Online History, Good, bad or ugly?

For historians the internet has become a powerful tool. Sites such as 'Early English Books Online' and 'The National Archives' are invaluable for research. They offer quick and easy access to countless primary sources that would have only been available by undertaking a long and time consuming trip to London. Alongside this 'social media' and blogging have become increasingly important to history both academically and popular history. Historian's are increasingly active online, such as Suzannah Lipscomb and Ian Mortimer on twitter and Alison Weir on Goodreads and Amazon.

However, there are clearly downsides to its use and especially an over-reliance on it. Any historian who has had the opportunity to view a source 'in its original form' will be able to attest to just how much is lost through viewing sources online, especially when so many sources are often 'typed up' without copies of the original. Many will also give stories of finding 'lost gems' within archives, which is something that simply won't happen in the same way with such sites. Whilst online sites are useful, a caution on over-reliance is important.

Oxford University Library,[1]

Another hugely problematic aspect of 'history online' is the nature of intellectual debate. Debate is integral to academic study and history. Having attended numerous 'talks' and 'seminars' by academic Historians often the most valuable part, is the discussion afterwards. These talks give writers a chance to get opinions and feedback on their hard work before it is published, and fellow historians often give wonderful and insightful advice. I have seen all kinds of academics at such history talks, both giving talks and feedback, including literary theorists, sociologists and many others. The feedback can take many formats from a light questions and answers between the speaker and the audience, to some very heated and contentious debates, yet such feedback held in an academic setting has always remained respectful even if intense.

However, anyone who has ever engaged with debate or received feedback online will be able to attest to the difficulties with conversation in a live written format. Much research has highlighted the dis-inhabited nature of online debate and the ways people’s communication style changes online. [2] When online discussion becomes problematic is in attempting to decipher the TONE and meaning behind peoples words. Sadly there is no ‘sarcastic’ button or ‘I am only being light-hearted about this’ either. Furthermore, the joy or problem of the internet is there are no barriers, and people will often resort to insults or comments that people wouldn’t dream of in ‘real life’.

[3]

It is a tragedy how nasty and how quickly things can devolve online, and how often people get so angry of BEHALF of other people. I have seen many forceful debates about historians where people have gotten hugely offended on behalf of someone. Whereas, in reality I am sure these people care little. After all, if you are successful enough to be the centre of these debates on a regular basis I am sure you are well aware of the possible criticisms about you. Furthermore, if you are an academic historian will have taken part in real-life debates where people who you know and whose research you actually respect may have been far more scathing about your work. So can we all try and relax a little and ENJOY the fact we are all different, have different tastes and all of us have something to offer!

---

[1] ‘Academic Libraries’ http://www.beautiful-libraries.com/6100-1.html (Accessed 28th May 2013
[2].Suler. ‘The Online Disinhibition Effect’ CyberPsychology & Behavior. (June 2004, 7:3) pp. 321-326 
[3]http://wgssgnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/0511-0708-3014-4155_Debating_Politicians_clipart_image.jpg (Accessed 28th May 2013)