a reader can quickly get overwhelmed with information as well if they aren’t sure what they are looking for.

An example of a quality website would be the Ridgefield Historical Society, which has a searchable archive of their resources, oral histories of a few residents, a smooth and easily navigatable design, and links to novels and books relating to Ridgefield along with other resources in town like the Ridgefield library.

Week 5: Meta-Blogging

http://gradstories.omeka.net/

http://silveragecomics.omeka.net/

(Two articles examined)

(Pre-post thoughts)

So it looks to me we’re moving in the direction of end-game for the course with the introduction of Omeka.net, as we’ll be using that pretty heavily for the final project of the course for our online exhibits. While I’m looking forward to it, at the same time I still need to narrow down a subject pertaining to WWI I would really like to discuss. I do have a little bit of an advantage, having done some work on WWI before but I would rather move in a newer direction with the project rather than recycle what I’ve already done (which, to be honest, I’m really not happy with anyway). While nothing is set in stone, I would like to nail as much down about this project as possible.

Anyway, onward to the articles.

The benefit of Omeka is similar to the benefits of the internet for research. It allows grass root movements to be documented as well as allowing fledgling or underfunded historians to create exhibits. It allows conservation of space and the showcasing of certain items that would normally not be allowed to be in a museum or exhibit, as well as use of limitless virtual space in lie of lack of physical space. It also makes the items more available for a viewing audience, and if education is the goal of an exhibit it can accomplish that goal well with limited resources or support, while adding to it when more information or objects become available.

The drawbacks are also similar, in that it is not a substitute for the actual item, and online the context associated with the item can be removed or misconstrued by the consumer. It also can rely heavily on community involvement, which we discussed last week can have mixed results.

The two online exhibits I examined (and linked at the top) are Graduate Stories and Heroes and Villains: Silver Age Comics. Outside of the obvious similarity that both interest me and difference that one is a collection of interviews of grad students and the other is a collection of comics, there is much more to it.

The Graduate Stories interested me on the grounds that some guidance is always appreciated and learning from the past experiences from others is something I can utilize. I enjoyed Prof. Glaser’s 502 class interview, and the parallel between my interview and many of the questions asked in the collection makes it much more familiar. There aren’t any objects, it is oral history recorded online in a collection to help potential graduate students.

The other collection is rather different, consisting of 21 different collections each highlighting a different hero, with mostly scans of images with detailed text descriptions of said items. The comics are from the silver age, and reach across both Marvel and DC comics for sources. Superheroes are a specialty subject of mine, something that has interested me as a child and beyond, and as someone who appreciates it seeing all the vintage comics was rather fascinating. The silver age of comics is referred to as almost a golden age of comics, where things were simpler an stories did not need to be complex or even make sense (EX. Pink Krytonite. I know it wasn’t actually introduced in the silver age of comics, but it was an omage so I’m going to say it counts.) Many have tried to recreate that silver age feel due to a growing nostalgia, such as Burt Ward and Adam West getting together to make another Batman movie, and hit series like Batman: Brave and the Bold (which is an actual Batman comic series from the silver age).

The set of collections is detailed, having source material, a set of citations for the object. The rights are also made available, such as for the cover of the “Superman’s Girl Friend, Lois Lane” #62 which features Superman and Lois Lane at odds as both are running for senator.

Between the two, I rather prefer studying the comic one as it is more detailed, has more objects, and has images, but find the oral history interviews to have much more substance as beyond the items the silver age comics Omeka doesn’t have all that much information, leaving it up to the researcher to draw their own inferences/track down the objects themselves.

Week 4: Fly Free Scholarship, Fly free!

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of “copyright” is YouTube, and not in the good way. Perhaps because I am one of those buyers that needs to beware of those “shady sellers” Daniel J. Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig describe in the introduction of “Owning the Past”. Seeing what YouTube has become, where content creators are persecuted by mindless bots for a copyright that doesn’t exist and no real solutions to the growing outcry from creator and consumer alike; it’s incredibly easy for my mind to inherently dislike the entire conversation of copyright altogether. Maybe it’s the growing progressive cynic inside me assuming the larger company cares little for it’s base, but as far as copyright goes my personal views favor much heavier toward that of the public and consumer. This ties in with Rosensweigs idea of instructors not institutions owning their products, and thus allowing them to become open access. As still a learning historian, I depend incredibly heavily on CCSU for access to many of my sources. Because of my work schedule, the blessing of being able to access a source from my computer when I want to is greater than I previously would have ever thought. I depend on CCSU, and if I wasn’t a student the cost of gaining access to the variety of databases at their disposal would simply be too much. Open access to the public would increase viewership, and thus the spread of data and knowledge, and “more knowledge and education is hardly ever a bad thing”.

Last week I had a geography presentation for my Cultural Tourism course focusing heavily on car culture and route 66. To help highlight this to the group of geography students (many of whom were undergrads and were unfamiliar with the terminology and even what route 66 was) I showed a quick three minute clip from the hit Disney movie Cars. Naturally I don’t own cars, but it was protected by fair use as I was using it for educational purposes while also giving credit to the proper owners (quite literally “classroom use”). This makes my point with YouTube tying into the article “Pushing Back Against Legal Threats by Putting Fair Use Forward”. Copyright is meant to protect the creator from having his idea stolen, but should someone want to build upon or springboard off the idea into something new, that should be not only accepted but encouraged!

In my mind, the TV show South Park said it best in the episode “Free Hat” (Season 6, Episode 9) where they ironically strive to protect movies from their own creators. While this would be excellent commentary on the whole archivists/families vs researchers conflict in the strive for authenticity, I’ll leave that mess for another post.

The point Matt Stone and Trey Parker so eloquently make is that “when an artist creates, whatever they create belongs to society.” (Kyle Broflovski). I feel similarly in regards to content created in the scholarship.

How to do this is a problem that is posed by Rosenzweig. My favorite of his suggestions is delayed release (where premium payers get early access) or partial release, where an abstract with some tantalizing information is released, and to get access to the full would require subscription. This way the public can get access while creators can still earn some revenue.

…and this post went far longer than I thought it would. A lot of these topics create a response a lot longer than 300 words from me. As Mark Twain wrote, “forgive me for writing a long letter, I did not have time to write you a short one”, and while a consise response may be more appropriate, I do feel there is more than enough subject material to go over this limit.

Week 3

DISCUSS HOW THE WEB IMPACTS THE WAY YOU DO HISTORICAL RESEARCH. HOW DOES IT CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT SOURCES? ARE THERE QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USING DIGITAL ARCHIVES AND MORE TRADITIONAL ANALOG SOURCES? WHY OR WHY NOT?

First thing first, it impacts my historical research as when I am to start my research the very first thing I do is go to Wikipedia and read over it’s article. While open source has it’s problems (and I am getting a little ahead of myself, but the Peloponnesian Wars are not also known as “The Skeleton Wars”, fought between necromancers wielding vast armies of the undead [as far as we know]), it provides a good basis of information to become well versed on the subject. Most importantly would the hyperlinks and sources that they use, which can legitimize the article. While not all web pages are equal, the use of links to track down more scholarly sources from these open sources is truly a blessing and has helped provide strong sources for several of my papers in the past, as well as creating a grapevine of sources to follow. Similarly touched upon is the world of twitter, which has expanded it’s word count limitation in some circumstances recently and put many aspiring historians in close proximity to experts in a wide range of fields.

Accessibility due to the web has increased, as no longer do people need to travel around the globe to have access to the wide variety of sources. Additionally, organization becomes a key element. As highlighted in the 10,000 notecard article, the juxtaposition of ideas can lead to very different conclusions, and the layout of programs like Zotero can help re-orientation of a thesis or point to accommodate a new idea brought by this organization instantly.

It has however created a problem I touched upon last week relating to scarcity and abundance. As Samuel Taylor said, “Water, water, everywhere but not a drop to drink”, the web can have a tremendous volume of sources, full of pages of information, but ultimately signifying nothing. Being able to narrow down the search is a tool that is definitely needed in order to research successfully.

As far as the seven step process goes, I’m pretty awful at almost every step. I like to physically write over take notes digitally and prefer to handwrite them. If I do take them digitally, I use word which I often save to my computer, so there is clearly room for improvement for me.

Still, as a median, it’s a pretty good boon. I’m going to end it here, though I may edit this a bit tomorrow before class (wanted to get the main ideas out there and I want to get a little nap in before my shift.) Feel free to comment, I love to talk.

Week 2 Blog Post(?)

OK, full disclosure I’m not sure if we’re also doing week 3 this week or not. I read the articles but as we’re a week behind I wasn’t sure if I should push something out for both weeks together (as a lot of what both weeks cover mesh) or just put out a week 3 post at a later date.

I’m also having difficulty linking my Evernote, but I assume we can get that sorted out in class tomorrow.

ANYWAY, onto the subject of discussion.

How does the medium of the World Wide Web change the practice of doing history? Is Digital History qualitatively different from History? Explain.

Even as still a relatively new technology, the power of the internet brings many boons and thorns with it. It was deemed both by the U.N claiming it ‘s access to be a human right. For the first portion of the question the very nature of research has changed. Scarcity, once the bane of researchers (and still a prevalent problem in many sub-fields), has become a bit of a scarcity itself. With three clicks I can summon millions of bits of information on a breadth of subjects so extensive that in over a hundred lifetimes I could never get to even half of it. Sifting through this information can be nearly impossible for the untrained, but with proper education on the matter finding the information required is exponentially easier than previously thought.

Sources once locked away in archives, available to only a few select individuals are now accessible to everyone on the virtual world. Da Vinchi’s Mona Lisa and Gerrit Smith’s personal letters can be studied easily without the fret or cost of travel. The budding historian and graduate student have a more level playing field, lacking the networking of more senior researchers can come into contact with archivists and request materials, or at least be pointed in the right direction. In the words of one of my former professors, “sometimes getting access to a source is just waiting for certain people to die”. As morbid as that joke was, there was a grain of truth to that as many archivists are to loathe exposing their collections. With the web, accessing them (or at least supplementary material) without having to go through them is possible. Historians needn’t fear their work be required to appease those loaning them their source material, and while I do not condone the burning of bridges (both in the literal and metaphorical) they can operate with more academic integrity. Entire libraries are available online, ripe and ready for re-interpretation and study. There is however a different problem created with a few more utilized open sources, which will be discussed further along the course when we arrive at our Wikipedia and other open source articles.

I think Cohen and Rosenzweig best provides a macro overview of both opinions of it carrying it’s own set of benefits and drawbacks. It isn’t the ultimate doom to research destroying the sacred methodology of good scholarship, but it isn’t the simultaneous mode of transportation to the future of all research and answer to all of the problems of others were making it out me. The first one that comes to mind for me is I very much prefer having a physical book in my hands, as it’s easier on my eyes and I find it a bit more relaxing. Perhaps it’s just me, but I cannot get as invested in a source that is online as opposed to when I am physically holding it. Overall they and Turkel view it as a positive, helping research to progress through a new, if less than perfect, vehicle.

Weller focuses more on the preservation aspect of the internet, as was a saying for me when growing up “when it’s on the internet it’s there forever”. While not exactly true, the lifespan of a website can hypothetically be longer than that of a text and many times more accessible. Furthermore while picture quality can degrade, tools can be used to enhance images to discover things which had previously not been noticed.

I’m going to have to cut myself short, but many of these points will be further tied into on my next post, particularly with the 10,000 Notecards article.