For my first post (and assignment for my Digital History graduate seminar) I am going to address the issue of publishing primary documents on the Internet. Students today (and the general public looking for information on a given topic) are more inclined to go to the Web than to any other source (like a library!). This is OK and has many benefits, not just the speed with which one can find a given document, but the scope of documents that one can collect is substantially greater than in a printed book. Moreover, one can also rely on resources that are already out there on the Web and link to a greater number of documents than if one were to take on a digitization program of one’s own.
However, there are many examples of both positive and not-so-great Websites that have attempted to implement such a collection. A quick Google search returned a host of potential Websites to choose from when looking for primary documents on German history that have been translated into English. I’ve selected three in particular that I think are either severely lacking in some respect, perform the function adequately, or excellently organize information for the end user.
Let’s start with the “Bad” – this is to say that it performs its stated function, but could be much improved. The site I found that I felt best fit this category was the German section of EuroDocs. While I admire the idea of building a Wiki in order to host primary documents, there don’t seem to be any documents that are hosted on the site itself. So, adding content to the site is limited to adding links to documents hosted elsewhere. On the positive side, the links are annotated so that one has an idea of what one might find if you follow the link. Since the Wiki is open for editing, one could add to the library of primary sources, but there is no style guide to help with submissions, nor a way to “lock” a primary source once it has been posted. Why might one want to “lock” a primary source? Well, frankly so that others cannot change the historical accuracy of the original text. The best implementation of primary source documents on the web are those that include both a PDF scan of the original archival document and the e-text version for searching and easy printing (especially if one is working with foreign language documents that have been translated into English).
The second site that I looked at would definitely fall into the “ugly” category. Admittedly, it is a small site that was apparently created for a professor’s students as a gateway for them to access online readings. However, the fact that it is in Google’s top ten hits means that it must attract a relatively high level of traffic. My main gripe with this collection of documents is its lack of organization. Although the documents are listed chronologically, there are no annotations (meaning that the user would need to already know what the document is about before deciding to click on the hyperlink). The layout is also VERY basic – simple titles with a link. The author of the page has obviously not updated this page in over four years, since he lists his book (self promotion of one’s scholarly book on such a page is generally frowned upon in the profession) as “forthcoming” in 2004. He also claims that he cannot vouch for the accuracy of the texts that he lists – OK, as I mentioned before primary sources posted to the web without some sort of authentication is a grey area when it comes to authenticity. But, he says that he can’t vouch for the authenticity for those texts that are not on his site – they are ALL on other sites. If you take a look at the source file (click on View and Source in IE or View and Page Source in Firefox) you can search for his server. The only hit for his own institution is his email address. I could go on and on about the styling of the site, but let’s just say that at a bare minimum when listing this many sources, it would be good to have a clickable table of contents.
Finally, the good – well I would actually say GREAT! Take a look at German History in Documents and Images at the German Historical Institute in Washington, DC. This is a major project in the field with a great deal of resources that have been put into translating hundreds of German language documents into English and pairing them with scholarly introductory essays by leading historians. In many ways we are comparing apples and oranges, but this site has developed into an excellent resource for teaching German history to students in the United States (and elsewhere) who cannot access the German language versions. The essays are exemplary of how one can meld together scholarly writing for a more or less popular audience with direct links to the primary documents. If you open any of the introductory essays you will find that they are peppered with links that lead the reader to further information in the form of an annotated primary source. So, not only do we have an introductory essay, but each source has been annotated as well. Plus, the whole site can be searched. If you poke around, you will also see that not every section is completed yet, but they are well on their way to building a great resource.
That wiki site that you linked to is really interesting… I hadn’t thought about using wikis to hose primary documents, but I can see that it could work well. At the same time, most of my experience with wikis has been with Wikipedia and it actually never occurred to me that wikis could be “locked.” I can see though that locking entries would be pretty necessary to maintain a sense of authority.
That second ugly site just leaves me puzzled. On one hand, having seen many history professors’ attempts at making websites over the years, that one isn’t too bad. I’m sure it got the job done for the class anyway. My confusion comes from what you said about it being a top hit on Google. How did that happen??? What about that site attracted people to it?
I agree that the “German History in Documents” is pretty neat. I especially like that each section is curated by an individual expert. It seems like that would be a really smart way to go about making history websites in general. And also they’ve obviously got a dynamite web designer to design the whole thing. It’s both pretty and functional!
I do have one little gripe though: The first thing that I clicked on in “German History in Documents” was the section called “from Absolutism to Napoleon,” (after reading about absolutism in France and England all last week in preparation for teaching the discussion sections of Western Civ, I really wanted to know what was going in Germany during that time period!). Unfortunately, that appears to be one of the sections that is still under construction. I would say that is probably my one problem with the site– not that there are still bits of it that are under construction, but that there appears to be no information as to when those parts will be finished. “Under construction” pages always tend to make me leave a site unsatisfied, but “coming in October 2008!” pages make me bookmark the website and anticipate returning when the site is finished.
Kate, you are correct in your assessment that clicking on an area of a website that is not complete without any reference to when it will be ready is bad design. Since I know a bit more about this project than others (I had interviewed way back in 2003 to be the project director) I know that they have run into several difficulties – some technical others related to these experts in the field who are so famous that they can’t meet deadlines – this happens more often than one might think in academia.
Google uses a lot of different ways to analyze how far up the ranking a page is listed – including some 500 million variables and 2 billion keywords. If you are interested, you can read about that here: http://www.google.com/corporate/tech.html. My guess is that there are others who link to his site and the fact that it is at a university might draw more traffic to its site in general (to http://www.csustan.edu). Yet, what clearly started as a site for his students has morphed into a catalog of online sources – I can’t imagine that all of these sources were used for one course. I might be wrong and you are right that compared to some professor’s websites, this isn’t all that bad – but did he really need to put the German flag on there??? Plus, he must have been using a table to create that flag, but he forgot to add another line break so that the three colors would be even…
Using wiki software for the EuroDocs site was an interesting choice, especially considering that the site does not seem to be set up to take advantage of the format. I clicked around to some of the other sections as well– there seems to be no activity anywhere other than the original set up. If the strengths of the wiki format are interconnectivity and democratization of the epistemological process (with, certes, all the difficulties and complications that presents, which you touched on in your post), then it looks as if the wiki format was chosen as an “off-the-shelf” solution to the simple problem of getting a site together.
“Knowing what you want to get” might account for the second site’s rating on Google– with links to over 230 documents and sources, it probably pulls a good amount of specific searches. It hasn’t changed since 2001, either, so there may be a longevity factor here as well. I could do without the powder blue, however.
The GHI site is very good, though I, like Kate, started in one of the unfinished sections (16th century in my case). Well designed and with excellent context and information otherwise. This format is one that I might like to see applied to other regions as well.
Looking at these sites raised a fundamental uneasiness that I have with primary documents online. As a general principle, I tend to be an extreme skeptic when looking at transcribed text online that is derived from an original document — letters, speeches, etc. There is clearly a gray area between the obviously credible sites and the obviously not-to-be-trusted ones, as the “ugly” website here demonstrates. The information seems to be coming from a reliable source, but one who is not willing (or able) to confirm the authenticity of the documents. This drives my anxieties over the edge!
The German Historical Institute website is a reminder of how crucial it is that professional historians take the lead in compiling these documents into reliable databases. I wanted to send this page over to the people at The Victorian Web and say, “here! This is how your endless amounts of information should look!” It gives me renewed hope that something like The Victorian Web can be organized in a coherent manner, despite the vast amounts of ground it attempts to cover.
I’m wondering why the Professor who created the “ugly” website could not verify any of his sources. It just sounds rather risky in a profession where colleagues are looking over what sources you use, and there is always fear of getting fired for plagiarism no matter how accidental. That little disclaimer is just a tad ineffective in absolving him of all responsibility of whatever is on the webpage. It’s like saying, “I’m going to put up some offensive material, but because they’re my photos, I’m technically in the clear.”
I’m pretty torn about the EuroDocs homepage. On one hand, I do agree with you–it needs a lot of work in the area of primary documents, but as far as a Wiki goes, I’m not sure if there is any other that does host documents, rather than linking them out. And even if there were a way to “lock” documents, wouldn’t that compromise the entire point of being a Wiki?