• On the one hand it’s very intriguing that, as the internet was first coming forth, there was such great hope.

Wired publisher Louis Rossetto links the digital revolution to “social changes so profound that their only parallel is probably the discovery of fire.”

• While I’m not sure if I’d agree it’s as important as the invention of fire, it certainly has become one of the most profound inventions in human history. What’s more intriguing is Gertrude Himmelfarb’s warning.

“Like postmodernism,” she complained, “the Internet does not distinguish between the true and the false, the important and the trivial, the enduring and the ephemeral. . . . Every source appearing on the screen has the same weight and credibility as every other; no authority is ‘privileged’ over any other.”

• This is a real concern, even today, that the internet gives forum for incredulous groups and people to propagate unfound claims and assertions. But, as a historian (and perhaps as an anthropologist), part of the question isn’t just discovering what’s credible and what’s not, but also why non-credible sources arise, and how they get such a big following. Such insights could have deep social and political ramifactions, shedding light on cultures and subcultures within nations and social groups. Thus, for however bad the indistinguishable internet may be, it has the potential to offer a lot of good to scholars.
• The idea that the digital revolution has changed the way we do our daily routines is very true, especially in reference to history. I couldn’t imagine going to school such a couple of decades ago, when I’d have to laboriously search for book upon book in a library instead of doing a google search or a academic database search for content. Libraries seem archaic in comparison. I can honestly say that I can count the number of times I’ve utilized a libraries resource for school on one hand – and each of those times I was forced to search for books by teachers who claimed we’d have to learn because in college we’ll need books (a prophecy that, after 3 full years of school, has not proven true).

This introduction briefly sketches seven qualities of digital media and networks that potentially allow us to do things better: capacity, accessibility, flexibility, diversity, manipulability, interactivity, and hypertextuality (or nonlinearity). We also talk about five dangers or hazards on the information superhighway: quality, durability, readability, passivity, and inaccessibility.

• For the rest of this course, while considering any digital history, I will remember these 12 aspects and weigh them myself.
• Unfortunately, I had a 954 word post taht was lost because of a faulty internet connection. Well, lesson learned for the future. At any rate, this is a concise version of what I concluded:
• The first 7 positive aspects of digital history allow for history to be studied and understood by a much broader audience, with must greater depth, than ever before. This is good.
• the 5 negative aspects present a problem with the individual/self.

The literary critic Harold Bloom, for example, argues that whereas linear fiction allows us to experience more by granting us access to the lives and thoughts of those different from ourselves, interactivity only permits us to experience more of ourselves.

• Between poor quality (where a reader might choose to only accept sources that are continuous with his beliefs), passivity, and inaccessibility in particular can alienate individuals, allowing them to have a limited understanding of history.
• The idea of establishing a cohesive, online community where amateurs, enthusiasts, museum curators, and scholars can all get together to discuss ideas and benefit from one another critiques is an inspiring idea, of which I may become apart of.