Consider the source...
In his article Can You Do Serious History on the Web?, Carl Smith provides his own perspective on using the Internet as a medium for history, particularly in reflection to his own experiences as curator for an exhibit on the Great Chicago Fire. More notably he questions, "Has the unregulated culture of the Internet made cyberspace a bloated refuge for work of questionable value that otherwise couldn't--and shouldn't--see the light of day? (par 2)" Smith clearly embraces the potential use of the Internet for posting historical content, boasting that the Internet's advantages outweigh its disadvantages but errs on the side of caution in regard to whether or not it is serious history in the traditional sense. The obvious traditional mediums for serious history, of course, are books and articles. Smith contends for his readers to consider that constructing an online exhibit of this magnitude was no small feat and that it required just as much research, work, and financial and institutional backing as any other exhibit. He also states that the exhibit he pieced was not done to replace or displace a current exhibit elsewhere. All worthy considerations while trying to answer the topic's question.
The web is littered with historical junk, especially in the age of Wikipedia and less-than-scholarly Google search results. By that same token, library's are laden with occasional literary muck, as well. There are entire volumes addressing the myth of Hitler's single testicle or arguing that Lincoln was a homosexual. These are examples, but it is testimony to the fact that just because there is a published historical document on a bookshelf, it does not denote it as "serious history." Granted, it is much more difficult to publish a book than to post something historically inaccurate on the web, but clearly the questionable material transits all mediums regardless.
When regarding serious history, the medium should not be as much of a factor as the supporting sources. This may go without saying to an audience of student historians, but it is an important point not to be overlooked. If the mindset eventually slips into the categorizing of serious history into a column of strictly books and articles and bunk history into a column of strictly websites without any regard for a particular study's sources, then there are much bigger problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I really do like your considerations on what is serious or non-serious history. It is so very true that you can find “junk” historical work on the web as well as on a bookshelf. There might be a stricter control on what is actually published, but it does not prevent the existence of really bad or even dangerous history books. And there are certainly a lot of questionable things on the web, but there are also some very good historical resources and research. What should be relevant is the content of the work; what primary and secondary sources have been used; what methodology was adopted. What should also be important, is to give people the necessary tools to use online resources; give them the tools so they know what are valuable resources, and where to find them; what is not valuable, and what should be avoided at all costs.
The web is a great marketplace of ideas. Bogus websites and positions will be discovered for what they are, and in the meantime it allows crazy people to exorcise their demons by imagining that someone is listening to their drivel. At the same time, minority opinions, no matter how seemingly ridiculous, now at least stand a chance of being heard. In a free and open-minded society with a pragmatic discourse, it is important to listen to the voices of dissent. If one thousand historians believe that Lincoln was heterosexual and one argues the contrary, it makes it all the more important to listen to the one dissenting voice, whether it changes opinions or only solidifies the opposition. In this way we can have more certainty in the arguments that we profess. So, long live quack websites and the ramblings of the nonsensical. Not only are they entertaining, but they challenge the consensus and provide fodder for real debate.
While I think you bring up an interesting perspective on the fact that the internet is indeed littered with "historical junk" I think that Smith brings up an interesting idea of how public historians can go about filtering the web and creating more scholarly sources on the web. With the author's realization that people were looking at this online exhibit from across the country and academic backgrounds from middle schoolers to grad students like ourselves, the idea that these online web exhibits need to question whether they are writing for a general audience or for a more scholarly one. I think that Smith should have adresses this topic in his article and the realization that he acknowledges on the lack of scholarly web sources, but scholarly on whose level? What level of research is the targetted audience and what attempt are the developers going to make to appeal to the greater audience then ignored? Just a few thoughts...
Post a Comment