Folksonomies intrigue me, as I have dealt with them (and contributed to them) in other classes. Folksonomies allow users to create their own vocabulary for searching within a system. Brennan and Kelly write about giving contributors to their Hurricane Digital Memory Bank the power to tag the items they add to the collection. While this method allows contributors to feel more connected to the project and to feel like they have a little more power over their own objects and memories, it can also create problems in the long run. Folksonomies lack authority control. As a result, searching can become less precise than it might be if there was a controlled vocabulary. Joshua Brown notes, “…new media work largely defies one authorial hand, voice or vision.” It’s a collaborative effort, and while the sentiment is nice, it can lead to inefficient and frustrating searches for researchers.
I agree with Cohen when he states that just because there are new methods, it does not mean that the old ones will (or should) die out. He writes, “What will remain in the foreground are the qualitative concerns, especially the question of provenance raised by the solicitation of historical materials from unseen contributors.” We still have to question the ‘truth’ aspect of these new kinds of recorded histories. Use of new technologies will complement older, more traditional methods of recording history. I worked with an oral historian for a spell, and I have seen first-hand the incorporation of new technologies into the field. And while it’s true that digital media doesn’t take up much physical space, the amount of storage needed for recorded oral histories is huge, especially if you want your video and audio files to be high quality. Digital storage is expensive for those kinds of projects. I’m excited to see how these methods will continue to develop.
Meg, your observation on the cost of digitization technology is similar to my opinion on the problems of designing engaging historical e-media in an age where the private sector electronic entertainment industry is constantly evolving. The digital shift can often be extremely expensive, limiting the utilization of such technologies by cash-strapped historical institutions. Hopefully historians can find a niche in the electronic world, just as museums still hold a unique place in city landscapes, despite the development of movie theaters and theme parks that vie for audiences.
ReplyDeleteIt will be very interesting to see the future of digital collections. Cohen discussed the complementary relationship between digital media and traditional forms of historical scholarship. During our visit to the State Archives, Gerard Clark pointed out how their digitized collections are offered as a convenience, but also as a form of advertisements. Though I do not foresee established archives digitizing their entire holdings, Cohen and Brennan & Kelly illustrated the possibilities of archives being created in the digital realm.
ReplyDeleteAs for the issue of truthfulness of digitally submitted narratives and other forms of digital collections, historians must continue to question the validity of their sources as they do with traditional oral interviews. Hopefully, the apprehension people have toward internet sources will force novice historians to really question the narratives, and not take them as fact.