Today's readings in Public History made me think about something about historical media in the digital age. What came to my mind is wikipedia. It is a frowned upon source to be sure, but you can find so much in it. When I was working on my undergrad there was a game that went on in the dorms (something to do when bored) but to see how disparate of a topic you can get in six clicks, start with a random page, like baseballs, and see if you can get somewhere like ranch dressing by the time you have clicked six links in the page. All that to say that there is alot of information on wikipedia.
But what came to mind was a sort of wikipedia for history. I personally have read many articles on wikipedia and find them interesting, but always lacking in depth. But what if there was a site dedicated more to history, something that allowed the free flow of information, and was designed to be a community of historians? Articles in the history field are always written for other historians, there is such a depth of information AND wording that most people can not understand it; wikipedia on the other hand is written by almost anyone. Why is there not a happy medium? Something that encourages professionals to come to one place, post articles on various topics, make sure they are readable, and most importantly make sure that there are methods of peers, also on the site, to add feedback for the benefit of all reading the article. It would make it easy to link to similar topics, and to link to external sources as well. Another benefit of having a wiki-like interface is that it would be easy for the original author to revise the material and keep track of changes, but personally I think changes should be restricted to the author only.
One issue that exists on the internet is that there are few sites that truly can be a one-stop site for a particular subject, but sites like wikipedia offer a template for what could easily be hubs for information. A hub would allow someone to begin research there, and because the authors should be credible in their field it would be cite-able, but also branch the reader to other places and other resources much like wikipedia does. The Internet should facilitate the free-flow of ideas, but as long as information is far flung across many sites, it is hard for information to be found and linked by the laity.
Are there thoughts on this?
I think one of the best ways to describe this as a cynic (espeically given how many students love Wikipedia) is to use a Colbertism: wikiality. If it's on Wikipedia, it becomes fact.
ReplyDeleteAlso, given the number of interpretations that one event can have, it would be hard to have depth in an article without regonizing each view point, plusses and minuses, fully (at least not at Wikipedia level). I doubt the casual Wikipedia user would bother pondering why, either, making in-depth wikihistory even more difficult.
I would like to add that if used properly, that yes, a wikipedia-like history site is an interesting concept.
ReplyDeleteI don't watch Colbert, but I think I understand what you mean by something being fact if it's on Wikipedia. This is one of the reasons that I would like it to be easy for there to be a form of peer review upon a site like this, nor would I want this to be open on the same level as Wiki, I think anyone writing or reviewing needs to have some sort of academic credential.
DeleteI would also like to point out, that if you have it set up as a community, there shouldn't be a limitation on one article per topic, there should be room for multiple viewpoints, not just for a "thesis/antithesis" set of viewpoints, but a spectrum of views.
Thanks for the feedback!