Week 1 Response

 

Michael Ibarra

04-6-09

Response Paper

Week 1 Hist. 496

 

The readings this week asked some important questions regarding a scholar's use of digital technology in the 21^st century. In "Promises and Perils" what are the pro's and con's of using digital technology, in a broad sense? How can we define digital history and what is its promise? What is netiquette, and how should it be applied? What about digitizing physical sources, which remains costly, and problematic? What is meant by the emergence of Digital Humanity? Finally, who in the world is Boiler Plate?

Promises and perils briefly details seven qualities of digital media and networks that improve historical writing and research. "Capacity, accessibility, flexibility, diversity, manipulability, interactivity, and hyper-textuality"; these are discussed as primary benefits to historians. Being able to store so much information, great access to this information, how many kinds of forms this information can take, as well as how diverse it is, from American colonial documents to County records from 1900. The ability to manipulate this information to suite your purposes is another supposed benefit, as well as interactivity, the material being capable of being accessed and discussed by professional and non-professionals alike; and finally hyper-textuality, a new way of viewing and thinking about the text because of the medium (online) through which we view and discuss it.

 

While I readily agree with these benefits, the introduction also takes into account the problems or caveats as it puts it, in this latest medium of information. Mainly "quality, durability, readability, passivity, and inaccessibility"; the problems with a free medium, which the internet is readily apparent. How can quality, truthfulness be assured, what happens when the mainframes storing the internet, the frontal lobe if you will, breaks down or is destroyed? Are the authors always writing in an easily understood fashion, as in this post, and what if a scholar wished to convey complex theories and information, how can that scholar do so effectively, and how can anyone be sure that this new medium is available and can be accessed by everyone?

I feel the author does an excellent job of defining each of these difficulties, though I do feel that by now there are enough computer users in the world that inaccessibility is not a problem as it once might have been in the Reagan era. I also feel that there are a sufficient source of online forums that are peer reviewed by Professors that quality can be assured in that sense

Quite simply, Digital History is History that makes uses of online sources. It is an inexpensive medium, as it can be altered, accessed, published, stored, and shared with unlimited potential. I agree here with Dr. Turkel in saying that many barriers that have impeded historians do not exist online. One can do anything with the information at little or no cost as shared above. It is I who also states that it has unlimited potential, in that no one can say for sure how far this new medium can go, or what new ways of thinking and doing things it can inspire.

I whole hardily agree with Netiquette in that I believe that we must take care to act with etiquette when we are dealing in the online medium. The golden rule applies in cyberspace the same way it would in real life. The most important lesson here that can be learned is that cyberspace and the real world are not separate! They are interwoven, and your actions in one can impact the other. As scholars, Historians in this case, it is important to maintain our standards online as well as one would do in life, because life happens everywhere.

'History Digitized" I think does point out an important point, in that putting sources online is all well and good, but if this is incomplete, that can lead to great difficulty. It could be likened to Darwin writing his "Origin of Species" without ever setting foot on the Galapagos. He never had access to that, and so he missed an important piece in his work. So it is online, if only part of a volume set is available, a scholar's conclusions based on it would invariably be different than if he had all the information available to him.

In "Digital Humanities", the author states he started the blog or project to allow better access to this field, and to help humanities majors in general. Soon many others had jumped on the bandwagon, with official blessings from above, funding and everything. He found himself in the position of dealing with what was now an emerging field, as digital history is to us. I greatly enjoyed reading this different perspective to the phenomenon as one could say, of the effect of the digital medium on academia. I agree with his conclusions about it, particularly his view that coordination between various "humanities centers" in regards to activities. I feel this should also be attempted in regards to historical centers; I for one would love to see some real discussion between students here in Eastern and perhaps students in Gonzaga on current events, and bringing them into historical context.

I absolutely loved the story of Boiler Plate. Although I question the validity of this story, I find that in the world we live in today, nothing can ever be dismissed easily. My own mind

says that since Sony recently made a robot, whose main capability is walking and not crushing objects, it is unlikely the technology of that period, circa 19^th century, would be capable of making

a robot capable of all those functions described therein. But you never know, stranger things have turned out to be true, like the United States Air Force's attempt at a flying saucer!