Midterm Blog

Christina Salava
Prof. Jasmine Alinder 
History 404: Digital History 
March 11, 2014 

U.S.A. Moon Landing - July 20, 1969: Paper vs Digital Tool? 

What's better... a conventional paper analysis or a digital presentations of infor- mation? After creating both a paper and a coggle to determine the similarities and dif- ferences between two websites that discuss the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing I am more confused than ever on what the best approach is. Are conventional papers the best way to get your point across or are people more likely to understand and respond to images and digital presentations of information? Both offer unique perspectives and both allow information to be conveyed in special ways. 

It’s hard to stray away from what seems correct. I can’t even begin to tell you the amount of papers I have written in my academic career. It seems like writing a paper is the default way to get your point across. (or to prove that you know/have learned something...no matter what the topic is.) I can see why its so highly used. It’s this tech- nique of paper writing that allows a person so cram loads of information into a single document. By using footnotes, quotes, dates, names, opinions, summaries, etc a per- son really gets to write down everything that they want the reader to be aware of. The writer has the ability and creativity to be detailed and opinionated. You have the space to say whatever is on your mind and you are able to provide in depth knowledge on a topic. However, with technology the way it is nowadays not many people are likely to grab a book to find the information they are looking for. Meaning if your book, article or paper isn’t on the web people probably won’t even use it. Pen and paper writing is grow- ing obsolete. In today’s society people want quick and fast information...short sweet and to the point! This mentality is what has made digital tools so popular and acceptable within the past several years. 
 

Now if people are only looking for fast and easy information they are most likely to go to the internet. When someone goes to the internet they expect immediate results. The internet has made research easier. “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes.”1They want whatever it is they are looking for to be right in front of their faces, clear as day. Some digital tools allow this. PowerPoint is the first thing that comes to mind. When creating slides you don’t cram them with information, but rather put down the few key facts that are the most crucial to understanding your point/topic. The digital I used for this midterm project was coggle. This was my first time using it and definitely not my last. This brainstorming and mapping digital tool allowed me to say everything I did in my paper (minus the actual in depth context) in a few simple categories and phrases. When I looked at my final prod- uct I actually thought to myself, that's all I have to do? It seemed almost too simple and basic, but it had everything that I was thinking on it. This technique was basically the outline for my paper and I wish I would have done this portion first because it would have been easier to write my paper with this outline in mind! 

1 Nicholas Carr, "Is Google Making Us Stupid? The Atlantic, July 2008 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/3068 68/

Although I am a big advocate for technology there are some issues with it, not just for me, but for others too. One issue with digital tools and the internet is possibility of error. As I stated in my first essay, when comparing two websites, there are a lot of bad sources online. One website in particular that received a lot of criticism is Wikipe- dia. Many think Wikipeida isn’t a legitimate source, however some scholars argue dif- ferently. Roy Rosenzweig writes an article and attempts to shed some light on the accu- racy and legitimacy of Wikipedia. He compares biographies and historical events to the critically acclaimed websites of Encarta and American National Biography Online. He says, “Wikipedia, then, beats Encarta but not American National Biography Online in coverage and roughly matches Encarta in accuracy.”2 Another major dispute over the legitimacy of digital tools and humanities is In Gary Hall’s, “On the Limits of Openness V: There are No Digital Humanities” he states that, “many of those in the humanities - including some of the field’s most radical thinkers - do now appear to be looking in- creasingly to science (and technology and mathematics) to provide their research with a degree of legitimacy.”3 I think what he he is arguing here is that digital knowledge and 

2 Roy Rosenzweig, "Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past,” originally published in The Journal of American History Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117-46 and is reprinted at the Center for History and
New Media with permission. http://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new- media/essays/?essayid=42 

3 Gary Hall’s, “On the Limits of Openness V: There are No Digital Humanities,” plus comments, January 12, 2011, blog post: http://www.garyhall.info/journal/2011/1/12/on-the-limits-of-openness-v-there-are-no-digit al-humanities.html

information is great as long as it is backed up by facts and not just the opinion of the writer. I love digital history and believe in what Sherman Dorn says about it,

• If oral history and quantitative social history questioned the primacy of the written
  
• document and an elite focus, they and public history challenged the centrality of !
  
• the researcher trained in academic history departments, and postmodernism un-
  
• dermined the authority of categories.4
  
  Digital history is just the next step in human evolution. Things evolve and change can be uncomfortable at first, but in a few years we will be wondering why we ever doubted it in the first place.
  

Both methods offer unique perspectives and both allow information to be con- veyed in special ways. I think it’s wrong to say that one is better than the other. You can’t compare apples to oranges and I don’t think you can compare papers to digital tools. In order to figure out which is best you need to take it as a case-by-case basis. What kind of information are you trying to get across? Who is your audience? What will make your presentation stand out? Answering these questions will allow someone (especially me) to determine what type of tool to use when trying to get my point across. 

4 Sherman Dorn, “Is (Digital) History More Than an Argument about the Past?” (Spring 2012 Version) in Writing in the Digital Age, a born-digital, open-review volume Eds. Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotski.