In one respect this is similar to what historians face in the wake of innaccurate history portrayed in films and TV. Historic movies from the begining alter history to dramatize storylines and work within budgets. What the public sees generally becomes the new history–a distortion of facts–which stays in the historic memory, so much so, it becomes a mythology, one that overrides the historic record. 

While showing scientific facts has a purpose, it will no doubt run the gauntlet of obstacles history faces, leading to a population that not only thinks incorrectly about history, but eventually about science.

Could you tell if I was? Probably not. Not unless you compared it to other posthumous blogs I might be writing. Truth be told, ghost blogging is a real fact. Business people, the famous, writers, small businesses, you name it… to stay current and trendy having a blog can be an important feature to one’s day to day business and interaction. One easily hires an agency or writer to write it for them. Notes, pictures, details, are sent over the web and a person forms them into their own words. The recent movie Sex in the City showed Carrie Bradshaw, a writer, hiring a writer to run her blog. It’s the norm these days, really.

As historians, what does this do for recording history and thought. What if Dr. Goodbody, an expert in Medieval Studies, a woman ahead of her game, who recently discovered a lost medieval document. Her blog details her research, her thoughts, discoveries. The world reads her blog daily hoping to learn as much as they can as soon as they can. Students insert information they acquire from her blog into their papers. Newspapers run stories. The world begins delivering Dr. Goodbody’s information all around the world, to iphones and blackberry’s. Now, what if Dr. Goodbody is too damn busy to write her own blog. She hires someone to do it. Is it the same? Is it still historically sound?

Studying the colonial captive narratives written by Cotton Mather for a captive could be similar. We get the opinion, experience of the captive, but through Mather’s eyes. There is a sense of bias isn’t there. One componen that the ENG 565 class identified, with Dr. Hermes heading up, is that it is clearly written from a male perspective. The woman is indentified in the shadow of her role in the family. Bias is interpretive. Captive narratives like blogs can have a sense of bias if they are written by someone else.

In digital history, we’ve discussed the accuracy of blogs to deliver content and information. How does ghost writing raise the question of authenticity?

Collecting history as it happens brings up an interesting dialogue, one I liken to the journal-syndrome. Cohen’s ideology that the breath of history as it is happening, 9-11 as an example, should be saved and recorded, may not be the most logical practice. Consider yourself keeping a journal. You start with your day, the details, the mundane events, and then suddenly, a crisis occurs, a mini catastrophe. You record a full range of emotions. A few days later, your attitude may change. Over more time your perspective changes again. Which is the real, true historical moment and feeling? Had someone interviewed me hours after the second plane attacked, and then again the next day, and then again a week later, then again a month later, (as the patriot act was ripping citizen’s right’s in the name of terror), a couple months further, and let’s just move along to today. Each would differ in opinion, knowledge, worldview. But this is only for me, because, if you talk to some people today, they may feel exactly the same as they did the first hour. But as a historian, which version is the true story.

I pose the question to Dan Cohen, that perhaps when blogs disappear there is a reason. Maybe the person’s conviction isn’t what they wished to be left to posterity and historic record.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/collecting/

http://www.dancohen.org/publications/#future_of_preserving_the_past

2008 Great Park Program Series Draw Thousands

and also on climate change: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/11/how-green-will-president-obama.html

Parent company: General Electric

Owns: Military Production: Manufactures and maintains engines for the F-16 Fighter jet, Abrams tank, Apache helicopter, U2 Bomber, Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV), A-10 aircraft, and numerous military equipment including planes, helicopters, tanks, and more.

Parks: Universal Studios Theme Parks and Resorts (Orlando, FL; Hollywood, CA; Costa Durada, Spain; Universal City, Japan)

Consumer Products: NBC Stores, ShopNBC

Other:

• Tivo (part)
• GE Commercial Finance: GE Capital Aviation Services, GE Commercial Equipment Financing, GE Corporate Financial Services, GE Structured Finance Global Energy Unit, GE Fleet Services, GE Healthcare Financial Services, GE Real Estate, GE Vendor Financial Services
• GE Advanced Materials (engineering of thermoplastics, silicon-based products and technology platforms, and fused quartz and ceramics).
• GE Consumer & Industrial (appliances, lighting, and Industrial Systems).
• GE Energy (technology for the oil and gas, power generation and energy management industries, including nuclear)
• GE Healthcare (diagnostic and interventional medical imaging, information and services technology)
• GE Infrastructure (comprised of GE Water Technologies, GE Silicones, GE Superabrasives, and GE Quartz, commercial aviation financing, and serves various industries including cosmetics, semi-conductors, oil drilling, construction and telecommunications)
• GE Insurance (insurance and investment products for businesses and individuals)
• GE Money
• GE Transportation (serving the aviation, rail, marine and off-highway industries with jet engines for military and civil aircraft, freight and passenger locomotives, motorized systems for mining trucks and drills, and gas turbines for marine and industrial applications)

Television networks: NBC Networks, Telemundo

Cable: A&E, History Channel (part), NBC Entertainment, NBC News, NBC Sports, NBC Television, NBC Universal, CNBC, CNBC World (Arabia, India, Asia, Europe), MSNBC, Bravo, Sci Fi Channel, Sundance Channel (part), Trio, Telemundo, USA, and Weather Plus

Production and distribution companies: NBC Universal Television Studio, NBC Universal Television Distribution

26 television stations, owned under the “NBC Universal” division. These include NBC affiliates, Univision affiliates, and a small number of independents.

International Channels: 13eme Rue (France), 13th Street (Germany), Calle 13 (Spain), Sci Fi Channel UK, Studio Universal (Germany), Studio Universal (Italy), Universal Channel (Latin America), CNBC Asia, and CNBC Europe

Programming: NBC Network News, NBC Universal Global Networks, NBC Universal International Channels, The Today Show, NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Dateline NBC, Meet the Press, Early Today, CNBC, Squawk Box, Mad Money, Tim Russert, CNBC World, CNBC Arabia, CNBC-India TV-18, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Rita Cosby Specials Unit, Morning Joe, Mun2, Sleuth, A&E [part], The History Channel [part], The Sundance Channel [part], ShopNBC (27%), Ion Media Networks, Universal HD.

Production: NBC Universal (80% ownership): Universal Pictures, Focus Features, Rogue Pictures. Universal has production agreements with Imagine Entertainment, Jersey Films, Tribeca Films, Shady Acres, the Kennedy/Marshall Company, Playtone Company, Strike Entertainment, Type A Films, Depth of Field, Stephen Sommers and Working Title Films (Europe)

Distribution: Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Magazines: SciFi Magazine

CNBC.com, NBC.com, iVillage.com, Scifi.com, telemundo.com, nbbc.com, hulu.com (a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp.)

There is an element regarding audience that need be discussed. A possibility may occur when museum’s, historical societies, etc., won’t have a decision as to what their collection is or what they might be able to show online, which essentially determines audience.

Another possibility is that collections will be truncated to accommodate a more marketable concept/collection. For instance, the wave of titanic collections bring in viewers both on TV and in museum’s, as seen in the recent for profit exhibition. Would those same vendors offer the public an exhibit on clockmakers of CT? This suggests the content needs to be renowned, popular, saleable. If this is partially true or conceivable, what will this do to entire collections. What about seasonal collections?

One might think of places like Salem who recently added Lizzie Borden to the list of celebrities permeating their collective history. But what of lesser known historic figures or figures that aren’t known in the public. I sense that in pursuing audience, in regard to content decisions, one might need to incorporate marketable gimmicks. What makes this history unique? This question and others will need to be addressed.

Perhaps museum web designers will need editors, like book editors, who will seek submissions of content that is only marketable. Thus history will fall into the depth of selection, just as the book publishers do. As it is, what we read is highly highly determined by selective people who determine what’s “hot” or “not,” what’s in, what will sell, what will grab people. Isn’t this what Cohen is really asking the new web based museum/historic society to do? Won’t they need to in order to stay competitive?

While the implication demonstrates an increase in use of Web 2.0, and there is speculation for future changes and development, a point should be made that this only works when there is a societal need and push. Places like Myspace or Facebook only became truly integrated when the need to be on this site was greater than not being on the site. So a musician for instance will get more exposure with Myspace than a website, when Myspace fell into the accepted and norm for bands. Word of mouth and advertising help spawn this.

The article brings up the issue that we could benefit by reading a book on web 2.0. For instance, Gwen Solomon, Web 2.0.

The issue of Folksonomy brings up the repetitive issue of who is an amateur and who is specialized and who determines who has the control. Perhaps it is an issue of intrusion, that is tags that may not make sense, or just having the ability to make tags can detract from the museum experience rather than benefit. Does it attract users, maybe those that don’t work, have two jobs, children, meetings… etc., Does it lure someone to the website to make new tags? I would hope that the content on the website is doing that nor this menial task thought to be inclusive to the public.

One possible solution to the Folkonomy feature would be to develop a community center on the web. This will separate the tried and true, the professional content from the community/amateurish side.

Regarding public access: while there is still the issue of how content is regulated to maintain the profession, one source, one trusted source, there is an element of offering information across a world base. Perhaps, as with the origins of radio, a way can be determined to have money be exchanged to help keep the museum in business. When you click on the site, just as if you were there in person, you would pay a minimal admission fee.

Will curators go away? Non-professional dealers could play a more substantial role, but ultimately, this question breaks the fabric of specific knowledge once again.

Comparing the trend and changes of museum web content to Star Wars that raked in millions of dollars isn’t quite conducive. You can’t compare the two, when museums need to make money to stay in business. That’s a reality. This is going to be the deterrent from putting collections online. If you prevent people from coming in, or the online museum lowers the numbers, then the museum on the street will go away. One can compare this dilemma to that of literary magazines. More and more are going electronic and flourishing. It will be a gradual process, but one that may inevitably happen. perhaps colleges will go exclusively online. Maybe we will all never need to move from cubicle, our house!

“A book is the only place in which you can examine a fragile thought without breaking it, or explore an explosive idea without fear it will go off in your face. It is one of the few havens remaining where a man’s mind can get both provocation and privacy.” ~Edward P. Morgan