Podcasting as a tool

Podcast:

Links to websites mentioned in my podcast:

TED

Academic Earth

LSE Public Lectures

Election on Twitter

Much focus has been placed on the importance of television in the UK General Election (as for the first time there have been three live TV debates between the leaders of the main political parties) - This however has occurred at a time when the internet has played a major role in the election.

The "digital election" has been well reported, from interesting (though at times silly) blogs, more series articles on the phenomenon, as well as the websites and social media accounts of candidates.

One example of Web2.0 at work in the election is this attempt by the Guardian for readers to assess the campaigning in their constituency. Readers simply enter their post code, the party campaigning and a rating from 1-5 of how "active" that political party has been. The map is formed by users tweeting the data to them:

Tweet your score, postcode and the party abbreviation with the hashtag #ukvote - eg N1 LAB 3 #ukvote or CV32 CON 4 #ukvote -

What does this have to do with digital history? Isn't this simply election journalism in the internet age? Well I thought about this for a while, is this really something of historical value?

I think that this is of historical value as it potentially shows us where political parties are focusing on, it provides a lot of data albeit in a rather simplistic way. In twenty years time if we were to assess the 2010 UK General Election it might be of use to look at a collaborative effort such as this to see where campaigns were highly fought.

Twitter in Elections:

The screen shot above is from my Twitter account, while I was using a Google Chrome extension for Twitter. The image is annotated to show the differing tweets from those involved in the General Election.

The Google Enlightenment

Previously I mentioned (and indeed welcomed) the digitizing of books by Google.

Digitizing books has to be welcomed as I have shown in my blog for the following reasons:

• It reduces the reliance on the likes of Wikipedia, by making academic sources easier to access.
• Preserves historic books which other wise may decay.
• Helps disabled students to access material.
• In addition digitizing books allows small libraries the wealth of books only otherwise available at national libraries.

An article in The New York Review of Books on the role of Google and the future of books makes interesting reading.

While Robert Darnton is supportive of the role Google have adopted in the digitizing of books, Darnton points out concerns in the "monopoly" they have on this potentially lucrative area.

Darnton fixes his gaze to the 18th Century and looks at the Enlightenment values which were so valued by Voltaire, Rousseau, Franklin and Jefferson and indeed led to the creation of the "Republic of Letters".

Yet he cleverly highlights that debates in the period on copyright legislation (first brought created in 1790) were seen as a balance between the interests of authors and the interests of the public. Darnton argues that despite the hypocrisy of many at the time - the original copyright act put public interests ahead of those of the author (material could only be copyrighted for a maximum of 28 years) yet still recognised the need to reward talent.

Darnton's article critisies changes to copyright legislation which has extended protection until 70 years after the death of the author. Darnton also raises issues about the public interest in this mass digitizing process and the need to hold "the digitizers responsible to the citizenry".

A class action suit against Google in October 2008 resulted in a settlement between the company and a group of authors and publishers which has set the precedent for the future of digitizing books. Copyrighted material which is in print can be purchased as normal (and indeed can be sold as e-books) however copyrighted material which is out of print can be accessed through Google by purchase of a "consumer license" (of which Google retain 37% and rightsholders receive 63%)

Of the 7 million books Google had digitized by November 2008, 5 million are books in copyright but out of print. Thus perhaps making the consumer license a lucrative opportunity for the company (thought Darnton dismisses the idea).

Despite the concerns about copyright acts, and the reduced access to Google's material, the article overall highlights the benefit of the work of Google in making books available online, especially at a time when Microsoft and other have wound down their digitizing programs.

It also states that Google is acting in the public interest and can "make the Enlightenment dream come true", Darnton only hopes the management at Google remains.

Tweeting History

Previously I looked at the role of Twitter, today I wanted to go back to one of the underlying themes running though my blog, the issue of recording history, looking at how Twitter presents challenges and opportunities for historians.

In background reading on the importance of Twitter I came across many articles articulating the value of Twitter for historical research. Shown best by the decision of the US Library of Congress to archive "the collected works of Twitter" stating that "tweets are becoming part of history.”

As mentioned in my previous blog on Twitter most tweets are rather banal, relate to only few individuals and probably have little or no use to any historian.

As a student of diplomatic history I am all to aware that I often ignore the importance of historical resources simply because they do not relate to my notion of a valuable sources. Historical studies which look a the wider society, role of popular culture etc. will potentially see huge benefit in the recording of tweets.

Why are tweets of historical value?

Future studies looking at attitudes towards Sarah Palin during the 2008 US Presidential election may find some benefit in looking through tweets made during her vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden, by then perhaps more efficient methods of analysing huge quantities of data will have emerged allowing for trends to be spotted.

Because tweets are short (a maximum of 140 characters), time stamped and made by so many individuals they are perfect for meta data analysis (if that is not already a term it ought to be...) which is so useful to many historians.

Digital Media = Brevity?

Emily Bell in the Opinion page in The Guardian's Media Suppliment (11th Jan 2010) made fascinating point about a previosuly unknown (unknown to me at least) benefit of digital media.

Unlike her traditional print media article for the paper which has to fill a certain amount of space, digital media allows for a reappraisal of "what is enough in terms of good reporting, or commentary". Unlike the print media, digital media has no minimum or maximum word limit.

Bell points out that the format media is being presented on is changing rapidly as the technology revolution is altering the way we access media. Just as users are questioning the need for music albums as a format (if music is being downloaded why have a dozen tracks when I only like two or three of the songs) or the need for TV channels now that their favourite programmes are available online; we are now questiong the way our news is delivered.

She argues that "content, journalism, programmes and visual communication" will have to become comfortable moving onto the "smaller screen" as we start accessing them on mobile technology.

Despite the need to be versitile (ability to be accessed on the smaller screen) this doesn't translate directly into an increased apitite for brevity.

Despite the success of Twitter (which limits posts to a mere 140 characters) there is evidence according to Bell that "well differentiated long form content is as eagerly consumed as the quick soundbite". She points to statistics on The Guardian website which showed that a feature piece in the G2 suppliment (on Victorian sewers of all things) was the most viewed article of that specific month, which challeneges preconvied ideas of the results of the switch to digital media.

In addition Bell even questions the need for quotes in the new media as journalists can now link to other articles, statements or blogs.

As academic work, research and articles will be increasingly posted and debated online there is a tendancy to assume that for it to compete in the Twitter age the authors will need to be both brief and exciting - however this is an assumption which isn't supported by evidence.

Ted Talks

TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design - though not limited to those fields anymore it seems!) is a non-profit organisation which is famous for holding regular conferences where they promote "ideas worth spreading" (as their motto frequently states).

Speakers

At the elaborate conferences (mostly held in the US, but also in Europe) there are a series of lectures (or TED talks as they colloquially call them) given by speakers who are both:

1. Experts in their field.
2. Great speakers.

Examples of past speakers include the authors of Freakanomics, the founders of Google, Billy Graham and Al Gore, as well as countless academics, authors and businesspeople.

Format

A key point to note is that TED limit the talks to eighteen minutes. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that TED have produced some physiological research which states that that is the best length for a lecture to last, and a graph mapping the diminishing returns from longer talks!

The format of the conferences most definitely impacts the types of speakers, and thus their disciplines. The focus seems to be solely on the speaker, overuse of a slide-show is looked down upon, and even if used the slide-show ought to be unique in its style (and definitely the software they use!).

The "big ideas" that are put forward in such a small amount of time (compare it to a conventional lecture which would last a full hour or more) forces the speaker to do something nearly impossible, be both interesting (and often humorous) and get an idea across which has perhaps been the basis of several years of research, a great corpus of writing.

How to access

The conferences are recorded and are uploaded regularly to their easy-to-use website (www.ted.com) The website itself is excellent for a few reasons:

• It's simple.
• Their latest videos are on the homepage.
• If you hover over the video it gives all the basic information.
• Videos which are more popular appear as larger thumbnails.
• They have useful filters.
• The quality of the talks is excellent.
• They are downloadable, both as videos or audio files.

Academic resource

Students like to use Wikipedia as a tool for research for a number of reasons, chiefly it is comprehensive in scope, free and easy to use. I think the same can be said of TED, and other similar websites. Obviously TED is not an encyclopedia and comparisons to Wikipedia may seem naive, but the style is similar and that I believe is what makes it such a popular website.

Unlike Wikipedia we know who the person giving the talk is, they are accomplished in their field and are usually putting forward an idea that they have researched and written on. In addition the format (being a short and interesting talk) captures out attention, allows us to give our full attention to the speaker and perhaps be inspired to learn more on the topic.

Next

In the next blog I'm going to look at TED in more detail, using the example of it's most watched talk of all time. Hopefully in this blog was successful in showing the benefit of TED to students, proving that TED is a digital academic source. In the next blog I hope to be able to show the use of TED from the other perspective, not from the user but the provider. Why should academics (and perhaps historians in particular) use TED (and others like it).