One of my goals with my website was to create an easier way for me to communicate with people I wished to interview or have involved in my research. In a sense, I was working towards creating a community for my research involving scholars, amateur historians and actual participants in the civil rights/ Black Power movements. I think I naturally assumed that everyone I would be dealing with would have a basic computer literacy in terms of  knowing how to find a website, email, open an attachment, but I’m finding this is not always the case.

I have to agree that it is mush easier to do the research I want to do with the current technology. I think it may be unrealistic of me, however, to think that I can build this group I had envisioned when so many of those involved (especially the senior citizens, age 65+) are not as computer literate as I would have expected. In some cases, I think there may even be instances of technophobia where the internet can be seen as something negative, invasive and at the least, to be suspicious of.

I like Shirkey’s book because it speaks to me. I wonder if there is an assumption on his part, like mine, that ‘everybody is doing it’ when that would only mean people below the age of 65, who have means, a certain level of education, etc..

While Chris Anderson’s discussion of the “long tail” in the context of the Smithsonian had some interesting and relevant points (for example that only 1% of museum artifacts are on display at any one time), his lack of expertise in the museum world also seemed very apparent.  While there may not be enough curators to perfectly identify each object, his “good enough” solution is not the way to go, especially when you’re dealing with an institution that often deals with and employs select “authorities” in various fields.  Should we really hire curators (per his suggestion) that claim to be the expert in a certain area, trust them around priceless artifacts, take away time from someone’s schedule to monitor their progress, and then trust the information they produce?  It seems that he is taking a “quantity”  approach  (which adds to the information abundance of our period) rather than a “quality” approach.  Is this diminished authority in favor of object abundance really the best solution for the Smithsonian?

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.

1. In thinking about the readings this week and our discussion a few weeks ago about born digital objects we hope are preserved, how do we resolve the collaboration, empowerment, and interactivity promised by new media with its corporate backing? And what do we make of the surveillance made possible by Web 2.0 technologies? As our Facebook profiles are used for market research and our gmail accounts searched to determine ad placements, to what degree are we really empowered through the use of these technologies?

2. While Clay Shirky predicts the end of publishing as an industry and profession, he has nonetheless chosen to publish a book, of which he is the single author to convey his message. I just wanted to point out the lack of collaboration in his own work and its existence as a print artifact. Perhaps Shirky found working with editors through multiple review passes and Penguin’s established distribution network helpful? Perhaps the book publishing industry has something even more valuable to offer in a world of instant publishing, commentary, and gratification?

One of the concepts I found most compelling in this week’s readings is the idea, expressed by Clay Shirky in both his book “Here Comes Everybody” and his Smithsonian webcast, that failure now comes at a lower price than ever before. With the rise of the Internet and, more recently, the proliferation of user-friendly programs and software which non-computer-programmers can handle and even master with ease, publishing one’s work in a digital environment becomes a matter of “publish, then filter” rather than the traditional reverse.

I couldn’t help but think about our own projects while reading and listening to his ideas. I’m sure we are all proud of our research and our work and are eager to demonstrate what we know to the public. Before the internet (or, really, before web-designing software made it easy for beginners to make their own sites) how many of us could have published what we’re currently working on? Would a book publisher have risked money and reputation printing the work of a student with few credentials and no previous publishing experience? And yet, here we are about to make our work public with no risk or financial loss.

It is this notion that binds this week’s readings together. If more risk were involved with this type of production, Nina Simon’s belief in museum interactivity (with guidelines as she proposes) would be nearly impossible to carry out. It would just be too financially risky an endeavor to offer museum visitors the chance to shape the exhibits themselves, rather than remaining passive visitors but ones who pose no potential loss to the museum. The same is true for Wikipedia. If the cost of digital production was not so low and the notion of “publish, then filter” did not exist for things created digitally, then a digital encyclopedia relying on contributions from amateurs and non-scholars would be too great a risk to attempt (although as Roy Rosenzweig points out, Wikipedia critics might argue that the risk involved in Wikipedia’s case is not as much financial as it is a loss in true education and knowledge).

How do you unzip a file again?  I have completely forgot.

I am not that social with technologies.  Just the other day I was talk to my co-workers and some of my friends and found out that myspace is no longer popular.  Myspace is use for sharing of music only now by my friends.  Everyone is using facebook.  I am on facebook, but not on myspace.  Just last year I was told your only on facebook, you need to be on myspace.  Turns out everyone has which to facebook.  I find it interesting at how fast things come into favor and leave with social networks.  As an organization I think it is important to remember that social networks come and go.  So don’t put all organization eggs in one basket and be prepared to which.  Agree, disagree?

Wanted to give you a bit more information about Google Analytics (plus the link). To implement Google Analytics for your site, you’ll sign up for the service: when you’ve finished signing up, Google will give you some code to paste into your website, as described on the page “How do I add tracking code to my website?” (The process is similar to the process for embedding videos and Google Maps.)

For your particular Omeka sites, you’ll want to add the tracking code into the footer. In your FTP program, navigate to the “themes” folder. Within the theme you’re using, navigate to the folder “common” and download the file “footer.php”. Open that file with a text editor and paste the tracking code that Google Analytics gave you just above the </body> tag. Be sure the Google Analytics code includes your Google Analytics account number, which was given to you during the signup process. Save the file and upload it to the server, overwriting the previous file. Naturally you’ll need to wait a day or so to start seeing any statistics; you’ll visit your Google Analytics account on the web to see the statistics. You can set your Analytics account to e-mail you a stats report regularly, if you like — that’s what we do for http://aphdigital.org. Here’s a sample report in PDF form: Analytics_aphdigital.org_20091009-20091108

See also the Omeka screencasts at http://omeka.org/codex/Screencasts — the two on Modifiying Themes: Navigation and Header and Basic PHP will help (modifying the footer is pretty much the same as modifying the header).

Just wanted to follow up on something we touched on in class — Michael Lascarides of the New York Public Library recently tweeted that “NYPL.org visits from mobile phones are skyrocketing! Up 7x in last 18 months.” It’s definitely a trend to watch; more and more people have smart phones that let them browse the web. Designing websites for mobile phones is a whole art in itself, and it takes time and labor to make a site mobile-friendly (sigh). Personally, I think that while people will definitely want to access basic information such as hours of operation from their phones, they won’t necessarily want or need to do real research or visit online exhibits on their phone — but that’s just a theory. I think we can wait awhile to worry about making special mobile-phone-friendly online finding aids, for instance!

Is there anyway to show location(s) on a map on the site after it has been loaded? Second question, can we add forms for feedback or contributions (not money) on Omeka?