This week's four readings focus on the effectiveness of crowdsourcing for digital history projects and the role that Web 2.0 plays in creating and practicing digital history. Kate Theimer's chapter entitled "Web 2.0 Basics" in Web 2.0 Tools and Strategies for Archives and Local History Collections discusses Web 2.0 in very general terms. The article proves helpful for those not familiar with the information or those who consider themselves behind the times with technology. The article was published in 2010. What parts of the article are out of date just four years later in 2014? What items discussed show no signs of changing in the near future? Theimer's chapter also covers the myths and misconceptions about Web 2.0. Theimer touches on the issues of historical and cultural institutions losing money or control of their content via the web. How can these institutions use Web 2.0 to their advantage and avoid these issues?
Robert S. Wolff's chapter in Writing History in the Digital Age addresses the issue of historical authority on the Internet. His chapter, "The Historian's raft, Popular Memory, and Wikipedia" examines digital history through a case study of Wikipedia. He used the "Origins of the American Civil War" Wikipedia site as an example of the ways in which history is used in the digital age. In what ways can historians contribute to the digital community? What does the the term "neutrality" really mean in regard to digital history?
Tim Causer, Justin Tonra, and Vallerie Wallace wrote the article "Transcription maximized; expense minimized? Crowdsourcing and editing The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham." The article concentrates on the authors' project Transcribe Bentham, an attempt to transcribe the written works of Jeremy Bentham. Bentham lived between 1748 and 1832. He was a reformer and philosopher. The project brings a unique aspect to digital history because it allows any individuals throughout the world to contribute to the effort provided that individual has an Internet connection. By breaking down these barriers to participation, what are the advantages of crowdsourcing for historical projects? What are possible disadvantages? What motivates volunteers to become involved with transcription projects?
Trevor Owens' blog post from March 2012 entitled "Crowdsourcing Cultural Heritage: The Objectives are Upside Down" continues the theme of the readings this week. Owens evaluates the value of using crowdsourcing to transcribe documents and talks about the reasons for digitizing historical collections. Owens argues that using crowdsourcing for transcription is "the single greatest advancement in getting people using and interacting with our collections." How does Owens support this argument? As public historians and archivists, how do we respond to such a statement? How do we attract users who will engage with the content on a deeper level and transcribe multiple documents?