Creating Digital History » nderise

Discussion Question

nderise — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:40:40 +0000

Last semester for Local and Community History we read “Here Comes Everybody” and discussed the ways in which the internet and web sites either foster or actually create community. I am curious to see in this class, especially after creating our own web sites, whether or not we see our sites as community or as facilitating in community. Not to regurgitate what we discussed last semester, but I still feel the same way, Shirky’s book is to me what my experience is every time I go to the ITP floor at Tisch: you walk in and you are amazed and you think to yourself “this is sooo cool!” You see a wooden mirror that “reflects” when you walk in front of it and a projected image of a sleeping guy that is meant to be a “virtual boyfriend.” But, as you continue to wander around you realize that the majority of this stuff is completely worthless and not at all democratized. Just as not everybody can get into or afford ITP, not everybody has access to the internet and to computers. Having access to technology gives you an ability that others, most often of a lower socieo-economic strata, don’t have, as we saw in the case of the stolen cell phone.

Discussion Question

nderise — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:26:50 +0000

In reading Cohen and Rosenzweig’s chapter on audience I have some questions about how we as graduate students can best peer-review each others work. The chapter discusses how the Journal of American History reviews websites, but I highly doubt they are going to review a grad student’s site…so I am wondering how we can do this. It would be good if we could set forth criteria of what is needed in the archive/exhibits that we are creating as well.

Also can we go over how to embed a google map and/or a youtube video? I have been trying and have had NO luck – is this something anybody else is doing?

Also also, since a lot of my documents are private on my archive, if anybody wants to see them let me know and I will give you “researcher” status which allows you access.

Also also also, I changed my url: http://www.nicolederise.com/tawanabrawleyarchive/

Discussion Question

nderise — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:41:24 +0000

I am wondering if there is a way when using Omeka to allow only certain people access to the archive? Because I was not able to gain permission for many of my documents I cannot make them public, is there away to give people access but not have documents public?

Also, regarding content of the archive, I am wondering what is applicable and what isn’t? I have done interviews in the past with community members and their experience with the Tawana Brawley case, would these interview be appropriate to add to an archive?

Discussion Question

nderise — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:17:26 +0000

Thanks to Amanda, I actually do not have too many technical questions! (thanks again Amanda!)

The one quick question I do have is how to change the URL name of our Omeka site? Currently my site is: http://www.nicolederise.com/omeka-1.1/ which is not the best name…Do I just change my folder name from Omeka -1.1 to what I want it to be?

I do have a comment/opinion/question to share regarding this week’s reading, specifically related to the article by Elings and Waibel and partly to a discussion that came up in a previous class. I am finding as I read more and more about how to use and propagate the digital humanities the focus is constantly on making everything more “efficient,” “economic,” and “centralized.” Why is it so important to integrate and aggregate? What I see from this article is almost a corporatization (if that is a word) of information (which we discussed briefly). It reminds me of when I worked for a corporate company and hours upon hours and meetings upon meetings were dedicated to “streamlining” and “efficiency evaluations” of processes. What is so wrong with having a de-centralized framework of information, one in which items must be searched for? And by centralizing, how does that impact how people do research and could it possibly be harmful?

Discussion Question

nderise — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:59:20 +0000

Here are a few of technical questions:

1. Can you access your omeka archive from any computer once everything has been set up? I am trying to upload documents from my work computer but every time I try to access my admin page it says error 404, NOT FOUND.

2. I had installed Omeka before the upgrade was released and am having some trouble upgrading, could we go over as there will possibly be more upgrades in the future.

3. Is there a size limit for omeke? I was trying to upload a fairly large file, a pdf that is about 12mb, and it kept on “timing out” on my computer.

4. New question – ok now I am getting this error when I try and upload my audio file: disallowed MIME type (audio/x-m4a) – i have searched for this in the forum, and don’t see anything about it…

Discussion Question

nderise — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:41:29 +0000

Seven of my items in my archive will be radio broadcasts, sound clips ranging from two to six minutes each, should these all be transcribed? And, I am having some trouble figuring out the best way to upload the clips to my archive, I can’t figure out if I have a choice to make them downloadable or just have them streaming…can we go over the difference and how to set in Omeka?

Discussion Question

nderise — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:29:45 +0000

I really liked Steve Krug’s book. The criteria he sets forth of what makes a good web site is incredibly useful at this stage in my web-archive development. For purposes of this class, I don’t think everything he says is applicable as the intention of our websites should be, ultimately, to make the audience think. But regarding design and processes, his recommendations are spot on.

From his book, I took away a few of key points:

1. The site needs to have a clear visual hierarchy
2. Web pages need to be broken up in clear defined areas
3. Make obvious what is clickable and what is not
4. Brevity is next to godliness
5. Don’t design for designing sake

I think what needs to be thought out a bit more and perhaps discussed more in class is who our intended audience is and who we would aim for it to be. Krug’s book is so useful because he discusses the importance of making a site one in which you are gaining trust with the viewer, so that they are more likely to return again and/or tell somebody else about it. I think we need to think about that concept regarding our web sites. How can we market our archives and how can we get people, initially not interested, interested. The eternal question in public history… Also, depending on what I end up archiving (newspaper articles, magazine articles, court documents, etc) I am unsure as to how best organize my site’s information architecture/hierarchy (thematically vs. chronologically). I think a lot of those questions will be answered once I get better acquainted with Omeka, but I am still think about the different approaches I should take and I would be interested to hear about what others are doing with their sites.

Discussion Question

nderise — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:05:37 +0000

The reading Interchange: The Promise of Digital History had scholars answering questions put forth by the Journal of American History over the course of several months. I am curious as to what the platform of the exchange was, were these questions emailed and then distributed? Was this done on some sort of message board? This bothered me through the whole reading and I realized this is what bothers me about digital history often, where and how does this stuff come about and how much disclosure should be given to the public that is partaking in it? But I digress…what I was most interested in while reading the exchange/interchange was what Michael Frisch had to say regarding oral histories. Where does digital history come into play when discussing oral history and related methodologies. Frisch made a great point “…the modal plane of engagement has been textual, probably as a result of a wholly unexamined assumption that you can’t do much, directly, to explore, search, work with audio or video..” I completely agree. How can we create technologies that will allow greater use of oral histories? Also, to take it one step farther, how can we use digital history to make oral histories? Does instant messaging count? If so, we could have access to billions of people at a moments notice. What about Facebook? Status updates are basically a running diary of everyday people’s lives (often boring I must say), why aren’t we utilizing it? Does it count as viable information?

Also a quick note about the youtube video of the conference at Case Western with Dan Cohen. I really liked it. And I think that he made a really valuable point: he used a Woody Allen joke about learning to speed-read and reading War and Peace in two days – “It was about Russia” – Cohen termed it “Russia Problem.” This clearly described to me one of the biggest issues that I have with digital history – what is the point? At times it seems like we do something digitally merely because it is digital, not because the digital-ness necessarily enhances anything. For example, my annotated bibliography took hours to produce and another two hours to figure out how to put it into a shared space that will then have a link that everybody can use to see it. I could have cute and pasted it into the text box and had the same outcome in a shorter time.

Link to my annotated bibliography*: http://www.refworks.com/refshare/?site=010331135929600000/RWWS2A316391/Brawley%20Archive%20-%20Annotated%20Bib

*In order to see the annotated version, click to Full View in the “Switch To” drop down menu bar.

Question for discussion

nderise — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:31:08 +0000

While I thought all the readings were thought-provoking I am more interested in how everybody in class is dealing with copyrights. For my project, I need to gain permissions from various newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television stations to use their articles and media in my archive, and this has been increasingly difficult. Thus far I have reached out to four different media outlets to ask for permission and only one person has gotten back to me. How is everybody else dealing with this? Also – I want to incorprate postings from blogs as part of my archive – but again, do I need to ask their permission?

9/30 Discussion

nderise — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:36:27 +0000

I think collaboration is amazing. Working with others is inspiring, helpful and creates the potential for better more engaging scholarship. Spiro’s articles’ thoughtfully explain the issues that exist around collaboration in the humanities and how digital space is a foundation on which to build. She goes on to cite different projects that were done collaboratively like the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank and the role of wikis as a conduit to creating online communities, as in the Pynchon wiki. She explains in her April 21^st why the humanities are seemingly hesitant to work together:“Whereas collaborative authorship is common (even expected) in the science, in the humanities many tenure and promotion committees have not yet developed mechanisms for evaluating and crediting collaborative work.” I would go on to argue, after reading these articles, that there is an institutionalization of forced independent work within the humanities. With the advent of “digital humanities” and internet/web-based work, those in the humanities are now able to better reflect on just how removed they are. However, I don’t think that the issue of collaboration will be solved within the digital sphere, but that is where collaboration will be best realized. The issue will have to be figured out within the academy. It will have to mean a change to the structure of administrative roles of faculty (i.e. tenure track and publishing) but more importantly it will have to mean a change in ideology. Like students in the sciences, students in the humanities should be required to work with faculty and be part of publishing prospects and editing endeavors. Undergraduates and graduate students should work on group projects (and dare I say interdisciplinary group projects?) at some point within their academic career. In order for collaboration to truly be understood, utilized and proliferate, we need to change the status quo and make changes from the bottom up.

Also – I was a bit confused about finding a professional or expert in the field in which we are researching. I guess for me there is no Tawana Brawley expert…so I could then look towards somebody that is an expert in race relations and/or media studies? But I think were I to do that, I would just email the person, so I am not sure how helpful it would be to contact somebody via Facebook versus just emailing him or her?

Research Topic

nderise — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:45:20 +0000

My research topic will be focused on the Tawana Brawley case. In 1987, Tawana Brawley, who at the time,was 15 years old disappeared and was discovered four days later. She was found in a garbage bag, covered in excrement and was in shock. Brawley alleges that for four days she was held captive by six white men who brutalized her. What proceeded after her discovery was a confusing spectacle played out in the public eye and fraught with racial tension. The drama was documented through newspaper and magazine articles, T.V. and radio programs, as well as an array of legal documents. Her case was eventually dismissed by a Grand Jury and her name has since become synonymous with false rape allegations. I would like to create a web site that documents the case and all related documents (print, radio and tv as well as court documents) and provides analysis for how the case impacted the local community as well as the the nation. In addition, I would like to also show just how much Tawana Brawley has become ingrained in our culture. Almost everyday her name is invoked in either a blog or article and I would to explore what she has come to represent in American culture.

Discussion question – 9/16

nderise — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:17:29 +0000

David Levy’s article “No time to think: reflections on information technology and contemplative scholarship” intended to show how technology has directly caused a decrease in time for contemplation. Levy’s argument that we are giving up the ability to have thoughtful reflection in the face of technological advancement was intriguing but I found his article to be whiny and non-conclusive. In a way I totally agree with him, there is too much stuff and I think some of our assignments for this week are indicative of that. de.lio.ous., zotero, endnote, refwork…all are great tools, but they require so much administering. I have to sign up, verify my email address, come up with a password, remember that password (and yes I know there are programs that will remember all my passwords, but I don’t trust them), and then after ALL of that, I have to figure out how to actually use them and apply them as I do my research. I can see where he is coming from and it raises an important question, when do things stop being helpful and just start being things (that get in the way)? However, the article fails because it assumes that all people think and work the same. Because Levy requires hours of quiet contemplation, so must I? He also seems to not understand the role of Professor/faculty member in a university. He writes “Teaching and advising students are extremeely time-consuming and demanding activities, as they have always been, but new technologies such as e-mail, by increasing the opportunities for online contact between faculty and students, have also increased student expectations that instructors should and will be avialble for consultation at all hours of the day and night, weekend included.” Students pay hundres of thousands of dollars in tutition to attend university, they pay his salary and most likely pay for his housing, tutition pays for his grants and research sabbaticals; being available to answer emails does not seem to extraordinary, however he fails to see that connection. And yet he contradicts himself by going on to say that it is the resposibility of faculty to “demonstrate and communicate the beauty and power of mature creative thought” to their students. Levy’s article argues that historically great ideas have happened because of a more simple approach to time, however, I think what we need to discern from this article is whether it is just David Levy that requires quiet time, or if historically, contemplative time has actually been critical to advancements.

Discussion Questions

nderise — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:09:14 +0000

Both Friedman and Bush’s articles discuss a positive trend in the history of technology; their work indicating that there is always an upward motion of progress concerning the development and evolution of technology. Bush’s article gives a “pre-internet/computer” perspective and is noteworthy in that its vision of the future of technology did happen. Bush extols the virtues of the use and manipulation of technology, but he doesn’t mention any negative aspects. While many of the innovations he mentions are groundbreaking for both their technological and cultural implications, often these advancements help to intimidate, denigrate, maim and kill people. He discusses photography saying “progress in photography is not going to stop.” But is it “progress” that we have created cameras that allow us to spy on anybody, take pictures that automatically upload to a public web page where anybody can see them without the owners consent? Don’t we need to take a further look at the implications of these “advancements?”

Friedman’s book picks up at the other end of the spectrum describing different perspectives, one in which technological determinism is the driving force and another where the internet is actually a reflection of utopia. I found the book to be frustrating in its description and understanding of technology and its consequence on American culture and history. Friedman’s utopic version of computers and the internet needs further analysis, for example, on page 209 he states “…the technological cutting edge continues to be the place where the shackles of doxa can be escaped, and new visions may emerge.” But I am not convinced that he really proves what the “cutting edge” is in the first place. Democratizing information doesn’t make something cutting edge, having people actually utilize and apply the democratized information is cutting edge, and he doesn’t quite describe how that could be done. How can historians take this “democratized information” and make it applicable to people’s lives? Also if Friedman argues that the internet is some sort of utopia or a reflection of a utopia, I think then that we must describe ways in which the internet is dystopic.

Quick note: I really liked the History of Internet video on youtube. I think it is a good example of digital history, it is concise and visually interesting. However, I must note that when reading through the viewers comments one comment struck me as notable, Jetblack 297 wrote “History of the internet and they never mention porn. I find this video to be inaccurate.” At first I thought that this was really funny, but then I realized that he is kind of right. I looked up statistics and found that 12% of all sites on the internet are porn, 35% of ALL downloads in one day are porn, a pretty substantial amount. As we have read, often it was military forces that drove the development of the internet, but what is the driving force now? Porn?

Nicole DeRise Introduction

nderise — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:23:06 +0000

Hello – I am Nicole DeRise. This is my third year in the Public History and Archives program at GSAS, I go to school part-time and work full-time at the University. I am very interested in how the internet can be best utilized for historical content, especially how to organize information and how to best use programs for web design. For my internship project, I worked for the Village of Wappingers Falls to create a prototype web site that would showcase the industrial history of the Village. To create the prototype web site I used IWeb which was a very easy and usable program, however a bit limiting. I have also used Dreamweaver, which I found a bit more complicated and time consuming. Currently I am working on a historical documentation project regarding the Tawana Brawley Case and would like to formulate the project online.