Category Archives: Guides

Portfolio Blog Post 1: Audience and Content Relationship

Public history is a heavily contested practice in the history profession, mostly on what the practice truly is. According to John Dichtl and Robert B. Townsend, in their article “A Picture of Public History: Preliminary Results from the 2008 Survey of Public History Professionals” (2009), state, “Public history is one of the least understood areas of professional practice in history because the majority of public history jobs are outside of academia . . . One of the most significant challenges for public history as a field is ambiguity about the definition of the term.” (Dichtl and Townsend). Historians have had difficulty understanding the purposes of public history. While there are debates about the practice, one aspect remains true: the combined effort of historians and the public. In his article, “Whose Public? What is the Goal of a Public Historian?” (1981), Ronald J. Grele states, “But such work has always combined a commitment to one’s own research and a commitment to helping people do their own history, to involve themselves in their pasts, to increase their historical consciousness.” (Grele, 47). Historians work with the public to create projects that fit their needs. Public history projects following this model have implemented cooperation in different ways.

            Understanding the public and shared authority are some of the main goals of historians working in public history. Serge Noiret, in his article “Sharing a Public Historian’s Authority within Communities” (2022), explains, “A long time practitioner of these shared authority practices in community projects in the UK, Paul Ward, tells us that ‘community research […], consistently seeks to sustain our community, revitalize and return our people back to their culture and language.’” (Noiret, 51). Historians should research the public to understand the community’s needs better and create better projects. One of the ways to do this is to interview people. According to Erika Hall, in her guide to “Interviewing Humans” (2013), “The goal of interviewing users is to learn about everything that might influence how the users might use what you’re creating.” (Hall). Different projects have implemented this strategy to help create and design to fit users’ needs better. One such project is the “Building Histories of the National Mall” (2015). The project creators used interviews to gauge what users wanted from the website, stating, “These findings guided the development and refinement of the Explorations section, and also guided the content team on where to focus research and writing time.” (Brennan and Leon, 25). Interviews are one way that historians can create projects with shared authority. Personas are also a way historians gauge users’ needs. Shlomo Goltz, in his article “A Closer Look at Personas: What They Are and How They Work” (2014), explains, “A persona is a way to model, summarize and communicate research about people who have been observed or researched in some way . . . Personas aid designers to create different designs for different kinds of people and to design for a specific somebody, rather than a generic everybody.” (Goltz). Historians use personas to help fit all potential users’ needs and understand the community. Both interviews and personas help historians and the public work together in a shared authority to create projects that fit the community’s needs.

How to Read Crowdsourced Knowledge

Wikipedia has gained a reputation since its inception in 2001. To this day most educational spaces treat the website as taboo, a website filled with errors that users should avoid at all costs. Alexandria Lockett, in her article “Why Do I Have Authority to Edit the Page? The Politics of User Agency and Participation on Wikipedia” (2020), states, “Wikipedia was clearly shaking up the education system back then, and it continues to be taught as a forbidden space. Throughout my undergraduate studies, my peers and I noticed and discussed that our professors were increasingly issuing threats and warnings about using and citing Wikipedia.” (208) Despite those threats, students, and others, continue to use the website for information on various topics. Roy Rosenzweig, in his article, “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past” (2006), believes this can be a good thing for educational and historical purposes. He states, “One reason professional historians need to pay attention to Wikipedia is because our students do . . . We should not view this prospect with undue alarm. Wikipedia for the most part gets its facts right . . . And the general panic about students’ use of Internet sources is overblown.” (136) As Rosenzweig implies, Wikipedia can be great for beginning research for students and historians—one reason is their Talk and History pages.

The Talk page on a Wikipedia article is a section where users can bring up concerns, potential edits, or any other topics they feel are essential for the article. This section can give users a sense of how the article has changed over time and what different contributors see as the critical issues and concerns of that article. When I looked at the Talk section for the “Digital Humanities,” I noticed that there were different concerns with the organization, particularly with the references and sources.

This attention to the sources tells me there is a concern with the contributors about where the information comes from and that the information is most likely accurate. This conclusion lines up when I looked at the History page for the article. The History page for a Wikipedia article gives every single time a revision took place for a particular article. It gives the user who revised the article, the edit size, and when the edit took place

When I looked at the page, I noticed three contributors significantly changed to the article: Elijahmeeks, Gabrielbodard, and SimonMahony. I decided to click on their names to learn more about them, and I found that they were all associated with the Digital Humanities in some capacity. This association lines up with the Talk page and the concerns about sources. People associated with the Digital Humanities field will be concerned about where the information is coming from and if it is accurate which is why it is brought up repeatedly on the Talk page.

Recently, there have been concerns about using A.I. for crowdsourcing information, especially as a threat to Wikipedia. In his article “Wikipedia’s Moment of Truth” (2023), Jon Gertner states, “On a conference call in March that focused on A.I.’s threats to Wikipedia, as well as the potential benefits, the editors’ hopes contended with anxiety. While some participants seemed confident that generative A.I. tools would soon help expand Wikipedia’s articles and global reach, others worried about whether users would increasingly choose ChatGPT . . . .” (36) There are many reasons why A.I. worries experts when crowdsourcing information. When I was using ChatGPT, I noticed a lack of citations for the information the program answers with. This lack of citations shows how well Wikipedia does with crowdsourcing information since there is an emphasis on citing information. However, there are still possibilities when using A.I. When I was looking at main article for Digital Humanities on Wikipedia I noticed that the Tools section was a little light, only mentioning a few tools. When I asked ChatGPT to give me some examples of different tools, it gave me several compared to the Wikipedia article. I can see a use for ChatGPT and other A.I. programs for crowdsourcing information. Nonetheless, the problems with citations still gives Wikipedia a point in proving accuracy.

A Guide to Digitization

Creating digital images can capture specific aspects of a certain item. It can capture the color and some of the size and texture. However, there are certain aspects ignored in digital images. Digital images need help capturing the sound and all the different sides of an item, making it hard for a researcher to get the true nature of it. Rather than digital images, video would be a better alternative for a historical researcher. Not only can videos capture the same aspects that digital images can and do it better, but they can also depict the sound and all the sides of the item. Videos can give researchers more material to work with.

Missing information in digital images can lead to misinterpretations from the viewer. The Conway article states, “Representation is an intentional relationship between the maker and the viewer, fraught with the potential for communication problems ranging from misinterpretation and misunderstanding to falsehood and forgery.” (3) These misinterpretations can lead to bad practices as historians, impacting how they understand and use these items. As in the paragraph before, some might choose a particular digital medium over another, use multiple mediums, or even use different angles of photos; as Conway states, “Building collections of photographs through digitization is fundamentally a process of representation, far more interesting and complex than merely copying them to another medium.” (3) These different ways that historians can avoid misinterpretations can lead to the different uses in the field as Melissa Terras states, “The opportunities to provide and enhance resources ‘for learning, teaching, research, scholarship, documentation, and public accountability’ are immense.” (2)

Conway, Paul. “Building Meaning in Digitized Photographs.” Journal of the Chicago Colloquium of Digital Humanities and Computer Science 1, no. 1 (2009): 1-18.

Terras, Melissa. “Digitisation and Digital Resources in the Humanities.” In Digital Humanities in Practice, edited by Claire Warwick, Melissa Terras, and Julianne Nyhan, 1-22. Facet Publishing, 2012.