Comments on: Chapter 7: Collaborating with Visitors

By: Drusilla

Drusilla — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:52:00 +0000

what… are you saying that it’s inappropriate to use someone elses website for your own purposes?

By: Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:56:47 +0000

Yet another great chapter. I particularly liked the idea of getting people on Second Life involved in projects. I think it’s a good idea, since that website is very popular. Perhaps there could be such projects on other websites like that? Provided that you’re allowed to do that on their websites, of course.

By: Erin

Erin — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 12:45:45 +0000

@Sarah: I entirely agree that it’s impact will have great effect on the study and academia of history. Perhaps it will usher in a new golden age of social, community and anecdotally based historical practice.
New schools of History are developed every generation. Is Digital history one in itself? I believe it has the makings of a great era in Historiography, but is perhaps in its early stages. The development of digital history is bound to continue and evolve, much like the ‘Annales’ school had distinct generations of historians and traits (Check out Andre Burguire’s analysis for more information, I think the way in which this school evolved can help us predict the ways in which this mode of history could grow http://books.google.com/books?id=CFOU2SJV0s0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=annales+school&hl=en&ei=4E01TrT8MerQmAXE0LDwCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false )

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 04:47:36 +0000

Erin, The fact is, without these digital history sites such as the 911 archive and kete NZ these histories would not exist. Therefore digital history increases the historical documentation significantly. It is most likely that digital media will have a great impact on history in the future as a result of more available and accessible archives and records of history.

By: Erin

Erin — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:12:24 +0000

@Sarah: I see these digital history sites as a starting point. An historian could use this site to find a story or a community that they did not know existed, learn the basis of its workings, then continue on to find more in-depth information about it elsewhere, or contact the creator of the material to speak to in person. For me Kete is the first port of call, the inspiration, not the definitive answer, as it were.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:59:37 +0000

Previous comments have scrutinised the accuracy and legitimacy of information on sites such as Kete Digital NZ and the 911 archive. However, generally these forms of digital story-telling and records are personal. Therefore they are a specific persons perspective. There may be some dubious accounts, however this can be the case for all forms of historical record. Some primary sources such as diaries, that we take as historical evidence may also be as misleading and imaginary. Therefore some level of inaccuracy is inevitable. As Mitch has pointed out, the significant component is that the record is readily accessible and provides great opportunities for people to record their histories.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:23:59 +0000

I’m impressed, too, by the information on collaborative sites like kete digital. Paul mentioned the increased feeling of being involved in the community, and a sense of pride in making a contribution, which I think is very important. As aspiring historians we are committed to the view that information about the past is valuable and ought to be freely available. Just so long as we remember that there are people who are not just indifferent, but hostile to the idea of participation, like one of my aunts who said very indignantly “It’s none of your business!” to an oral historian.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:22:22 +0000

Collaborative projects seems a great way to involve the community and gain viewpoints and input from a wide range of people. I especially feel that this sort of approach is best in a self referential concept where Museums are committed to portraying the past, present future of an area or demographic in an area such as the ‘Investigating Where We Live’ project. This does of course depend largely on valuable input by the collaborators who are motivated in doing it for the long run which can be tricky especially when dealing with people who are not professionals. The fostered community spirit and method of garnering those whom were especially committed into staff members or interns and the like is a valuable aspect.

The novel idea of using second-life as a ‘playground’ to test ideas is an interesting one because I feel it would provide an environment more conducive to experimentation where as in the real world one might be hesitant to develop an idea for fear of wasting time or judgement of others. However, the disconnect from reality may be a weakness as well as a strength. From the chapter it sounds like that although very good exhibition pieces were made virtually, they were not able to be made physically for pragmatic constraints. The virtual world may be great for exploring ideas but if the objective of the project is ultimately a real world one then these constraints still have to be kept in mind and it makes me wonder if second-life is the best platform for this.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:03:42 +0000

I have been checking out the various Kete sites talked about in this discussion such as http://ketehamilton.peoplesnetworknz.info/ and http://kete.net.nz/. I’m very impressed by the whole collaborative approach that takes place.

As Nina points out, in regards to collaborative video projects “Participants felt ownership and pride in their work.” Sure the Kete concept has flaws, everything does but the crucial component is that it provides opportunities for people to access knowledge in meaningful ways. Compare this with academic work of historians; many people simply can not relate to the subject matter or even the use of language, therefore, the meaning is often lost.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:49:30 +0000

Collaborative projects like Kete, 911 Digital Archive etc do have a place in the medium. It is inevitable. Previously you had to buy books written by people (ie soldiers), to get A understanding, but not THE understanding on an event (war). Now we have blogs by soldiers etc like Colby Buzzal’s (which became a book), not to mention the images that are easy to access. But these only cover A persepctive, and I agknowledge that there is no THE perspective. I think that care should be taken to show that a dH project is only A perspective, and not THE perspective.

And as to manipulating history, well that is as old as time itself. Cohen and Rosenzweig (2006, p. 6) talk about how easy it is to manipukate the media, so why not history. Gina mentioned earlier about Tania Head. If people want to belive it, then they will. With a decent computer and 2 hours I can insert myself digitally into a clip of the Egypt Riots. The manipulation of history will happen, it is a part of human nature. Usually it happens long after the event, to show A different perspective. dH just makes it alot easier to muddy the waters. It is less time consuming that creating a written physical forgery, and the audience is alot larger.