Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Andrew Hurley explains that when the term “digital divide” emerged it was based on socio-economic conditions of users and their access to new digital technologies. However, this term has since been redefined to solely examine the patterns of usage. Without over generalizing, internet and digital technologies are omnipresent; computers are integrated into schools, laptops and individual iPads are provided for some if not all classrooms, smart phone advancements, and public libraries have easily accessible computers for users. Therefore, this aligns with Brenda Trofanenko’s article and her discussion on the use of digital technologies by museums. The overarching concept of a museum is to display that the past occurred through the use of objects and text. In this traditional perspective, the former serves the purpose of validating the past and the latter provides context to the objects. Museums are also building that flourish education and learning. Digital forms of museum exhibits are a way in which modern society is using this overarching of validating the past to explain how museums and physical exhibits are things of the past. This is how the digital divide is accounted for in civic engagement with digital technologies. Public historians, through the use of digital technologies, are providing the public with means of learning about the past from exhibits of a museums that may or may not be in close proximity to them. They are providing information to the masses reaching a global audience. The ability to interact with the past enables users of these technologies to understand what truly happened, like the various virtual reality examples Hurley discusses throughout his article.
Bonnell and Fortin’s “spatial turn” refers to the emergence of geospatial data being used in historical research projects to interpret source material in new ways. More emphasis is being placed on the geographical context of what historians are investigating, in addition to the historical context. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are computer systems that are “made up of several components, including computer hardware, software, geospatial data and other information” (p. x). However, recently there has been the emergence of Historical Geographic Information Systems (HGIS). The influence of the spatial turn has enabled the flourishing of computer based programs to that are directly linked to historical research. Bonell and Fortin explain that “GIS greatly enhances the potential of this work by enabling the manipulation, analysis, and output of location information within the historical landscape” (p. xi). However, the presence of geospatial data online has received pushback by the Canadian government in comparison to the openness of the United States government. It took a lot of effort for the Canadian government to release their material online without strict protection of copyright laws that until that time prohibited spatial data from being accessed openly online. Therefore, the influence of the spatial turn has caused some historical research projects to be denied the attention they deserve because of possible copyright violations.
For historians to layer digital information onto real-world environments that are giving that information a real-world position. It is no longer just information or just a photo, it is one with real coordinates. This enables those looking at the information to understand where in the real-world it pertains to. This also allows historians to analyse the continuity and change that is likely to have occurred in that area. Adding a real-world environment to digital information also allows historians to rebuild the past which could assist in them answering questions.
The use of 3D objects and virtual reality are being embraced by a multitude of professions. They are effective for historians as teachers because they are able to offer students a way to critically think about what they are learning. Critical thinking can be developed through 3D or virtually reality because they are putting themselves into the world to learn about and critically examine its aspects. It is difficult to look at something from the outside and be critical about it because we do not know much about it. Although virtual reality only allows students to see what has been created, they are able to gain a new perspective which is essential in their thinking and understanding. However, the CBC Radio audio explains that with the use of VR, teachings can be viewed as a fantasy land. This is not effective for the teachings because VR should aid, not alter lessons. For historical researchers, VR and 3D reality can promote further research. The 3D Virtual Buildings Project brought to life archival photos to be analyzed. From this researchers can develop ideas for further research such as looking at the facade of an old bookstore can prompt them to research the popular genre of literature that members of society during that time read. Historians as communicators are able to develop assumptions and with research they can present findings of what they discovered through the analysis of 3D and virtual realities.
I believe, based on Tom Taylor’s article, that there is benefit to historical simulations through computer games. These games have the ability to provide a new language to interpret the past that makes learning history easier for students. In describing the game Civilization, Taylor notes that this game “puts the interactor in the position of being an active participant in figuring out how the model develops”. This is important for learning because the student gains autonomy and can interact with processes of history despite the fact that they were not present during the actual event. Additionally, incorporating computer games into learning provides the ability for the teacher to reach a larger audience because these are not foreign or dying technologies. The language used in computer games and the interactive-based organization of this game enables students to understand history in this modern computer based language that enables the use of these technologies to thrive.
I think that the same can be said about digital historians and “big data”. On the page “The Limits of Big Data, orBig Data and the Practice if History” it is explained that big data has many implications. This was not an issue that was brought up at the forefront of this book chapter, but are still prominent for digital historians. Big Data contains extensive computational databases that contributes to computational assumptions. Just as our discussion of H-Net last week which derives answers to posed questions based on consensus rather than facts, there are embedded assumptions in Big Data as well. Big Data is helpful for digital historians because it can help derive meaning from multiple sources, but unless these assumptions are accounted for, a true sense of the history embedded in these sources are misunderstood by hubristic beliefs in the use of these new technologies.
I think Ian Milligan’s quote perfectly exemplifies the changing nature of significant history sources. In regards to social, cultural, and political historians there is so much available on various websites that allow historians to analyze the growing change in all three of these realms. Political stances are being expressed on social media allowing present historians the ability to research various social media outlets. In terms of culture for historians websites have given them the opportunity of performing their research from home and involves a less gruelling process of having to request materials from libraries or archives. The nature of field base research is not as involved in today’s culture in comparison to the internet. This is the debate between tradition and modern practices that are evolving over time and within a cultural lens. Websites provide the opportunity for historians to reach a much larger audience for their research. Various sites like blogs or public forums that allow all users to share their stories encompass political, social, and cultural aspects that historians can use as significant sources because that is where the world of history is moving towards.
I have always used Wikipedia for quick research on celebrities, TV shows, movies, etc but after the discussion, readings, and lab last week my perspective of the website I have been always told to avoid has changed. First off, I thought that Wikipedia is not a credible source for academic research is because it is open to the public to editing but although that is true, Wikipedia’s authors have not actually done everything other encyclopedia websites have to give their readers everything about the topic they are researching. I also never paid close attention to the footnotes at the end of the page because I am always just looking for quick facts. However, after spending some time looking through the footnotes in discussion last week I learned that some of the information has been provided by credible people with credible sources to back it up. A feature that I learned about through the readings that I thought was really cool and never really knew existed before was being able to go back to previous versions of the Wikipedia article and seeing the changes that have been made to create the page currently available, until someone edits it next. There are some interesting features about Wikipedia, but it is still an open-source website which degrades it credibility a little bit, this perspective still stands true for.
Wikipedia’s NPOV policy tries to encourage a biased and judgement free zone for readers of the article. The benefit of this aspect is that readers are not presented with only one side of the story, or influenced by the authors beliefs. Readers are able to form their own opinion of what they are reading. However, this policy is challenged when outside people edit the article with their own thoughts and opinions. Evidently, as the article states, “there is no objective in history” but quick research historical events is possibly one of the main reasons people use Wikipedia in the first place. However, young students researching the events of World War I were not around during those years to know if what they are reading is even true, therefore the NPOV is important for all authors (legitimate or not) to write within it. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, which a weakness of the NPOV. By asking authors to not write in their own opinion, it can been seen as a restriction of this right.
I would have to agree with Cohen and Rosenzweig in terms of digitization projects requiring more work than standard paper and ink. There are various technologies that are involved in a digitization project. These technologies require people who are trained in using them then training others who will be using this technology to fulfill their project. There needs to be funding available to execute this digitization project, if this is limited this hinders the extent of the project. In terms of attaining the copyright permissions, this can become complicated because there are many lengths you need to go through. Finding the audience for the digital project is difficult because this becomes world wide so the possibility emerges that there is no single target audience, but rather a larger one. Digitization is a lengthy process and involves a lot to accomplish it because of the nature of this process.
In terms of communicating with team members Google chat is the main tool I use. Google chat is activated when there is more than one person accessing a file within a shared Google Drive. If all, or even some, members are online at the time we are all easily able to communicate. You are also able to leave comments and notes on things throughout a Google Docs sheet which then sends an email to all those who are connected to that document. You are also able to reply to comments made, similar to track changes on Microsoft, so that members can communicate thoughts/issues to each other as well. Another digital tool that I was introduced to last year as a means to communicate with team members is Zoom which allows users to video or audio chat to each other. I personally like Zoom because, like Skype, it does not matter what kind of device you have (phone or laptop), you can login and begin a chat, unlike FaceTime which is solely for Apple users. These tools are advantageous because they are able to virtually connect team members who are not altogether in one place physically. However, a shortcoming of a chat based web communication tool is that sometimes you cannot articulate yourself as well through chat as you can through talking. This is why I brought up Zoom, even if you are not able to find a quite corner at school or at home to hold a full video call, you can hold an audio call which enables you actually speak to each other. Instead of opening up a shared document to comments like “what?” or “huh?” and having to constantly comment back and forth to each other, you can work through what is required of the group and communicate altogether.
If I were to design a search engine I would want to focus on optimizing users experience. I think an important aspect in a search engine is focused results. Direct results that pertain exactly to what has been searched eliminates the possibility of researchers needing to go to ten other sites to find other research material. If all the results on the one engine are focused on the topic being searched, users will be more likely to use this site for a majority of their research purposes. Additionally, I think having all types of documents is also important for a search engine. Instead of sending researchers to a search engine for photos, another one for articles, and another one for newspapers it would be helpful if everything is one place. When doing extensive research, it is very easy to get confused with all the sources that have been gathered. So by eliminating the need to have multiple sources from multiple different engines, you are helping to make the research process go a little smoother.
Metadata is the information that is generated about the material being digitized, before it is actually digitally made available. As explained by Cohen and Rozsenzweig in their book, metadata can range in terms of descriptiveness. For a small scale digitization project, the metadata might be simple, or it would be quite extensive for larger scale projects. Typically the more extensive the data, the more detail about the document goes into the metadata such as the scanning process, resolution, more detail on the information of the content and administrative information surrounding rights and preservation. Metadata is also a way to categorize/catalogue material.
One of the most pressing issues as to why archivists do not digitize everything is because not everything it able to be digitized and made available on a designated platform. If the donor has wished that their material not be digitized until a certain time, archivists cannot do anything before that. Similarly, if something that is in the archives is not out of copyright it cannot be digitized. Another reason why archivists do not digitize everything is because it is very costly in terms of money and time. There needs to be money available to hire adequate staff who will meet the project’s deadlines and the technology used is very costly. Exceptional scanners are not cheap but are required to do the job.
Podcasting challenges traditional forms of communication for history in the sense that they re-work the notion of archival material. The article by Mél Hogan explains that podcasts shift the emphasis of traditional archives away from authenticity and authorization, and towards personal, experiential and collective (p. 204). When learning about history and archives the main message revolves around authenticity, but if something new is challenging that it also challenges the originality of history scholarship itself. Podcasts are also challenging history in the sense that they are essentially audio recordings. This mostly challenges history education because hypothetically if someone records their professor during a history lecture, they have the beginnings of a podcast. The professor would have organized their lecture based on an introduction to the topic, facts on the topic and a conclusion – that is essentially a podcast. Or on the other hand, if history podcasts are possibly being used as aids to study for exams or learn more about a specific subject, they could be seen as taking away from the roles and responsibilities of an academic institution.
