The History of History on the Internet

     Digital archives are useful, but ultimately unreliable, and according to Cohen should be incorporated into future archiving.  Using technology as a teaching tool has promise, but can actually be more confusing, as Brown suggests.  Brennan and Kelly’s case study demonstrates how the difficulty of a site’s technology can hinder its usefulness as a historical depository.  Between these three readings, one thing is clear: the internet is the future of historical inquiry.

     While books will always be useful, and traditional archives will always be necessary, digital forums have provided not only larger storage space for material that would not make it into the space-conscious traditional archive, but also a space for open communication and the spontaneous collection of oral histories.  The internet has provided a wonderful resource that is both full of opportunities and pitfalls.  This is why public historians have to beware.  The temptation of nearly unlimited archive space threatens the carefully constructed parameters of previous research methods, and it also makes the digital materials precariously dependent on servers and constantly updating technology.  There are few 8-track players left.  What about when the floppy drive and compact disc drives are no longer viable one hundred years from now?  There are even concerns that compact discs are breaking down and some from twenty years ago are no longer readable, either due to physical damage or different HTML formats.

     Digital archiving from the public is also valuable but overwhelming.  Archives of post-9/11 will contribute to research of this event years from now, just as the archives of the Pearl Harbor attack have serve researchers today.  Yet, the websites archived that day, and the subsequent websites set up to collect memories in photos, videos, and stories are a jumbled mass of information not easily organized.  In Brown’s article teaching devices and their organization figure prominently, and can impede research just as much as encourage it, as Brennan and Kelly found.  Overall, I support the move towards digital communication and archiving, but only so far as it is a supplement to traditional sources.  After all, aren't we all using some of that technology to communicate our thoughts about public history right now?!