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.

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.)

Recording the Presidency

Looking for alternative sources for my dissertation research I read "The Clinton Tapes" by Taylor Branch. The author is no expert on the Clinton Presidency, but rather is an old friend of the President! What makes the book a valuable contribution to the history of the 1990s US Foreign Policy is that it is based on recorded conversations between the author and the President during his two terms in office.

The Clinton Tapes

The opening chapter gives some insight into why the President decided to initate a series of meetings with Branch, After winning the 1992 election Clinton started to look into methods of recording the history of his presidency, it seems incredible that during the interim period before inauguration when the President-Elect would need to make political appointments and prepare to govern, that Bill Clinton would be able to think about how best to record his legacy.

Branch stated that recording of meetings such as those used by Presidents Johnson and Nixon would not be adopted because of the possibility that the tapes could be subpoenaed. Minutes would not be taken of the informal and yet important meetings between key figures in the administration again because of the fear it could be requested, but also simply because of the issue - who would actually agree to take the minutes!

In March 1993 the first taped interview took place, Clinton stated that he wanted an interviewer and not just to create a "taped diary" as an interviewer could frame the debate, ask the important questions which perhaps if Clinton had recorded himself he would have ignored.

Recording History

The reason for blogging about this book is that it starts with an interesting discussion about the debates surrounding the need to record the presidency. It was widely commented in 2009 that President Obama could no longer use his blackberry because of issues relating to recording his usage of the device.

Preserving the history of a presidency is becoming a greater issue as important political decisions are made not in official settings, such as cabinet or congress but in informal meetings, the type in the UK referred to as the "Sofa government" as it is made of just a few individuals who meet so informally that they literally are on a sofa!

Freedom of Information Acts which have been enacted do in some way preserve history, however overall it discourages politicians from using communications forms which can be requested using the FoI Act, thus making the preservation of the history even more difficult! In "The End of the Party" Andrew Rawnsley quotes Tony Blair saying he wished he never pushed for the Act to begin with!

Creativity in (digital) Education

Following on from my blog on TED, I'm today going to look at how TED can be used as a tool for digital historians or indeed any academic. I'm going to look at the example of the most watched TED talk, given by Sir Ken Robinson on the subject of education, which has been watched over fifteen million times.

Robinson

Robinson is an "educational expert" according to his TED biography (whatever that might be) and has been involved in the creative arts most of his adult life. His talk keeps to the 18 minute limit that I mentioned when blogging about TED, and he is one of the best speakers I have ever listened to. He has a simple message, reform eduction to recognise creativity and innovation, his delivery is excellent and at times very funny. After watching his speech I read his wikipedia entry and eventually bought his book "The Element" which I read on a few days of commuting last summer.

His book is now in the top 1,000 on the Amazon best seller list (it has been out for over a year), so I am not alone in making the transition from watching his video to buying his book. TED seemingly has had a major role in promoting him, his views and his work; so how is TED able to do this, and how can historians use TED and the like to promote an idea or some research?

Why use the likes of TED?

Firstly it must be stated that not anyone can take part in TED! The point of this blog is not to look at TED as the only option, but to look at TED as a type of website, a formula that an inidivual, university or organisation could easily recreate for themselves.

TED is a great platform for academics because of the reputation the website has for quality talks and speakers (therefore is UCC or an organisation were to develop a copycat version of TED it would have to use strict quality controls.

The TED format makes it popular with viewers though is a challenge for academics to meet; yet a successful talk has so many benefits. It firstly will be watched by many on the website, then perhaps shared online through social networking websites such as Facebook and blogged about, providing a huge increase in its influence. Secondly, presuming the topic is interesting the 18 minute talk will serve to whet the apetite of the viewer and they will want to read more on the topic, thus giving an academic a receptive audience.

Authors promote their books on radio and television freqeuntly, TED is in one sense just another method. Some academics have created accompaning television series when they are launching their work. A six-part television series requires viewers to sit down for six hours, a TED talk allows them to be introduced to the idea in less than twenty minutes! In a world where people are and will continue in large numbers to access digital media "on the go" the TED format is far more versatile.

The success of YouTube has perhaps shown us that people have short attention spans and want to be introduced to something quickly.

Practical uses of the TED format

Imagine if lecturers created short TED style talks to introduce their modules? I remember just over a year ago sitting down with with classmates making our choices about classes, the first few module choices were easy to make, they were almost instinctive reactions when we read the title of the class. However I remember almost all of us were stuck with five credits left to allocate, a bad choice would bring misery and suffering on us for several months! Having a TED talk on subject choices or module choices not only helps people see what the class will be like, but also gives some insight into what the lecturer will be like. But in addition to all that it will force to lecturer to give a reason as to why this topic is important and will provide some overview as to what the whole course is about.

Google's role in preserving history

Google have come to an agreement with the Italians to digitise almost one million books!

I posted the article as it makes an interesting point, being digitalised the books are protected "forever" and can not fall victim to disasters;

Mario Resca of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage said the deal would help save the books' content forever, noting that the 1966 Florence flood ruined thousands of books in the city's library

The Lost Digital History

Earlier this week I mentioned the great plethora of resources available to me online in my area of research. It got me thinking of the huge amount of history which is currently stored online.

I read this article a few weeks ago but was able to find it again by searching online, Legal delays have blown a hole in UK's digital heritage (The Guardian, 4th October 2009). It is UK specific as it concerns the failure to implement the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 which would have forced the British Library to record and store digital material.

The article suggests that six years of digital history has been (potentially) lost as the government has not enforced the 2003 act giving the British Library (and others, including Trinity College Dublin) the ability to store digital material in the same way that these libraries currently store books and journal articles etc.

"At least 26 other countries, including France, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Norway, now have similar laws in force."

Digital history is becoming more important as more of our resources originate online, and thus its beneficial to a historian to see this 2003 Act enforced and copied internationally.

An abundance of information

My thesis topic (NATO Expansion under President Clinton) is relatively modern, focusing mostly on the last half of the 1990s; so far the biggest difference between my thesis research and my dissertation research last year (on the US opposition to Salvador Allende in Chile) has been the volume of data available online.

I remember having one excellent book, "The Pinochet File" by a NSA archivist, Peter Kornbluh. The book compiled a significant amount of pertinent US documents which had been declassified in 1998 by President Clinton under pressure from Secretary of State, Madeline Albright.

The book was by no means perfect, firstly I can't tell you how many times I wished I had the ability to "Ctrl+f" (to search the text) it is only when you are used to using online texts do you realise how inadequate the index in most books are! Also as the book was a compilation of documents Kornbluh had to decide what documents to include. Although it is 590 pages long there was a limit to the amount of material he could include.

So far my MA thesis research has been mostly online, I decided to familiarise myself with the history of NATO in the 1990s by reading almost every article connected to the organisation in the period. Thanks to still being free to use, I didn't have to pay to access the New York Times archive (although from 2011 you will have to subscribe) or The Times, The Guardian, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

I can access the newspapers archive, and simply search for key terms such as "Nato" and there in front of me is everything I need from that website. It is so easy to find sources for my research this year that a new problem has emerged - deciding what resources are of value.

The abundance of information online presents a bigger problem for historians in the future - how are we protecting our digital history for the future. This is something I have read a little bit about today in the newspaper, and I will blog on it once I have done some reading on the issue.