Category: Uncategorized

It would seem that the relationship between curator and consumer, expert and audience, museum staff and museum goer is a contentious one. This is especially true if you were to believe Matthew Fisher. While being interviewed by Bill Adair, Fisher paraphrases Duchamp, saying that artists and spectators collaborate, meaning that the viewer is as important as the artifact that is on display. Perhaps it is my age and disposition, but I enjoy a quiet, dry, dull, non-interactive exhibit. But I can see the desire to make museums more “friendly” for the internet generations. I do not, however, feel that the museum experience needs to be similar to my online shopping experiences. Fisher states “if museums don’t embrace these new paradigms (Web 2.0 ie. tagging, commenting, blogging) they are in danger of becoming irrelevant” (50). I do not think that irrelevance is the most important problem facing museums. It is a lack of funding that the Humanities, in all shapes and sizes, have everywhere. Fisher seems to claim the only way to solve that is to develop a “creative relationship between objects and visitors” (47), but I think treating the museum experience like a YouTube channel cheapens the experience for everyone else.

I see the need, as was voiced in the article written by Kathleen McLean, to be more inclusive of under-represented viewpoints. She describes the way the Oakland Museum of California (OMCA) sought the advice of their Native Advisory Council. When it came time to create a new exhibit, instead of using the traditional anthropological perspectives, they built the exhibit around what “our Native partners thought most important” (74).  Additionally, there is the example of the Minnesota Historical Society, who asked for film submissions. One of these submissions, in the words of the film maker said “In the end, my attitude toward the History Center changed. … I was not a consumer demanding to be entertained, but a part of it” (106). And that is an outcome I think that all of us would want every one to have…

Tom King: Our Unprotected Heritage

There are better ways of improving federal cultural and natural resources than writing a book littered with negativity, accusations, and blatant disdain for the hard work of civil servants who are employed to help you, me, and American resources.

Valuable reader’s time is invested (wasted?) in case studies that point fingers at various agencies…only to arrive at King’s last chapter that is a sketchy outline of the “problems” with a neat outline of suggested solutions. To say I was irritated is an understatement. Then, for King to acknowledge that he is a paid consultant – although he states not paid as handsomely as others – somehow therefore makes him any less of the problem…ugh.

Let me me really clear here: I am a retired federal employee of two of the agencies that King says represent the “bright” and “light” green laws of the United States: the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Don’t get me wrong: there is plenty of room for improvement in both federal employee work and the laws themselves, but ditto that for the consulting agencies, federal contractors (including King), elected officials, and U.S. citizens. Everyone is responsible for our system, and everyone needs to step up to the plate. Seriously. There is plenty of blame to share – and quite frankly, King hit on very few of the solutions. Possibly if there was less complaining and finger-pointing, and if we work to BUILD trust, not TEAR IT DOWN, we may end up with more positive situations.

I simply cannot ascribe to a published rant that directly works to build distrust. Why? Consider the following:

Governor Butch Otter paid handsomely for mishandling dredge from his property in Star, Idaho, that ruined wetlands and threatened the Boise. No permit, and conservative politics on his side. Trustworthy federal – and state – employees worked within the law, and Otter paid over $50,000 in fines for his multiple violations, although he spent plenty money charging that he was cruelly and unusually fined. That is trust in your laws – and the civil servants who work to uphold those “process-laden, thank you Mr. King,” laws – regardless of whether they are “light or bright.”

If we – including Tom King – build distrust, we end up with Idaho’s brilliant Feb 2014 legislative bill that was introduced by Idaho Rep. Paul Shepherd who was unhappy with federal gold dredging laws. [NOTE: Shepherd’s attempt was to strip federal government authority of the EPA, specifically, but this also then defacto all the other consulting agencies such as Forest Service, BLM, Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service, AND the state. This proposed bill supported mining’s dreadful environmental impacts on Idaho’s streams n the name of distrust of our government and it opened the door for more harm than good, based over personal rights. Shepherd’s words: “It appears the EPA bureaucracy has an agenda in its interpretation of what pollution is,” and the intent was to strip the feds of their “authority.” It is shared authority, and if members of the public work to tear it down, you get what you work for…even if you are a Tom King who leans more left than right. Eventually, Congress actively worked to deny critical funding to EPA, and ALL of the other agencies unless it touched ocean fishing, wildland fire protection, oil and gas drilling, or grazing rights. In the name of distrust of our own federal government. Got us far, right?
(Remember Cliven Bundy, all? Damn those feds, difficult public processes and closeted attempts, yes?)

So King thinks it is acceptable to just pile on more distrust? The net effect is vicious circle of litigation – no progress, as King blithely suggests his solutions will be. By the way FOIAs – which really are most cases are not necessary! Just ask and you receive. There is little that would ever not be released, unless they are records of internal discourse – which occurred every minute amongst federal employees in my experience, working to build trust in the system and collaboratives with – not against – the public, with one goal: to uphold natural resource conservation.

Government agendas…King agrees, obviously: “..even if you learn the systems, learn the specialized language, and push the right buttons, at the end of the day you’re still likely to see government agencies agree, over your head, to let your heritage go down the drain,” as if governments actively work to against its citizens. Or…another of King’s brash assumptions about the laws: “They apply mostly to federal agencies – in many ways they’re designed to protect us, the public, from our government.” Oh, please…

“The federal and state agencies responsible for overseeing the studies and keeping them honest usually view themselves – though they’ll seldom admit it – as being in the business of making sure projects go forward with as little impediment as possible from the environment. Or they’re mostly concerned with processing paperwork and protecting themselves, or they’ve turned into petty tyrants…” Huh. Let’s see, an example in Boise’s backyard – the foothills. Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, NRCS, the State of Idaho – and several private property owners and Native Plant Society – were distraught over ATV use in the foothills that was tearing up precious sagebrush steppe, harming and taking rare plants and small ground mammals (damn that halfway light/bright Endangered Species Act, yes?), and causing habitat fragmentation, not to mention causing a visual and auditory blight. Solution: everyone worked together, trustfully. Public education, such as interp signs, workshops, and handouts, plus social media went up. One biologist, who barely weighs as much as the huge tractor tires that he lugged single-handedly to the foothills and joined with the rancher to place them strategically. A BLM raptor rec planner personally set posts for interp signs. A pregnant botanist worked overtime to help the rancher, and her counterparts worked one-on-one with the public to improve ATV use on private and public property. I can count handfuls of federal and state biologists, botanists, and public affairs people who worked tirelessly beyond just “processing paperwork” and being “petty tyrants” to achieve on-the-ground solutions- with TRUST. Oh, and no FOIAs needed. Net result = environmental protection, personal property rights upheld, and no “impediment” attitude.

King charges federal “Petty dictators” with “pro-forma public comment and public hearings are substituted for meaningful consultation with concerned parties.” Or…”Public hearings on the whole, are a water of everyone’s time – much like hearings in Congress. I’ve been in a lot of public hearings, both on the floor and at the podium, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that’s made any difference whatever.” Well, I have no idea if I have been to – or organized – more public hearings than Mr. King, but over 25 years I would be bet near fifty kept me working hours and hours – on and off that federal clock that King sees as wasteful….. Talk to the people of North Idaho who showed up for multiple public hearings and meetings over critical habitat for the Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou. That’s Randy Weaver territory, folks…people who may be on King’s other spectrum, but distrustful of government is an understatement. hundreds of citizens met on-on-one with Fish and Wildlife Service, not to mention the Forest Service and two Native American Tribes. County Commissioners also worked diligently with citizens and the feds to BUILD TRUST in their government, despite claims that the proposal would wipe out recreation, logging, and other personal rights to earning an income on public land. Third party review also happened ad infinitum, as occurs more often than King’s assertions, and respect for the “opinions of ordinary citizens” that King also charges does not occur (Chapter 8). Net result of Caribou public-government interactions: no FOIAs, productive meetings, no loss of personal income, and a final proposal that was 9/10 less than the proposed! Everyone won, including the caribou. Imagine that.
Lastly, USFWS and BLM are required right down to most administrative support personnel, to honor Native American tribal treaty rights. Mandatory training occurs, and that status s improving. With Caribou, bull trout, wolves, native plants, and more… respectful multicultural engagement is on its way to productive relationships on and off sacred cultural tribal grounds.

Mr. King, in response to your statement that fed natural resource and cultural agencies say, “Please don’t rock our boat,” I say – rock it. Come to the helm, and help steer some trust.

Post for 4/14/15

I think my blood boiled on most of these…
And it all brought back the Lynne Cheney effort to “set historical teaching right…”

For my irate tangent, see these:
Lynn Cheney’s moves toward sanitized history education and leftist brain-washing – read this by Paul Gottfried http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/guidelines-for-teaching-history-24411/

Lynne Cheney and Gary Nash: Teaching a PC version of History
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/guidelines-for-teaching-history-24411/#XvUhe0hbwdl4z7i6.99

And this NY Times article, History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past- by Gary B Nash, Alfred A Knopf – NY https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/n/nash-history.html

Some quotes: “Cheney also charged that the U.S. History Standards presented a “grim and gloomy” portrayal of American history. Why so much attention, she asked, to topics such as the Ku Klux Klan and McCarthyism? “Citing other teaching examples rather than the standards themselves, Cheney found six references to Harriet Tubman, an escaped slave who used the Underground Railroad to rescue scores of other slaves. In contrast, such white males as Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee were mentioned only one and zero times, respectively. The standards give no hint, she complained, “of the spell-binding oratory of such congressional giants as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster.” And Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, and the Wright brothers, she claimed, “make no appearance at all.”
“What went wrong?” Cheney asked. Cheney concluded her Journal attack with a call to arms. National certification of these standards, she warned, must at all cost be blocked or “much that is significant in our past will begin to disappear from our schools.” She urged that the standards be stopped in their tracks because they were the rubbish produced by an “academic establishment that revels in . . . politicized history.”

My favorite Nash quote of the article: “History does matter, and it is important for Americans at the end of the twentieth century to understand how the recent history wars have unfolded, how these struggles are connected to earlier arguments over interpreting the past, and what this tells us about the state of our society…contention over the past is as old as written history itself, that the democratizing of the history profession has led to more inclusive and balanced presentations of American and world history, and that continuously reexamining the past, rather than piously repeating traditional narratives, is the greatest service historians can render in a democracy.”

OK, sorry for the rant…now to my comments abut the readings…

• DeVega Blog: “They Have Blood on Their Hands: The Sons of Confederate Veterans”

Secession Ball- I was horrified at the invitation: “a joyous night of music, dancing, food and drink.” Public announcements can be devastatingly revealing: ignorance, or arrogance?

I identified with his thought that “History does political work. As a corollary, memory is a function of power, selective forgetting, and intentional remembering to advance certain ends in the here and now.” This gave me room to think both about politics and memory – and the power of both. Sometimes, they lead us to forget or remember erroneously.

The NY Times link with comments by Lonnie Randolph, president of the South Carolina N.A.A.C.P. addressed the more terrible thought: “I can only imagine what kind of celebration they would have if they had won,” and was dumbfounded by “all of this glamorization and sanitization of what really happened.” The terrible facts of slavery and human chattel should be indelibly seared in everyone’s history – not just a select few, and not skewed by select memories or belief systems…

• The Virginia 4th grade textbook story by Kevin Sieff in the Washington Post, Oct 2010
My question: Who is responsible for truth in history?
Misrepresenting history is even more of a danger when it is aimed at schoolchildren, with moldable minds and very often, parents or caregivers who really don’t know what is happening in the classroom or in assignments. Or conversely, what power do “concerned and actively involved parents” have to question and rectify errors in historical memory that end up in the classroom? (“The issues first came to light after College of William & Mary historian Carol Sheriff opened her daughter’s copy of “Our Virginia” and saw the reference to black Confederate soldiers.” “It’s disconcerting that the next generation is being taught history based on an unfounded claim instead of accepted scholarship,” Sheriff said. “It concerns me not just as a professional historian but as a parent.”) It seems to me that parents must educate themselves, and they must help in accountability for truth. Sadly, I fear, many do not know enough to be able to assume this role. So, then, who is? Great discussion thoughts….

• NW History “Open Letter to the Curators of the Baron Von Munchausen Historic Home” by Larry Cebula, 2010 (two reads)

I just cringed at this!!! I think this letter shows the need for honest and constant debate in the teaching of history. (Thank you, Mandy, Michelle, and Dr M-B!)

Good for Mr. Cebula calling out poor history, misinformation…but, respectfully so.
I can’t image what the reply wuld have been if he not been so kind with his words.

This discussion of “the biggest problem with the interpretation at the Baron Munchausen House was the absence of slavery,” and then the “sayings” origins that were inaccurate elicited three thoughts from me:
– The perpetuation of myths is something anyone can be guilty of. I probably have done the same thing…BUT if you are in apposition of interpreting the past for the public, and schoolchildren, you are responsible for historical accuracy. It would be fine if the myths were called out as myths, but to purposely repeat myths or distort the truth is just not acceptable in the public arena.

– The issue of docents and volunteer training is also very important. I know not every volunteer is watched carefully, but proper education and training should be required in all public forums. This won’t tackle the whole problem, but it could help tremendously, and it can put hose who tend to veer form the truth on notice that it’s unacceptable.

– The need for updating: The Wisconsin State Historical Society story about out-of-date Native American history and the Idaho Historical Society’s ancient exhibits call to mind the fact that today, public historians MUST be current, vigilant, and yes, participatory, so that at least the vocal visitors can set the record straight.

Lastly, “You as a Professor should stop bringing into the 21st century all this negativism.” I could not believe this reply that was sent to Mr. Cebula!
The “hateful subject” was cruel. It also was hateful. Perpetuating that by avoiding it, or by disguising it as a kind and benevolent action is just ludicrous.

I liked this Blog reply: I certainly look forward to teaching “World History 101 (No Negativity: only the nice bits)”

• Washington Post article – Conservative class on Founding Fathers’ answers
By Krissah Thompson, Washington Post Staff Writer , Saturday, June 5, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060404918.html?sub=AR

Made my blood boil again!! The thought of people inculcating young, impressionable minds is just reprehensible. I guess that is how Hitler trained his youth, or how cults do the same with children. I don’t want to tread to much on religion, but it surely has been used for centuries to propagate hatred, fear, and misinformation.
“We’re trying to flood the nation . . . and it’s happening,” said Taylor, 63, a charter school principal….and “That led him in 1995 to create Heritage Academy, a public charter school where he teaches American history. He has a master’s degree in Christian political science from Coral Ridge Baptist University in Florida, an unaccredited school.”
Can someone tell me about the state of American charter schools, or home-schooling?

And then, politics and history again…
“Inspired by conservative commentator Glenn Beck, Republicans, home-school groups and people affiliated with militias. Here in Springfield, the day’s students sipped coffee and chewed on peppermints while seated at folding banquet-hall tables. They included a lawyer, a farmer, a local politician and a project manager for a construction company. Except for one man, all of them were white. Most were middle-aged, and there was nary a Democrat to be found.”
!!!! I was bouncing off the walls with this excerpt, and the ties between politics, militias, and the search for political purity (is that code for racist?): “Taylor spun stories of Benjamin Franklin as a praying man who wept after signing the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson as a conflicted soul who wished to abolish slavery but because of his benevolence was reluctant to free his own slaves. “If you’ve been to Monticello and you see how Jefferson cared for them, they didn’t want to leave,” Taylor told the class. He avoided what he called “negative stuff” about the Founders’ “supposed immorality.”

• Jeff Robinson, 2012 Public History Commons
http://publichistorycommons.org/dont-frack-our-history-using-the-past-for-environmental-activism-in-northeastern-pennsylvania/

This was perceptive: Locals have no choice but to look to their history for answers, resources, and inspiration, no matter what side of the debate they’re on.

• The Civil War Isn’t Over, Atlantic Article
“150 years after Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fighting over the great issues at the heart of the conflict,” by David Blight. April 8, 2015

“Over time, the Civil War became the subject of great romanticization and sentimentalism in cultural memory. No one can grow up anymore at their Civil War veteran grandfather’s knee, learning deeply mythic stories of the Blue and the Gray, or hearing of slavery times from a formerly enslaved grandparent….The Civil War epoch has always resonated as a family affair for many Americans, transmitted through the generations.” This made me reflect on the importance of oral transmission, and generational perspectives being passed along…

The “Past and present are always utterly interdependent.”
What a great application of this thought, correlated to Marc Bloch, history’s founding father: “Misunderstanding of the present,” wrote Bloch, “is the inevitable consequence of ignorance of the past. But a man may wear himself out just as fruitlessly in seeking to understand the past, if he is totally ignorant of the present.”

YES. OK, it took Marc Bloch to help me re-center.

For those who might want to pursue Historic Preservation:

http://history.idaho.gov/events/researching-historic-properties-tricia-canaday

 

 

If you have the time, this article makes some interesting points about the importance and value of liberal education over a hard-nosed focus on STEM education when thinking about employability and the US economic system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-stem-wont-make-us-successful/2015/03/26/5f4604f2-d2a5-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html

Post for 3/30/15

www.usajobs.gov
I often hear that there are few federal jobs in our field. While it’s true many are higher-graded jobs, if you are willing to relocate for a bit, opportunities exist! My experience with the feds was that once you were in the door, and proved yourself a hard worker, many people work to help your career along. One of my regrets was that I never did work in D.C. As Dr. Madsen-Brooks noted, what an opportunity to work at the Smithsonian as a museum tech, or even for a summer at a national park!

Versatilephd – neat site! I love the community aspects of this –vesatilephd group opportunities for discussion and connection Hoping Dr Madsen-Broosk talks more abut this resource and how it has helped her.

The field of history
Out most recent experience at Boise State with the history department’s fate is a great example of a failure to understand the depth and breadth of history. As can be seen by the AHA Careers site, professional careers are as diverse, complex, and hopefully – rewarding – as any person could ever want. What I can’t help but think is we need to step up more to “defend” the relevance of history. If we buy into myths that there are not opportunities, or that history is narrow in scope, the demise of this amazing field is sure to occur. The beauty of public history is its flexibility, and applicability, to everyday people in the “real world.” It gets us in the public, in the classroom, and in communities – not just within a small academic scope. That, I believe is where our greatest impact can be made.

Personal Histories: http://www.personalhistorians.org/about/about_aph_the_life_story_people.php
Wow! I loved this APH “The Life Story People” site! Does anyone want to do something like that here with me? I had no idea that there was an organization of people who work to tell life stories. I love oral history, and have enjoyed the honor of interviewing Basque people. Preserving the stories of others is one way to help preserve the historic record. This made me get really excited to try something like this in a more dedicated way. I recently went to Portland Oregon for a day-long documentary film I am working on about a program I help with in Boise that gets kids outside and watching birds. The filmmaker and I were talking about wanting to do oral histories in Boise, so I will share this with him as well. One thing we asked about, which is a huge issue for oral history is the state of technology and the preservation of film records. Digital technology is a double-edged sword, and he was saying it is the most troublesome issue for him today. He is absolutely high-tech as most film people are, and incredibly creative…his points about preserving digital images are good:
– You are only as current as the most recent software (or hardware) update.
– If you fall behind, there is often no way to preserve the record (consider computer disk floppies)
– If someone can not access your files, they are “lost”
– It seems once something is digitized it can often be forgotten due to intangible record storage. Think about back-up hard copy storage.
– Sharing visuals is one way of perpetuating stories and sharing the power of memory – if access is limited to a select few, is this really accomplishing that?

Consulting as a Profession
TAG HISTORY
I know Barbara and Elizabeth, and they have worked darned hard to get where they are today! Their business has had its ups and owns, ins and outs, but they are rock-steady professionals. I appreciated their two tips: try to get some federal/state experience and learn about business before attempting to strike out on your own. I took some courses at the Small Business Association Women’s Small Business program, and the tips such as writing a business plan were really good. There is help for women especially, but it’s hard to wrangle through the federal red tape for some of it. Meeting small business criteria can also be difficult. Partnerships are good ways to enter into consulting, but they can also be very difficult if you have divergent work habits, perspectives, or methods of accomplishing goals. I do a little freelance business, and my biggest issue is underestimating the time it takes to do something very well. Oh, and saying “yes,” when I should say….”let me think about it,” then really do take the time to think about it and if it is worth your energy to do 120% well. Consulting is hard work, but it can be gratifying and very creative. I have enjoyed trying consulting and want to do more because I have skills in several areas, like graphic design and interpretive signage, and it’s hard to find people who can write and design. They are my two loves. Carving out a niche to do that takes time and flexibility. I am forever grateful for the experiences I had in a government agency because it taught me a lot about organizations and how individuals work in teams to accomplish great things.

CONSULTING articles
Great food for thought! I appreciated the perspectives about training, and business, especially. Barbara and Elizabeth also mentioned the need for business training of some sort. I don’t know the local Stevens firm, but they seem like they ahev built a nice business, too. One thing for sure, an independent consultant must be organized and disciplined, and must also have good “people skills” to be able to communicate vision. I learned most recently that some people though not intentionally, may take advantage of your skills and/or underestimate the time and talent you may have to accomplish their project. My solution: a contract. It spells out the scope of work, expectations, and rough cost estimates. Specialized skills can may or break a professional project – that’s sometimes hard to sell. BUT! Contracting is often, as the article says, a good way for institutions to accomplish their goals and stay within tight budgets, without having to hire an employee and pay overhead and wages. It may be worth trying to pick up a few little projects to see if you like this.

Graduates and Careers
Good advice! Join associations! Learning from others is so great, and the networking is very helpful, even if it’s uncomfortable at first. I am thrilled to have joined NCPH…
I also printed out their 8 tips and hung them right y my computer where I can read them very day to remind me of my intentions in public history.

Here is a scathing, quick recap of the Starbucks #racetogether initiative. An interesting attempt at our race discussion…

Http://www.salon.com/2015/03/17/the_best_twitter_responses_to_starbucks_ill_considered_racetogether_campaign/?

 

p.s. Apparently I can’t add links from my iPad on WordPress…

3/15/15

Historical reenactments have always bothered me. I have not been able to understand why people would dress up and act out historical events for the sheer pleasure of “playing.” It seems to me more “valid’ somehow if there is a reason for reenactment, such as a theatrical performance that is aimed at teaching a history lesson or imparting a key message. So the reenactment articles were really interesting to me.

I know a person who does reenactments, and he is enthusiastic about his group’s forays into the historical past. He believes this practice makes history relevant because it brings it into the present – somehow, it’s more “real.” The Levin article raises questions about making the Civil War more real through reenactments. Is this really connecting the past to the present? This part of the article gave me serious pause: “Its preferred view of history flies in the face of the last 40 years of serious scholarship, but more importantly, its narrow view of what it means to remember a Confederate past will likely only continue to pull in folks who place themselves within a larger morality play that blurs the
distinction between past and present.” I thought a lot also about the statement that this practice is “the desire to live in the past – not the present.” How can romanticizing the past be present-focused?

Kowalcyk’s embedment with the reenactors brought me right back to what I think is a core issue with this practice: What is real? What is reality? If this is, as Kowalcyk says, “The hobby of historical pretending,” is it just childhood play amongst adults who choose to tell one version of history? What happens when the facts are wrong, left out, distorted to meet present views? Is reenacting a valid way to remember the past? If yes, whose [historical] memory is it?

Having expressed all of this I must admit these two bloggers’ statements convinced me to go easier on reenactors.

Blogger: “I don’t think there’s anything disreputable about reenacting, but it is more a world ofbuffs and enthusiasts rather than something undertaken by professionals.”

Blogger: “Making history personal: It seems to me a great way to get students more engaged with the past – to envision it as something real and concrete as opposed to a list of dates and events in a book. They want to find something of themselves back there – so the trick is, to me, to do it in a way that doesn’t glorify or hide oppression, but rather uses to reveal something about what it means to be human.”

My final question: Does reenacting make history relevant?

**
Pingback: Moving History Forward

Great opening: “The terms “historian” and “entrepreneur” are not often mentioned in the same sentence. The historian studies and writes about the past, while an entrepreneur is focused on innovating for the future and taking risks—and in many instances ends up being the one making history. Historians are not traditionally taught to be entrepreneurs. In the age of new media, however, this is starting to change.”

More thoughts about relevance:
I enjoyed this article, and obviously because I am in the public history program, I believe that we do need to work “outside the academy” to make everyday history relevant to the public. Case in point: the current situation of our beloved history department! I think one thing we can all do is look at history more like a business. It must be grounded, scholarly, and truthful. It must also have the energy of the present. History is not for behind closed doors, or the pages of scholarly journals. It is for us all. If that is true, it must move beyond the walls of academe and into people’s homes and psyches.

The entrepreneurial spirit, such as using technology in our study – and craft – of history, can strengthen our relevance by making it interesting, current, and yes, more accessible to the public.

**
Wikipedia Articles

This statistic surprised me that the public is increasingly going to Wikipedia as a research source: 42%. The issue of source verifiability (secondary or primary, as we learned with the articles) is one to consider when searching for information about which we are unfamiliar. I agree with the use of Wikipedia as an initial “go-to place” to find other direction, but never trust it without being a good history detective.

Good blogger quote: “Despite its flaws, Wikipedia is my initial go-to source for information on virtually any subject that an encyclopedia would be expected to cover. NOT because I expect consistent accuracy — but only because it’s a handy tool for priming the pump of my own thinking, AND for offering me links to other sources. Therefore it’s irrational to criticize WP for “obsessive footnotery.” Good grief, the more footnotes, the better — because that just means more resources for the reader to
Investigate.”

The CopyVillain article was great education for me. I had no idea how Wikipedia worked, so to learn about the editing practices and “reliable sources” was great.

So, do we agree with this? “What Messer-Kruse is missing is how the reliable source policy allows Wikipedia to use the larger scholarly process of peer review for its own benefit. By preventing the use of self-published sources, and preferring secondary sources to primary sources, Wikipedia attempts to ensure that information has been subjected to the most vigorous review possible by scholars before being included in the encyclopedia. This is an important potential problem for Wikipedia. It is an even more critical problem for a web-using public that too often allows Wikipedia to serve as their primary, or only, source of information on a given topic.”

I appreciated this blog thought about personal responsibility with Wikipedia and how we can look at ways to influence its accuracy and credibility: “ I think that if you want to influence Wikipedia, it is best to create a profile and be open about your identity, potential conflicts of interests and biases. I actually recommend putting your full name in your profile. I’ve found that having an established track record of high-quality edits
goes a long way. Often, when people see a new edit that they don’t like, they look at who
added it, often to check if it’s vandalism or sloppy scholarship.”