Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I believe video games can be a good way to get people interested in the past. It can be an accessible, interesting way to share information with an audience that may not know about the historical topic otherwise. Additionally, as described in Tom Taylor’s article, by having an active role in a game, a player can feel like they are actually participating in an historical event. I feel that this is especially true now that there is such advancements in gaming such as Virtual Reality simulations that make the player feel as though they are physically present in a historical situation as well. This aspect of video games is entirely unique. Reading a book, or even watching a movie do not allow for participants to have active decision-making opportunities as games do. However, I do feel like this can be a problem because due to this decision-making, game outcomes can be altered based on the players’ actions (I.e. losing/winning a situation, gaining points, decision-making between two options, etc.). This can alter the availability of historically-accurate topics that may be explored in a video game. To add to this, video games are primarily used for entertainment purposes which may be a cause for concern in regards to historical accuracy. As video games have a tendency to add aspects of drama in order to hold the players’ attention it may alter the actual story.
I agree with Milligan’s argument. Before the internet became an important social, cultural and political tool in everyday life, important documents and photographs were regularly recorded in a physical form such as paper. Now, with the advent of social media platforms, online photo albums/collection sites (such as Instagram and Google Photos), online videos, commenting and even aspects such as online event invitations have changed what will be collected in the future. Because of these online sources many things such as photographs, invitations, correspondence, and personal documents will never even reach a print form. Additionally, since internet websites are so prevalent in society, they would be the most accurate sources to obtain for many future history projects that study how we live.
After last week’s lecture my opinion of Wikipedia has definitely changed. Some of the things I already knew were confirmed such as the fact that there can be many authors, and that you do not necessarily need to be an “expert” on any subject in order to add to its page. Because of these things, I have always had a fear of using Wikipedia in schoolwork, even as a starting point. Before the lecture I just assumed that Wikipedia was deemed so unreliable because people could just openly erase and change what is written anonymously. I never researched or looked into Wikipedia to see if this was true, or to experiment with editing a page before. Learning about the “talk” feature and completing the tutorial on editing, I am now aware that there is more of a process than I originally thought. I enjoyed the class discussion, especially the talk surrounding whether Wikipedia is an appropriate source to use for schoolwork. I agreed with the opinion that it can be a great starting point to begin research if the researcher knows nothing about the topic. My opinion of Wikipedia has changed because I feel less afraid of it now. Additionally, I understand the historian’s role in adding to Wikipedia now. I never understood why people would spend so much time posting what they know onto a Wikipedia site, and especially why published historians would use this free web source to publish work when they have other academic source collections to use (such as ProQuest). I now understand that academic “experts” use of free sources such as Wikipedia is important for accessibility and making this information readily available to a broader audience.
