Readings for February 5, 2013

As far as I know, the only reading assignment for this week was to finish Gardner and LaPaglia (pages 397-416).  I have checked the readings page on his blog, and as of Sunday night at 8:30pm it still only shows the Gardner reading.

            This week’s reading focused on the use of websites by historians.  There are many different types of archives available for the public online, and James Sparrow focused his article on an archive that he has contributed to himself.  The archive is the September 11 digital archive.  This archive is a place where viewers can upload videos of themselves sharing memories from September 11, 2001.  The website went active exactly one year later, on September 11, 2002. (pg. 397) 

            The archive was created by the Center for History and New Media, or CHNM, for the purpose of documenting the public’s reaction to the events of that day.  “[I]t became clear that ECHO’s approach to documenting contemporary history was especially well-suited to the task of capturing a broad canvas of Americans’ experiences for the historical record of “9/11” (as it has come to be known).” (pg. 402) ECHO stands for “Exploring and Collecting History Online,” which is a project developed from CHNM. (pg. 402)

                       (George Mason University, home of CHNM.  Photo courtesy of Google Images)

            The author also discussed the various problems with online historical websites.  One of the problems is the continued bias presented to the viewer by the website.  “Just as such museums can reflect the class biases of the engineers and corporate managers who patronize them, so too might the digital medium be prone to a comparable technophilic self-congratulation.” (pg. 399)  Museums often present their collections with a bias towards their patrons and donors, and online museums are no different.  If the museum, or website, wants to have a steady source of income they have to cater to one group or another.

            Another problem that the author addressed was that some historical websites restrict the viewer’s ability to view outside information from their webpage.  Links are often limited to outside webpages because the website wants viewers to use their information, not another site.  This is a feature that some, if not most, viewers would find annoying and may be revisit the website because of the restrictions.  While it is understandable that websites would like viewers to use their information, when a viewer has to hit the back button in order to find new links for the same information it is hard to return to the original website.  This is especially true if a different website is found that has external links included, and the information presented suits the viewer’s needs.   

            The author ends his article by addressing what he considers the “key problem” that online historians have to overcome. (pg. 412) 

“The key problematic for online historians is the lack of a sense of place, identity, and authenticity on the web – something all web authors try very consciously to overcome through “branding” to foster a sense of community through shared design.  Where are you, exactly, when you are visiting a website?” (pg. 412)

It can be harder for historians online to establish themselves then in a museum because when you are in a museum the artifacts are physically in front of you.  It can be harder to form an opinion based on a picture, and sometimes very brief description, then it is to be able to physically see the artifact in front of you.