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.

Technology defeating disability

On Friday I took part in a survey for the Disability Service in UCC. The aim of the survey was to look at students general "learning experience" in UCC and attempt to see if there were distinctions between the experience of disabled students and those not disabled (which included myself).

I was interviewed by a blind postgraduate (this survey being part of his thesis) but was immediately amazed by how technically advanced the interview was! I was recorded by a digital dictaphone which my interviewer was listening to through headphones to check the quality of the recording, the questions were read from a laptop which was connected to an electronic braille reader, which could also be heard through speakers.

Near the end of the survey questions arose about the use of technology in my time at university. Examples I gave included:

• Use of Blackboard & Moodle.
• Access to lecture notes and articles online.
• Online discussion groups on Blackboard & Moodle.
• Email correspondence from lecturers.
• Module outlines available online.

I was asked about my experience of technology in academia, but then asked if I thought lecturers were aware of the increased diversity of students in university today compared to previous generations and if their teaching style (use of technology was apart of this) reflected this awareness.

There are more disabled students, mature students and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds today - does teaching reflect this?

When thinking about the issue I was aware of the difficulties some mature students experience in academia as a result of technology, perhaps coming to university they have been thrown head first into the online world. What I had completely overlooked was the impact of technology in academia for students with disabilities.

A "disabled student" is a very vague term as it can include a whole array of disabilities and the role of technology in their education will have a varied impact.

My interviewer made several points:

• Lecture notes given at the start of the lecture are of limited use to many disabled students.
• Lecturers who have office hours but are poor at responding to email are difficult to speak to.
• Course material which is in physical not digital format is harder to transfer into audio or braille format.
• Group discussions which take place online (such as through Blackboard) are very useful for disabled students who may otherwise not be as confident (also maybe cannot respond to body language) in a real class discussion.
• Lectures available online (or podcasts) can be reviewed several times.

I started to understand that the technological advances have had huge benefits for disabled students (not only blind students) in pursuing their education.

Therefore "digital history" may benefit me in providing new resources and ways of communicating, but it has [perhaps greater] benefits for disabled students.

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.

The rise of Twitter

David Cameron once joked that he refrained from using Twitter because "too many tweets make a..." Anyway, at the start of this year there were as many as 55 million tweets being made daily, so while Cameron may be avoiding the social networking website, not everyone else is!

Twitter is being described as the "new Facebook", the extraordinary growth of Facebook in 2008 was being matched in percentage terms by Twitter in 2009.

What is Twitter?

• A micro-blogging website.
• You have your own account like other social networking websites.
• Posts are limited to 140 characters.
• You can "follow" and be "followed" by other users.
• The # key is a tag.
• Tagging allows users to see other "tweets" on similar topics.

Twitter's potential

Until the Summer of 2009 Twitter was seen as yet another internet craze but within a few days it became discussed in the media and being reported on news programmes (such as Newsnight on BBC2). This was because of the role Twitter played in the post-election period in Iran.

In 2009, people in Iran and Moldova created their own searchable tags on Twitter to organize protests against their governments and share information with each other and the world. In April, Moldovans used the network to rally more than 10,000 young people against their country's Communist leadership. And in June, Iranian opposition supporters angry over presidential election results used Twitter and other forms of new media to share news on rallies, police crackdowns on protesters, and analysis.

Twitter became such a vital source of information in Iran at a time when text messaging and mobiles phones were being blocked by authorities. This was shown by the fact that the US State Department even requested the company delay a planned shut down of the site for maintenance, showing the site had become crucial in the coordination of anti-government protests.

As well as being a force against authoritarian governments, Twitter is becoming a vital tool in other ways. The head of the NATO mission in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal stated that the website was a tool in mass communication to troops. In the UK during the General Election campaign tweets related to the election are being posted using a variety of tags (including #ge2010 or #ukelection) allowing for everything from the latest opinion polls to spoof posters to be shared.

The success of Twitter is down to the fact that posts are limited to 140 characters, thus you get a short and brief message - like TED, you get a big idea in a few minutes!

#

No the # was not a typo! Tagging is central to understanding twitter. By tagging your posts (using the # and then a word connected to the topic) it allows for debate and collaboration to occur through the site.

Education & Business using Twitter

If Mike Cosgrave had his way, he would "be well past discussion forums and making them use Twitter" by getting students to use the tag connected to their course (ie. #Hi2007) Twitter as a tool in education is a separate issue, but it shows other areas Twitter can be of use in.

Businesses have been entering the social networking arena in recent years with varied success, Twitter is no exception, as print media advertising becomes less popular (and is increasingly reaching an older demographic) the Twitters of this world are becoming a popular tool to reach people otherwise not accessible to companies. It does have dangers for businesses, as furniture shop Habitat discovered when they tried to piggyback on the popularity of Iranian election tags.

Conclusion

David Cameron might be right to avoid using Twitter based on the number of politicians red faced after making inappropriate comments on the site, or worse sharing the banality of their lives. Twitter is however being used by huge numbers of people and for a huge variety of purposes, which is helping it maintain its success. It is easy however to see it as a place for people to share with their friends what is in the contents of today's sandwich or what they thought of that penalty decision in the final minutes of a match - however it would ignore a huge amount of what Twitter is about and why people use the site.

The Wikipedia Model

I was having debate with one of my Digital History classmates, Gearóid Fitzgerald about Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that if you haven't heard of you must have just come out of a coma. It started with Gearóid discussing the limitations of the encyclopedia and me singing its praises, and we decided to try and write articles giving counter-arguments to our natural point of view. Thus, this blog today is a response to his blog on the benefits of Wikipedia.

A response to Gearóid

Gearóid started his blog stating that the use of the online encyclopedia really dawned on him when he had an undergraduate assignment, which based on the prevailing view of UCC academics is a fairly bold admission (just as well he has his degree safely vaulted away!) Having the same assignment as three hundred or more undergraduates inevitably results in the university library clearly out of any even partially useful books, or else being left with the 1964 edition of a book which has been updated a dozen times since!

The problem with Gearóid's argument is that if his intention was to access academic sources for an assignment - Wikiepdia was no replacement!

In the rest of the blog Gearóid makes his point that Wikipedia is a good resource because:

• Of its speed.
• Ability to search through the text.
• It's constantly updated.
• Related articles are linked.
• It's digital.
• Pages can be saved and accessed on the go.
• And of course it is free.

It's hard to disagree with the above observations as Wikipedia is truly an excellent resource for many reasons, and we all use it for different things.

What is interesting however from Gearóid's blog is that he praises the format of Wikipedia - it's great because it is online, free, easy to use, up-to-date and so forth. He doesn't mention the philosophy behind it, the core doctrine of collaboration and the benefits of anyone editing an article on the site (though his Kerry footballer friend shows the pitfalls of it!)

Nor did he suggest that Wikipedia is strengthening democracy and is the pioneer of Web 2.0.

The blog I think it good as it looks simply at the end result - what is the benefit to me the user, the student etc. Rather than looking at it overall and it's effect on society, which would be a massive task.

In my critique of Wikipedia I have two seperate issues, one is to look at the model (collaboration, freedom to edit articles etc) and then to look at the format (up-to-date, free, easy to use etc.) I have issues with the core model of Wikipedia (though I still see it as a fantastic source) while I think the format of the site is excellent and can be replicated across different mediums.

Replicating the "Wikipedia model"

The Wikipedia format - up-to-date, fast, digital, free etc. is something that can be replicated, which would allow academic material to be delivered in a Wikipedia style but without the compromse on quality.

Looking back at the original problem Gearóid stated - no books in the university library - Wikipedia is not the "only solution" to this issue, rather there are examples of libraries being digitalised, the idea of there only being one copy of a book thus becomes an alien concept, and doesn't require our student to give up and head to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is free, and that is something which digitialised libraries will find a difficult model to compete with, can work which has taken years of research be offered for the same cost (no cost) as material uploaded to Wikipedia?

Cameron Murdoch (of BSkyB) in November 2009 argued about the dangers of subsidiesed news material (namely the BBC) which makes other media models unsustainable. There is no tax to pay for Wikipedia so the issue is significantly different, however Murdoch does make a serious point; that paying for a product is the only way to guarntee its sustainability and quality. Debates around this issues are bound to continue.

How can we alter the fact that while Wikipedia offers "up-to-date" information - a book in a library is antiquated, indeed once books have left the publisher they are often in some measure already "out of date".

Inventions such as e-book readers (or the much hyped iPad) have the potential to revolutionise text books and other academic material which is currently published on paper. Rather than printing a text book (which becomes irrelevent all too quickly) having a text book published in digital format, which can be sold as an e-book and accessed on e-book readers could be updated more frequently and at much lower costs for publishers (or eliminate the need for publishers at all!)

Aside from e-books, there are online models which can deliver the same product. Websites such as Google Books, Google Scholar or online journals provide quality scholarly material which can be accessed online, is searchable, and mostly free to use.

Following an e-book model (in tandem with the digital library model) allows traditional adacemic material to be accessed with the benefits that Gearóid outlined the Wikipedia model held:

Benefits of digital academic material: (Matching beneifts of Wikipedia)

• Easy to use - you could access your academic material on your computer or e-book reader.
• Up to date - because the information would be digital it would be easier and cheaper for the author to update the work and for the user to download an updated edition of a text.
• Universal access - digitalising books prevents the problem Gearóid outlined when required books are no longer available in the library.
• Storage issues - e-book readers have capacity to store thousands of books.
• Search ability - unlike print material, digital sources can be searched through in a similar way to Wikipedia.

Conclusion

Wikipedia offers many benefits to students as outlined by Gearóid. It however is a source which can be used in tandem with academic material, though ought not to be seen as a replacement of the traditional sources of information.

Wikipedia is a good place to start research as it gives basic information on the topic which are often universal facts (dates, numbers, individuals etc), and often outlines differing schools of thought on an issue. Most usefully Wikipedia does reference, and usually provides a list of authors on a topic, key books or journals and often provide links to them in the article.

Wikipedia thus is often a signpost to authorative academic material.

Wikiepida (and its model) creates a challenge to academia for reasons stated, however as e-books and digital libraries show us there are ways of changing the way material is delivered - without altering the material itself (or compromising on quality etc.)