First, let me say how much I love our public officials standing up for something that's in the best interest of our country's youth (so it was billed), then back-pedaling after stiff public outcry. Gives me hope for our future and the future of history advocacy in this country (that was sarcasm, if you didn't catch it). On August 26, 2011 (4 days after I posted about the implications of Missouri's new Facebook law for history teachers and archives), a Missouri circuit court judge blocked the new legislation, referring to the law's implications on free speech in this country. A little later in the day, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon called for a repeal of the measure he just signed into law. His reason for the repeal was not about new ways to protect youth from predator educators. Governor Nixon offered this reason for his one-month reversal on his earlier stance, according to the Associated Press: he did so because the new law was "'causing substantial confusion and concern among teachers, students and families' and thus should be stricken." Enough said there. He does go onto say this, though for the life of me I don't know why this wasn't realized before he signed the law: "'In a digital world, we must recognize that social media can be an important tool for teaching and learning,' said Nixon, a Democrat."
The AP article goes onto site several teacher's association advocates concerning the backlash against the law from around the world: "'One third-grade teacher, for example, feared the law could prevent her class from communicating with one in Australia through a closed website. Others raised concerns about virtual classrooms in which students communicate with direct messages,' Fuller said. In its lawsuit, the teachers association said websites such as Facebook and Twitter have become a common part of modern interaction between teachers and students and argued that restricting them would violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." Well, knowing that the Missouri government was not following my blog, I will say that for archives professionals--particularly young archivists such as myself--we have reached a dangerous crossroads for the distribution and sharing of historic records and archival information in a world of rights, protections, and privacy issues spread world-wide in seconds.
As archivists try to gain more following for their institution and thus promote their collections, archives in the U.S. are turning to social media, Youtube, and new technology such as QR codes to keep up with other popular socialization technology and advertising techniques. However, because of the rapid changes, young archivists face resistance from those whom have not embraced or do not understand the technological imperative of instantaneous interaction. An even bigger issue is the fact that these less-use to the new technologies are the most likely future and current donors of archival materials to archives and historical institutions. With attempts to make education about access and speed--rather than about quality necessarily and depth--the cultural divide encountered with the largest group of Americans these days, aged baby boomers (the same group that fought for freedom, youth, and access in the 1960s-1970s), has reached a crescendo. Facebook can be a negative and a positive, but as online education and state universities promote social media-styled communication systems for students (like Blackboard Learn environment being implemented across the country for online classes), the older generation will need to learn that the new technologies are not about young hipsters as much as it is about innovation and imagination.
Archives lack innovation. If you are an archivist, you may not like that. However, after attending a number of sessions at the Society of American Archivists 2011 Annual Meeting in Chicago this past week, I was told in sessions by older archivists that they had the younger students and student-workers do more of the social media posts and help develop the implementation of the new social media programs for archives in this country. When I asked if they had a "Liking" or "Reposting" policy like an archives collections policies, I was misunderstood to have implied that use of social media make it necessary for archives to change their collections policies. What I was asking--and many younger people would have understood this--was "Have you created policies on who you're going to like, the type of posts or content of which you will tag or follow, etc., for Facebook and Twitter?" Yeah, archives are innovative, though it took a year for some of these archivists to figure out how to use photo options in the new social media posts! If archives were innovative, archival usage would be more by younger people than by post-45 year olds and retired individuals with history hobbies or fascination with family genealogy. Now, there's nothing wrong with these things, but my point is that the younger peoples of America are going where they can first be entertained, then next where they can be captivated by innovative devices and technologies. With legislation such as that issued by the Missouri government last month (though it will be eliminated), there is a clear cultural gap being issued that states to youth that innovation is second to the law. Young archivists are feeling the same thing, as they may be looking and preserving a never-before-seen 1936 film by an American tourist on Nazi Germany that they cannot make public because of the issues of copyright. Innovation is recognized and protected under the law, if it produces a financially beneficial or unique artistic/intellectual expression. These same types of innovative expressions by archivists and archives created with the intent of promoting others' unique expressions and making them available for the public is not recognized, except under the definition of "fair-use," which is no real guarantee from legal damages.
Innovation is demanded in the world we live in, yet as long as "what we have always been use to" sentiments and passive dismissals of current trends in technology will make it difficult for young archivists who regularly walk around texting and geocaching with cell phones and GPS locators to connect with their employers, institutional supporters, and major segment of their current constituency. The Missouri Facebook law could have destroyed several years of in-roads Missouri archives and historical organizations had made into the world of social media in reaching school youth with history. Young archivists need to recognize these divides, remain within themselves, do not let frustration undo their better judgment, and seek ways to adhere to institutional policies while making their institution relevant to the younger half of America. I hear all the time that it is hard to get young people interested in working in archives or using archives. But, how many of you more established archivists have gone into your institution at age 15 trying to research the history of Alfred Russell Wallace (co-founder of concept of natural selection) in letters from an American scientist of the mid-1800s? Do you honestly think those young people would be shown more attention over a regular who donates a lot of time and materials to the archives? Usually, the young person feels the vibe that their project is nice and good for experience, but since they are only 15 their work is not going to be important enough to take up a large amount of time helping to locate materials when a donation of 150 boxes of material is coming in to the archives. How do I know? I was that youth. And now, I hold two degrees before the age of 25, have published a book, written five histories or collections of historical materials on subjects, and am seeking a job in your field--a professional archivist. As to the difficulty in attracting young people, it's not difficult if you treat them like people and that you want them there--I've worked with youth for a number of years. You have to care about them, their interests, their needs, and help spark that interest in new ways. Like a "Field of Dreams" thing, if you prepare for and treat them right, they will come.
The Missouri law reversal is great, but the change has come too little too late. Teachers will think twice about doing historical projects and using archival materials through social media (at least for the next couple of years), and the students and archives will be the ones to suffer. Let us not forget to temper wisdom and experience with passion and innovation, led by a desire for truth, understanding, and helping others.
Resource
DAVID A. LIEB, "Mo. judge blocks Facebook limits for teachers," http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gF Dwnn4mQWqI6_MZOSVw5s95vBA?docId=ca563c70bb824739ad919b85899dafef
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
The End of History, Education and Facebook: No More Facebook in the Classroom with Archival Sources
August 28, 2011, will mark a drastic redefinition of the rights of government intervention with social networking websites, and at the same time kill the developments in the U.S. since 2006 with the integration of archives, school teachers, and school classes. The state of Missouri has passed a law--State Senate Bill 54, or Amy Hestir Student Protection Act--reacting to the results of a decades-old case involving a teacher molesting a student. This law has a section reported on msnbc.msn.com by Suzanne Choney that will keep public school teachers from having students as friends on social networking sites such as Facebook, or even having contact with them after they go onto college technically:"Section 162.069 is a mandate that references social networking sites, as well as teachers not being allowed to have a 'nonwork-related website that allows exclusive access with a current or former student.'"
How this affects archives is best illustrated from an experience I had as a graduate assistant in my first stint as a graduate student. As a history department GA, I worked one quarter grading projects for students in a state history class that was mandatory for education majors at my institution. One of the projects discussed, experimented with, and ultimately chosen by a couple of students was the use of Facebook to create profiles for historic characters, using photos, letters, diaries, and other records from archives to make the people seem alive, allowing students in high school history classes to "Friend" people who haven't been alive for 150 years while making their lives relevant to the modern age. A lot of education programs have begun emphasizing this in recent years, as an outreach to students and an inventive way to use social media. Now, before you say "students shouldn't be encouraged to use Facebook before age 16" or the like, I was just in a library today and saw three 9-year olds shooting a promo video on a digital video camera for a class project--9! No doubt this project would get posted on some class websites, or the library's webpage. Younger and younger students are interacting on social network sites--for good or bad. Back to the Missouri law.
The students' projects I graded were tremendous and imaginative uses of historical primary sources, capable of drawing youth into archives to learn more about this person in the profile. However, Missouri seems to have believed the same was true for sexual predators masquerading as teachers on Facebook and other social networks. Let me just say: I am not saying teachers should be contacting students on Facebook pre-college in a "friendship" status. I understand the risks involved, and have personally been involved helping a number of teenage girls recover from physical abuses given them by teachers. I understand the importance of this legislation. At the same time, our society--or at least our government--seems to be taking a radically different approach to the field of Facebooking and the government. Government agencies have gone on Facebook, posted current news and other things intended for audiences of all ages, begun not blocking Facebook on government agency computers (as happened frequently prior to 2009). Having worked for two state agencies and a county government agency in the past three years, I have seen this radical shift of acceptance and full-blown exploitation of the possibilities of Facebook and other social networking sites for government-based initiatives.
Now, however, at least in Missouri, school programs emphasizing the use of Facebook as a medium to engage students with history and primary archival records will no longer be a possibility, and programs developed over the past few years will have to be scrapped. It seems that history and education are being left out in portions of the digital community, in favor of absolute protection of youth from any possible connection with non-family adults. While this is understood, again, it is a far cry from the world of 50-60 years ago, when neighborhood adults were often trusted family friends, when kids were encouraged to listen to the old war stories of veterans in the neighborhood and the parents loved their learning history first-hand, and the innocence of socialization for education benefit.
With the Missouri law, archives and pre-collegiate educators will have to find new ways to use online technologies and websites to reach out to an ever-growing base of youth who do not go outside of their houses to learn new information. Virtual exhibits, virtual recreations of long-lost civilizations and cities, and Youtube-ed historical documentaries are making history and the use of primary records available everywhere. On August 28, the "unlimited" capabilities of social networking's uses to promote history and archives in the classroom will begin to take a step back in deference for the public protection imperative. The past five years has seen such a dramatic shift in the use of social medial sites by government agencies for public programs that the advisability of continuing to use the type of integrated personal use/public use setup of Facebook to promote historical records and organizations may need to be rethought to meet the developing social theories inherent in new legal precedents. Programs and policies such as those suggested by the National Archives for establishing a school archival repository and making use of new technologies to promote the historic materials online (while gaining student involvement in the process) will not be possible in a social-network model as promoted by education training programs in colleges and universities around the country.
How this affects archives is best illustrated from an experience I had as a graduate assistant in my first stint as a graduate student. As a history department GA, I worked one quarter grading projects for students in a state history class that was mandatory for education majors at my institution. One of the projects discussed, experimented with, and ultimately chosen by a couple of students was the use of Facebook to create profiles for historic characters, using photos, letters, diaries, and other records from archives to make the people seem alive, allowing students in high school history classes to "Friend" people who haven't been alive for 150 years while making their lives relevant to the modern age. A lot of education programs have begun emphasizing this in recent years, as an outreach to students and an inventive way to use social media. Now, before you say "students shouldn't be encouraged to use Facebook before age 16" or the like, I was just in a library today and saw three 9-year olds shooting a promo video on a digital video camera for a class project--9! No doubt this project would get posted on some class websites, or the library's webpage. Younger and younger students are interacting on social network sites--for good or bad. Back to the Missouri law.
The students' projects I graded were tremendous and imaginative uses of historical primary sources, capable of drawing youth into archives to learn more about this person in the profile. However, Missouri seems to have believed the same was true for sexual predators masquerading as teachers on Facebook and other social networks. Let me just say: I am not saying teachers should be contacting students on Facebook pre-college in a "friendship" status. I understand the risks involved, and have personally been involved helping a number of teenage girls recover from physical abuses given them by teachers. I understand the importance of this legislation. At the same time, our society--or at least our government--seems to be taking a radically different approach to the field of Facebooking and the government. Government agencies have gone on Facebook, posted current news and other things intended for audiences of all ages, begun not blocking Facebook on government agency computers (as happened frequently prior to 2009). Having worked for two state agencies and a county government agency in the past three years, I have seen this radical shift of acceptance and full-blown exploitation of the possibilities of Facebook and other social networking sites for government-based initiatives.
Now, however, at least in Missouri, school programs emphasizing the use of Facebook as a medium to engage students with history and primary archival records will no longer be a possibility, and programs developed over the past few years will have to be scrapped. It seems that history and education are being left out in portions of the digital community, in favor of absolute protection of youth from any possible connection with non-family adults. While this is understood, again, it is a far cry from the world of 50-60 years ago, when neighborhood adults were often trusted family friends, when kids were encouraged to listen to the old war stories of veterans in the neighborhood and the parents loved their learning history first-hand, and the innocence of socialization for education benefit.
With the Missouri law, archives and pre-collegiate educators will have to find new ways to use online technologies and websites to reach out to an ever-growing base of youth who do not go outside of their houses to learn new information. Virtual exhibits, virtual recreations of long-lost civilizations and cities, and Youtube-ed historical documentaries are making history and the use of primary records available everywhere. On August 28, the "unlimited" capabilities of social networking's uses to promote history and archives in the classroom will begin to take a step back in deference for the public protection imperative. The past five years has seen such a dramatic shift in the use of social medial sites by government agencies for public programs that the advisability of continuing to use the type of integrated personal use/public use setup of Facebook to promote historical records and organizations may need to be rethought to meet the developing social theories inherent in new legal precedents. Programs and policies such as those suggested by the National Archives for establishing a school archival repository and making use of new technologies to promote the historic materials online (while gaining student involvement in the process) will not be possible in a social-network model as promoted by education training programs in colleges and universities around the country.
Monday, August 15, 2011
3-D Virtual Historic Photographic Environments: Website Review of WhatWasThere.com
This post will be a mix website review/investigation into a new digital and web-based software application: WhatWasThere.com. WhatWasThere (for the remainder of this post called WWT) attempts to “aiming to become ‘the Google of historic photos.’” The idea for the website was developed between December 2009 and mid 2010 by Ann Arbor, Michigan-based digital marketing and software development firm Enlighten, part of a corporation called Enlighten Ventures. Their CEO is Steve Glauberman, and his express reason for the website, is “‘Our goal, quite simply, is to be the largest database of geographically tagged photographs in the world.’” In essence, the website takes a software application (which is downloadable on the Apple iPhone, as well) that overlays historic photos on Google Maps’ Streetview option, orienting the photographs to match up on angle and perspective. The potential for the software is phenomenal, and it’s a shame that a history-based organization or archives has not done this on a wide-scale stage. This software was initial developed as a side project of several techies at the company, rather than being a main-line development from the company. As such over the past year and a half of its operation, it has yet to develop its full potential, and few archives and libraries know that the service is free and open to anyone—with the company’s CEO particularly looking for libraries to use its service.
While the site is tremendous, there are some major downfalls. Additionally, the end of this post will discuss what technology I believe needs to be developed based on the idea of WWT. The WWT site uses the angles of photos that Google took for its Streetview maps, which limits the use of the software—the historic photos need to be an almost dead-on match to the angle of the Google shot to match-up. How many 1920s photographers thought, “I should really take this photo from the middle of the street so Google can us this photo in 90 years.” If any did, I’m going to faint! Also, there are very few American cities represented on the WWT website so far, mainly since the site relies on user uploads. The site only represents a few major U.S. cities, and does not take advantage of the tremendous opportunity of smaller communities with historic districts to see what the entire town once looked like—which could be a boon for many depressed, once-great communities in restoring community pride. The impact of the visual tracing of history in a 3-D manner, as this software could provide, would help reach constituencies with an interest in history often unable to be reached by the historical community. Grandparents and grandkids could sit around a computer as the grandkids upload to the WWT site the grandparents photos, and they can see how things have changed together in an instant over decades of history and change.
The WWT site is not being promoted very well right now. There are no specs on the site’s server storage capacity, which is important if Glauberman hopes the site to become a world-wide depository of historic photographs. The software app is being utilized to promote the company’s website development options, rather than the preservation of history—though that is a side effect of the software. Another weakness is the reliance on Google for the 3-D map. Obviously, no one else has done a 3-D road map like Google has, and past attempts by historical organizations to create 3-D photographic exhibits of changes in cities or historic sites has failed to develop the excitement that people have when going to Google Maps to see historic downtowns miles away without leaving their living room. While Enlighten’s development is noble, there is much, much more that can be done with the software than is now being considered.
What I would like to see be developed along similar lines as WWT is a virtual 3-D historic landscape, that utilizes historic photographs from numerous people and repositories to create a landscape of any community over time, that can be viewed next to the present-day landscape. Right now, WWT has one photo in one spot that you have to click on to see it in place over the Google Streetview screen. I want to see someone develop a seamless side-by-side 3-D view of Google Streetview with historic photos stitched together and placed adjacent the Google Streetview pane, allowing a side-by-side comparison of the present with the past. The U.S. Department of Defense utilizes stitching software to join reconnaissance photos together to give an as uninterrupted view of suspected terrorist training camps and other targets as possible. This same software could be used with historic photographs. And, unlike WWT—where one photo at a time from one historic period can be viewed on the Googe Streetview—I would like to see virtual historical environments created for different decades or years, similar to the environments viewed in such online virtual environments as Second Life. Imagine having four sets of historic period landscapes—1860s, 1890s, 1920s, 1940s—of a small town, able to be pulled up adjacent a Google Streetview pane on your webrowser! Imagine families scanning their photographs on holidays together, then putting them on this 3-D world, as other families are doing the same thing at the same time (it could become the photographic version of Ancetry.com’s genealogy forums and family trees). Efforts to create 3-D environments of historic sites and features are underway in Europe, though they use physical--not photograph--environments to work with:
3D CITY MODELLING AND VISUALIZATION OF HISTORICAL CENTERS by Jose Luis Lerma and Antonio Garcia of Valencia Polytechnic University in Spain. While all this sounds great, there are two obstructions to this grand idea.
First, the issue of copyright. It is like pulling teeth for historic organizations and archives to put their historic photos online, mainly due to copyright issues (plus the issues of unauthorized use for publications and the time necessary to scan and describe photographs). The greatest reason why more historic photographs and films are not available for research or use by the public is the issue of copyright and restrictions by copyright owners. The U.S. Copyright laws have not caught up with the 21st-century, and even if they did they still would not be kind to historians and archivists. Because of the nature of historic materials—and in particular photos—the legal liabilities from publishing or distributing online photographs of individuals not contacted for their permission to use the photos (and copyright law says that everyone in a photograph has to have their permission given before the photos are published--technically speaking, of course, since that never happens in reality) is more costly than are the cultural losses of not having the photographs for use (at least according to the U.S. government). This is a travesty, and is the reason why this nation’s historic images are fading away to time and the elements.
Second, how would all these photographs be stored, and who would own the rights to them? What organization can assure the continued storage capacity needed to manage billions of historic photographs each 4-12 megabytes? And what rights would the users uploading the photographs have versus the rights of the company providing the storage space? Ultimately, the issue of rights may hinder such a grand software program from being developed within the next 10 years. But, as WWT’s early effort has shown, such a software could be possible.
Resources
Nathan Bomey, “Ann Arbor software firm Enlighten wants new site to become 'Google of historic photographs,'” March 18, 2011, at http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/ann-arbor-software-firm-enlighten-wants-new-site-to-become-google-of-historic-photographs/.
WhatWasThere website, at http://www.whatwasthere.com/.
While the site is tremendous, there are some major downfalls. Additionally, the end of this post will discuss what technology I believe needs to be developed based on the idea of WWT. The WWT site uses the angles of photos that Google took for its Streetview maps, which limits the use of the software—the historic photos need to be an almost dead-on match to the angle of the Google shot to match-up. How many 1920s photographers thought, “I should really take this photo from the middle of the street so Google can us this photo in 90 years.” If any did, I’m going to faint! Also, there are very few American cities represented on the WWT website so far, mainly since the site relies on user uploads. The site only represents a few major U.S. cities, and does not take advantage of the tremendous opportunity of smaller communities with historic districts to see what the entire town once looked like—which could be a boon for many depressed, once-great communities in restoring community pride. The impact of the visual tracing of history in a 3-D manner, as this software could provide, would help reach constituencies with an interest in history often unable to be reached by the historical community. Grandparents and grandkids could sit around a computer as the grandkids upload to the WWT site the grandparents photos, and they can see how things have changed together in an instant over decades of history and change.
The WWT site is not being promoted very well right now. There are no specs on the site’s server storage capacity, which is important if Glauberman hopes the site to become a world-wide depository of historic photographs. The software app is being utilized to promote the company’s website development options, rather than the preservation of history—though that is a side effect of the software. Another weakness is the reliance on Google for the 3-D map. Obviously, no one else has done a 3-D road map like Google has, and past attempts by historical organizations to create 3-D photographic exhibits of changes in cities or historic sites has failed to develop the excitement that people have when going to Google Maps to see historic downtowns miles away without leaving their living room. While Enlighten’s development is noble, there is much, much more that can be done with the software than is now being considered.
What I would like to see be developed along similar lines as WWT is a virtual 3-D historic landscape, that utilizes historic photographs from numerous people and repositories to create a landscape of any community over time, that can be viewed next to the present-day landscape. Right now, WWT has one photo in one spot that you have to click on to see it in place over the Google Streetview screen. I want to see someone develop a seamless side-by-side 3-D view of Google Streetview with historic photos stitched together and placed adjacent the Google Streetview pane, allowing a side-by-side comparison of the present with the past. The U.S. Department of Defense utilizes stitching software to join reconnaissance photos together to give an as uninterrupted view of suspected terrorist training camps and other targets as possible. This same software could be used with historic photographs. And, unlike WWT—where one photo at a time from one historic period can be viewed on the Googe Streetview—I would like to see virtual historical environments created for different decades or years, similar to the environments viewed in such online virtual environments as Second Life. Imagine having four sets of historic period landscapes—1860s, 1890s, 1920s, 1940s—of a small town, able to be pulled up adjacent a Google Streetview pane on your webrowser! Imagine families scanning their photographs on holidays together, then putting them on this 3-D world, as other families are doing the same thing at the same time (it could become the photographic version of Ancetry.com’s genealogy forums and family trees). Efforts to create 3-D environments of historic sites and features are underway in Europe, though they use physical--not photograph--environments to work with:
3D CITY MODELLING AND VISUALIZATION OF HISTORICAL CENTERS by Jose Luis Lerma and Antonio Garcia of Valencia Polytechnic University in Spain. While all this sounds great, there are two obstructions to this grand idea.
First, the issue of copyright. It is like pulling teeth for historic organizations and archives to put their historic photos online, mainly due to copyright issues (plus the issues of unauthorized use for publications and the time necessary to scan and describe photographs). The greatest reason why more historic photographs and films are not available for research or use by the public is the issue of copyright and restrictions by copyright owners. The U.S. Copyright laws have not caught up with the 21st-century, and even if they did they still would not be kind to historians and archivists. Because of the nature of historic materials—and in particular photos—the legal liabilities from publishing or distributing online photographs of individuals not contacted for their permission to use the photos (and copyright law says that everyone in a photograph has to have their permission given before the photos are published--technically speaking, of course, since that never happens in reality) is more costly than are the cultural losses of not having the photographs for use (at least according to the U.S. government). This is a travesty, and is the reason why this nation’s historic images are fading away to time and the elements.
Second, how would all these photographs be stored, and who would own the rights to them? What organization can assure the continued storage capacity needed to manage billions of historic photographs each 4-12 megabytes? And what rights would the users uploading the photographs have versus the rights of the company providing the storage space? Ultimately, the issue of rights may hinder such a grand software program from being developed within the next 10 years. But, as WWT’s early effort has shown, such a software could be possible.
Resources
Nathan Bomey, “Ann Arbor software firm Enlighten wants new site to become 'Google of historic photographs,'” March 18, 2011, at http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/ann-arbor-software-firm-enlighten-wants-new-site-to-become-google-of-historic-photographs/.
WhatWasThere website, at http://www.whatwasthere.com/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)