Summary
Last week’s discussion focused on the nature of the commons. This week, we will pursue a theme that emerges from debates over the commons — particularly as it relates to the humanities generally, and history more specifically: “who owns history?” We will engage with two interrelated problems. The first concerns the balance between authority, expertise, and public engagement in digital humanities work. The second concerns the institutions of authority and power and what role they play in shaping and defining the digital humanities.
Outline
I. Discussion: Authority, Expertise, and Public Engagement (1 hr 15 min)
II. Break (10 min)
III. Discussion: Institutions (1 hr 15 min)
Assignments (due before class)
- Weekly Twitter Assignment
Required Reading
- Brian Whalley, “Wikipedia: Reflections on Use and Acceptance in Academic Environments,” Ariadne 69 (28 July 2012).
- Jack Dougherty and Candace Simpson, “Oral history interviews—Who Owns Oral History? A Creative Commons Solution,” (11 August 2012).
- Roy Rosenzweig, “Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past,” Journal of American History 93, no. 1 (2006): 117-46
- Susan Cairns, “Tag! You’re It! What Value Do Folksonomies Bring To The Online Museum Collection?,” in Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings, ed. J. Trant and D. Bearman (Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, March 31, 2011).
Optional Reading
- “Week 1: Building a Digital Project with Local Communities,” ed. Jordan Grant, Public History Online (5 March 2012).
Digital Public History 