Lee Wright o historii 2.0
Lee Wright jest autorem strony Read Write History, na której opisuje nowe historyczne projekty internetowe. Ich wspólnym mianownikiem jest otwarcie na współprace między użytkownikami i wyjście poza środowisko akademickich badaczy przeszłości. Ma to być metoda na skuteczniejsze odkrycie i zabezpieczenie skarbów lokalnego dziedzictwa historycznego. Sam Wright nie jest historykiem (studiował zarządzanie na Northwestern University, ma doświadczenie w zakresie technologii i projektów internetowych), od lat jako wolontariusz zajmuje się jednak historią lokalną, jest też członkiem wielu stowarzyszeń historycznych i archiwalnych Nowej Anglii.
W kwietniu podczas bostońskiego BarCampu Lee Wright wygłosił prezentację, w której posłużył się pojęciem historii 2.0. Postanowiłem zadać mu kilka pytań dotyczących definiowania i używania tego typu pojęć, mających chyba bardziej propagandowy i marketingowy niż merytoryczny charakter. Inspiracją do podjęcia tego tematu było też (nieco spóźnione) odkrycie upadku serwisu Miomi.com, o którym pisałem w 2007 roku, a który wprost posługiwał się pojęciem user generated history. O problemach z angażowaniem użytkowników do internetowych projektów historycznych pisali też rok temu Sheila Brennan i Mills Kelly w artykule Why Collecting History Online is Web 1.5. Jak to jest więc ostatecznie z mówieniem o historii 2.0?
Whether it is necessary to define a new concept in the historical scholarship? Long after the outbreak of the „revolution” of O’Reilly Web2.0 idea, there are lot of critical voices showing that this term has rather marketing than substantive meaning. Why and how do you define History 2.0?
Lee Wright: Indeed, „Web 2.0″ has always been more of a helpful shorthand for an approach to the web that enables individuals to connect directly with one another on (and not necessarily through) a given web property. My use of „History 2.0″ is similar in that it’s intended to quickly convey the idea that others from outside traditional history-related professions should have the opportunity to contribute to discussions concerning the identification and interpretation of historical artifacts and events. After all, it’s „our” history, isn’t it? This doesn’t mean, of course, that each opinion is necessarily equally valid, but as one moves from global to national to local events, certainly the closer these events get to a given individual the more helpful his or her contributions can be, which is what I’ve seen in my efforts to help preserve local history.
Sheila Brennan and Mills Kelly from CHNM have recently published an interesting article „Why Collecting History Online is Web 1.5″, in which they show the main problems in engaging ordinary internet users in historical projects (collecting historical resources online). One of them is the fact, that if they have any historical resources which can be put online, they prefer to publish them in the clouds or social network sites. Another history 2.0 startup project – Miomi.com – failed, although even directly refer to this term. What are – in your opinion – the most important risks in history 2.0 internet initiatives?
The problems are at both ends of the continuum:
- Having tremendous ambitions and an all-encompassing scope, which befell Miomi.com.
- Limiting the way in which users can participate and interact, which is much of the reason that efforts end up as more „1.5,” with limited participation and interest versus „2.0″ and being fully-embraced by the broader public.
Regarding the second, some of the challenges that those in the profession have traditionally had include…
= Attempting to replicate a physical exhibit online
= Greatly restricting the ability of individuals to contribute
Both reduce the appeal of others contributing. Contrast carefully curated online exhibits that have little viewer interaction with any of the many sites (in other areas) that have grown to be huge based on the contributions of others. I’ve focused on creating a platform for preserving local history in part because we avoid some of these other issues.
On your blog we can read about two historical websites, which can be described in the context of history 2.0: PhilaPlace.org and Main Memory Network. Could you tell me something about the atmosphere in US (grants funding, collaboration with educational and academic institutions etc.) for building such internet projects?
Note that I’ve listed these two as examples. There are many others. I’ll add to the list from time to time and will be happy to consider adding those you and your readers send along. (If they’re in a language other than English, please provide a description in English.) Regarding the environment here, there are many „digital history” efforts underway, some funded by Federal government agencies such as the National Endowment for the Humanities or the National Archives, and others are funded at the state level or by private foundations. Most focus on efforts underway at traditional institutions.
The biggest opportunity in some ways is to go the other direction: Moving from the new technologies and behavioral approaches we see emerging and figuring out how to apply those to digital history projects instead of starting with traditional historical efforts and applying new technologies. Both are important, but the former are moving so much faster. By contrast, the long funding cycles, traditional pace, lack of competition, and the general orientation of many in the profession mean that traditional history projects are likely to move at a slower pace.
And if you would be so kind, a request of your readers: Please send along examples that you think are helpful examples from anywhere in the world of the kinds of inventive things that should be done in the area of digital history (be it „Web 2.0″ or otherwise).
Fot. serwis PhilaPlace – Sharing Stories from the City of Neighborhoods
• • •
Kategorie: Komentarze
Skrócony link: Kopiuj adres odnośnika
Kliknij tutaj, aby wygenerować przejrzystą wersję do czytania lub wydruku
Komentarze