Digital Preservation

Last year I blogged about the pros and cons of Google versus the Open Content Alliance and I stand by most of what I wrote at that time. So far, Google’s content has remained free to access, although publishers have now reached a new understanding and profit-sharing with Google that has also placed new limits on what information one can find within a Google Book search. Interestingly, the new agreement has limited access to English language texts only, while other languages (like German) have been almost completely blocked by publishers abroad.

I do, however, want to draw your attention to two digitization projects right here in the Pioneer Valley. One of the most impressive digitization projects (beyond Google and the Open Source Alliance) has been the digitization of all known Yiddish language books by the Yiddish Book Center here in Amherst.  Begun in 1998 through a major grant from Steven Spielberg, the Yiddish Book Center set out to digitize every book that they had in their collection along with many supporting documents and art prints. Most of the digitization is now complete and the contents can be viewed either through their own website or through the Internet Archive. Although not as slick an interface as Google Books, the historic preservation aspect is far more commendable. The collection, when taken as a whole, is the first digitization project to successfully preserve and entire national literature. Digitization was in keeping with the YBC’s core mission to preserve the literary heritage of European Jews. The story of the YBC itself is a facinating one (watch the video to find out more).

Another digitization of note here in the Pioneer Valley is right here at UMass. As most of you know, the central research library here is named in honor of W. E. B. Du Bois. One of the many gems found in the library are Du Bois’ papers, which are housed in Special Collections. Although the Du Bois papers have been accessible to scholars for decades, it was only last year that the library was awarded a major grant from the Verizon Foundation to digitize the collection. The digitization process is slow-going, but some of its “fruits” are already being reaped. This past semester, some of my students worked on a project together with the UMass Center for Educational Software Development to create the first e-learning website to utilize the newly digitized papers. CESD is currently working to port this project onto a larger dedicated site running Omeka, an open-source database driven exhibit builder.

One thing that I’ve learned from my own work on digitizing projects is that the act of preserving can only be one part of the project. Preservation is the first step, but if one stops at this point, then it really raises the question behind the purpose. Information, whatever kind, needs to be well organized (and, if possible, annotated). If we think of such digitization projects as only the next iteration of the archive, we haven’t really done anything other than move information from one format to another. I do believe that there should be some sort of value-added element in such digitization projects. The Google Book project adds a great deal of value – there are links to other texts and one can extensively search through books that would have otherwise taken years and links to reviews as well. Amazon’s digitzation is much more restricted, but adds a great tool – listing which other books cite a given book. These are all first steps to what could potentially greatly alter the way in which digital archives and document collections interact with one another.

German (Re)Unification on Wikipedia

I should say from the outset that I have a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia. I admire the devotion that some people show for contributing to a set of knowledge, but I really am troubled by what I often find. The quality of the content and prose can range from the professional to the most deplorable text that I have encountered on the Internet and I will highlight a bit of both of these attributes in the article that I chose to blog about for this week’s topic.

Officially, the article that I chose is called the “German Reunification.” I chose this article, since I asked the students to focus not so much on the content of the article, but rather on the discussion section that highlights how such historical postings are worked out among multiple authors. The title alone is one of the more heated topics of discussion – German reunification versus unification. Reunification is typically favored by the political far Right (and foreigners), whereas unification is favored by all mainstream political parties in Germany and the political Left. The debate and the nuances of each term is discussed in the body of the article itself, but when one delves into the discussion there is simply a note that the title “was debated” and “decided” that the better term was reunification, since “Even though it was a unification in the sense that these two states only came into existence as military occupied countries in 1945 and as such had never been united, it was decided to call it Re-unification, because it includes two sections of the country of Germany, which in 1945 was split in three.” (The italics are also in the original). There is so much wrong with this statement. First, there is no evidence that this was “actually” debated. When one contributor brought up this point, another author responded with two external links where the term was debated… However, none of this takes into account that the “official” term in Germany (as is even stated in the article) is German unification (or just unity). Such struggles over semantics may seem petty, but it plays a large role in the identity of the Germans. Germany never existed historically in its post-1990 form, thus it could not be re-unified. More importantly, re-unification has a connotation of destiny without acknowledging the struggle and the risk of life and liberty that played a role in bringing about the changes that allowed a new, democratic East Germany to enter into a new relationship with West Germany. What is even more difficult for me to understand is why the German version of this article also uses the concept of reunification despite the official language in Germany on the topic (eg. the national holiday is called the Tag der Einheit – the Day of Unity).

There was a much more controversial, third term that was often stated by the Left (especially the Nobel Laureate Günther Grass) who referred to the 1990 unification process as an annexation by West Germany. Yet, this term is not mentioned at all either in the article itself nor in the discussion. The absence of such a discussion really makes one wonder about the level of education or experience that the contributors to this article actually have. The other worry that I have is the low quality of the prose (in both the article and the discussion). This raises a flag for me because why should one trust a contributor if they are incapable of writing in a manner that is easily understood? Most frustrating to me (as with most history professors) is the repeated use of the passive voice. This happened. That was debated. Germany was unified (or reunified)… People have to make things happen! Politicians voted for unification. Diplomats signed treaties that granted sovereignty to a newly unified German state!

One aspect of the German language entry that I did like (aside from it being much better written and comprehensive) was that members of the Wiki-Community insisted that contributors rely (and cite) printed, scholarly literature and not rely on web-based sources or news outlets. The English language site, however, cites only zero scholarly sources! There are two primary documents cited for the entire article and the other twelve citations are all from web-based sources of varying quality, ranging from PolandPoland.com to a reprint of a Washington Post article in the obscure Anniston Star newspaper website. I think I might give extra credit to my undergraduates taking my German history course this semester to go and clean up some of these German history-related articles for extra credit!!!