You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2007.
I work at a the Smithsonian Natural History Museum as an intern. I will eventually be creating a website that will house thousands of photos of art objects and artifacts. So I would really like to learn how to create a good looking online gallery for my final project. When I was in Indonesia this summer I became almost obsessed with Indonesian graffiti. The streets of Yogyakarta were covered with incredible pieces. I have about 75 photos that I personally took this summer. And wished to create a simple website to display these photos for my final project in my Clio-Wired class. This expiramental site will help me understand what works and what doesn’t when creating a gallery site. I welcome any suggestions anyone may have in creating the graffiti site.
I want to do something a bit different for this post. I will compare the discussion pages for the Theodore Roosevelt Wikipedia page to the Bill Clinton one. What I found probably will not surprise most historians. TR’s page was more of a celebration and memorial of Te
ddy’s life. Yes he had imperialistic policies and contradictory views towards Native Americans, but the fact that he was a great man supersedes his faults in many of the editor’s eyes. Book & journal sources were used to support arguments. Some sentences were even removed from the article, because the source itself didn’t actually confirm the conclusion (see first discussion post “First oath of office”). While TR certainly aroused strong sentiments during his presidency, the fact is that many people have forgotten him. Thus, Rooseveltian scholarship is measured and patient. There is not an urgency to control the historical narrative of Teddy Roosevelt like there is for Bill Clinton.
Since Clinton still plays an important role in American society today, the verdict on his presidency is still undecided. Moral, political and social leaders from all angles are trying to portray Clinton in a certain way. 
The article itself has much more loaded and partial language than Roosevelt’s. For example,
The Man with the Twisted Lip
Clinton made a typical Bubba mistake on September 24, 2006, when he told Chris Wallace, “You have that smirk on your face.” Actually, like Batman’s enemy The Joker, Wallace’s face permanently displays a sardonic smile. This is merely due to the unique configuration of his facial muscles and has nothing to do with his attitude. Clinton would have known this if he had ever watched Wallace on television at any other time.Lestrade 20:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
- What does this have to do with the Bill Clinton article on wikipedia? I would hope that more people would be intelligent enough to realize that a talk page is not an opinion forum.Shabeki 04:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Bold textbill clinton cheeted on his wife! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.210.215 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Clinton>
The italicized portion is another editor responding to a portion in the article. As we can see, Clinton still evokes strong emotions. This is why I believe an objective page on Clinton or any other contemporary figure will not be very accurate. Since everyone has the ability to change the page, opinion is bound to enter the articles. While I admit that no history is objective, and many historical figures create strong positive or negative feelings, they tend to be assessed with historical context in mind. Not to say they receive a free pass, but we are more likely to forgive their unmemorable qualities.
During my first 2 years of undergraduate study I majored in Astrophysics. Pondering over cosmological questions gives me quite a rush. As I think most people know, The Big Bang Theory is currently the most scientifically advocated creation explanation. The beauty of science is that a theory is never completely proven as fact. The micro & macro worlds play by different rules, and have yet to be satisfactorily unified (although many theories are currently gaining steam such as String Theory, they have yet to move beyond the theoretical realm).
The internet, and more specifically Wikipedia, is tailor-made for scientific pursuits. While scientific journals are released frequently discussing the latest interpretations of a theory like the Big Bang, the readership demographic and access of the journals can be limited. Many potential readers don’t know where to look for the appropriate journals. Also, who is to say that the particular topic you are interested in right now will even be featured in the journal? You could read a traditional encyclopedia, but that probably won’t be up-to-date since new discoveries are constantly being made. Wikipedia’s article on the Big Bang has been updated approximately 3000 times since 2005. Now even though the content may not abide by the rigorous academic standards needed for publication, many scientific-related sites are sourced abundantly. For example the Big Bang article cited 53 sources for what would be about a ten page article on paper. If the reader does not believe some fact stated in the article, he or she should be able to look up the source to verify the claim. But of course a Wikipedia article can not stand alone as the source for information on a particular topic.
I wanted to look at this topic, because I spent the summer in Indonesia studying language and culture. I already know my opinion on the subject, but wished to see the new “American Encyclopedia’s” (Wikipedia) perspective. Now I know that American’s breadth of knowledge on the world’s 4th-largest country is limited, but I was pretty surprised how few entries their were in both the Discussion and History sections. There were three major contributors to the article. The latest entries (Aug 25, 2007) were a series of updates by two contributors, who I think waited at the computer all day to see what the other person changed of their own entry. They would then debate the changes on the discussion board. More than half of all changes to the article occurred on Aug 25th between these two. I wonder how many people actually read this site. I would have thought there would be a lot more activity, especially on a subject which is interpretted differently among Indonesians.
UPDATE
As soon as I finished this post, a new correction was made.
Wikipedia has received quite a bit of attention lately due to its increased usage by high school & college students as scholarly sources. My opinion is that wikipedia can be a very useful tool when commencing reserach. It is easily accessible, and while not always factually accurate, the articles can give the researcher an initial familiarity with the particular topic he or she is focussing on. Many times, especially with historical topics, scholarly scrutinized essays are used and referenced at the bottom of the wikipedia article. So the inexperienced researcher may have a base to start from.
Along with increased attention comes increased in-depth criticism. Hopefully more specialists will decide to browse articles regarding their particular expertise, and fix the incorrect sentences. Eventually leading to a solid encyclopedia entry. History, as opposed to say philosophy, can be easier to verify since many dates and names are involved. While the interpretation of history will always be a social, moral and political battleground, at least some of the details in a Wikipedia entry can be reliable. Yet due to Wikipedia’s format, it will never be an acceptable scholarly source itself. But I believe we shouldn’t write it’s usefulness off completely.
Site Review for http://www.samurai-archives.com/
Now where to begin with “The Samurai Archive Japanese History Page”? I guess I should start with the title. While I like the graphic, the title doesn’t flow very well. I would probably not tell my friends, “you should check out the Samurai Archive Japanese History Page!” I feel the title is a bit redundant as though two ideas are being combined. The term archives, for the most part, implies history. I don’t believe that ‘history’ needs to be in the title. Also the grammar is off. “The Japanese Samurai Archive” sounds much nicer, or better yet simply the “The Samurai Archive” since the Samurai is a solely Japanese tradition. The topic is narrow enough, that you would assume anyone who came across this site, would already some basic knowledge concerning the Samurai. If not, the introductory information could inform the reader of the Samurai nationality.
Two more flaws in the design of the site are that it is center-aligned, and there is not a visible hierarchy. There is the Title at the top, then nine boxes (all of which look the exact same) in rows of three. Nothing grabs your attention. Maybe place a large photo or sketch of a Samurai in action at the top left. Now this set-up could be culturally influenced. I would assume that since this site touts vast quantities of archival records on the Samurai, that the creators were at one time Japanese citizens. I am not an expert on Japanese culture, but maybe this design of balance, equality and symmetry is more appealing to a Japanese person. And even though this site is in English, and thus assume created for am English-speaking audience, the creator’s target audience may be English-speaking Japanese who prefer this set-up. But I do know that this page will bore many Western visitors. So this site is failing to reach millions of potential viewers. One possible solution may be to launch a Home page, with the option of viewing the site in either English or Japanese. If this were the case however, the present website would become obsolete. Why wouldn’t the Japanese English speaker simply view the site in Japanese?
Since I am new to this whole web design business, I decided to write my first review on a site that I am very familiar with: The History Channel. I have been a consistent visitor to this site for about four or five years now. At times as a user I have been frustrated with the site’s content, where a link or page may give you some information on a subject, but you must buy the DVD or subscribe to the website to view the rest. Judging from the design, I would guess that most of the visitors to the site are simply wishing to purchase some program he or she already viewed on the actual TV channel. In fact, I would guess that all the repeat visitors to the site are also ardent viewers. A researcher would probably not find this site very helpful. The only useful tool that I found on the site that was free was the speeches section, which tended to focus on video clips of past presidents. There are various fun facts and activities for the visitor to explore such as a daily poll. Example:
The future of the space race should be funded by:
__ Governments
__ Private Investors
Or “This day in History” facts. The site obviously wishes to encourage the audience to return daily to visit the site. From a design perspective, I really like the design. Once the site appears I instantly notice the large, colorful mpeg located near the top & left of the page. But the video alternates between 4 different images, which are all of very good quality. In contrast to the rest of the page (background is white), the image grabs me. The alignment, menus and content are very organized. Titles of menus are capitalized and a different color than the links it is describing. There is a lot of information to digest, but it does not appear overwhelming. There is a definite order and hierarchy to all the information. The tool bar across the top gives me options for where I can navigate. If I simply want to buy a DVD on Teddy Roosevelt, I simply need to go to the “Shop” link and search for him. If I wish to view a couple of speeches by JFK, I know where to go to do that as well. But even the casual surfer may be entertained (at least for one visit) by all the features you can find on History.com.
