When considering the missions of the local digital history centers in the VA area, it was great to see that the major focus was creating accessibility to digital history not only to their related universities, but to the greater community. The work that many of these centers to is also quite interesting. With so much data and information available, such tools to organize, visualize, and present relevant historical information is invaluable. For instance, the methods that the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (MITH) explore to create computing methods to enhance digital preservation of data is nearly as important as the data itself when it comes to making it accessible and usable to the average user.
Sunday, August 30, 2020
Thoughts on the Promises and Perils of Digital History (Cohen, Rosenzweig)
Rosenzweig's commentary on the idea of the quality issue associated with the digital media revolution, and how the masses may be inclined to reference what is more accessible and easy to find, rather than what is reputable sparked my intrigue. Specifically, it was interesting to consider the simple fact that because many of the most formal and peer-reviewed historical sources are only open to subscribers, the general reader will be more inclined to use free or informal sites or blogs for their historical reference. As a result, they might not be consuming the most "quality" information. Given the accessibility of authoring this information (anyone, including me here, can post something on the web), it could lead to misinformation. Rosenzweig talks about combating this issue, but it is hard to imagine a way to police the online realm of history when it is so open-source, especially since limiting the accessibility to create and share information would limit the benefits that the digital realm of history has to offer in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)