User generated histories – presentation outline

“Which realities? Which do we want to help make more real and which less real? How do we want to interfere, because
interfere we will, one way or another” Rheingold, 2009.

Persistent unregulated uninterrupted

Big Idea Expanded Link to video

1. Communicating Mash up – Web 2.0 & History 2.0 Abbreviations,
histories/ Story telling over all sorts of mediums, in all different ways – audio. You tube. online, the
introduction – Visual, forums etc combination of all
Milly History is becoming online – we access it, read it, and interpret it differently the different
Our practices are morphing well away from the notion of one person deciding on elements
history, we even have a unique language, and online etiquette we’ve adjusted to.
“The introduction of the internet and web 2.0 technologies has allowed society to
make history deeper, richer, and more accurate. Online generated history websites
have caused a radical change to historical research, a craft that has changed little
for decades, if not centuries”

2. Multiple authors, - History is more anonymous in user-generated history. The idea of multiple For e.g. The
anonymous - authors as opposed to history1.0 where there were single authors and long others can’t see
Renee production/censorship processes to go through before publication. Linear history that Mill is actually
vs. Non-linear histories distracted
- Creating primary research e.g. Interpretations of big events
- We can’t see who these ‘users’ are  how do we evaluate them? Physical “Are you sure it’s
anonymity of users and anonymity of identity. an authoritative
source?”
-By combining the grass-roots knowledge and recollections of hundreds,
‘crowdsourcing’, as it’s called, has transformed a discipline that has long been
defined and limited by the efforts of a single historian toiling in the dusty archives.
With projects like Wikipedia that rely on crowds of researchers and writers, a wider
array of details and perspectives is produced.

- Creating primary research eg. Interpretations of big events e.g. cyclone tracy vs.
hurricane Katrina. Primary research material is invaluable to researchers. The
sheer volume of material generated regarding hurricane Katrina gives us a much
more vivid and detailed account of the event, as opposed to the majority of
material on Cyclone Tracy, that is secondary accounts of largely photographs of
the aftermath. With Hurricane Katrina we could see it as it’s occurring, and all that
information has been archived for future use. I guess it’s the equivalent of a victim
of crime giving an account (e.g.) as they’re being burgled as opposed to later in a
victim impact statement. This kind of immediacy also is of great consequence.

3. Creating Wikipedia relies on the collaboration of thousands of volunteers around the world E.g. Split screen
histories to write and edit encyclopaedia-style entries on a variety of topics. shot of the three
simultaneously – of us
Alison In today’s world, it is easier for everyone to contribute to history. For example, Using all different
anyone who has internet access can edit a Wikipedia article and do so programs,
anonymously. No article is owned by its creator or any other editor, nor have they multitasking
been examined by any recognised authority.

Much of the content added via electronic means is generally unfiltered. It does not
go through checking mechanisms and appears instantly online for all to see.
People no longer need to rely on publishing houses to have their work seen by an
audience.

There will always be a place for ‘authorised history’ – but perhaps we need to
make room for a new form of history, history 2.0

And as demonstrated through the spilt screen affect of our video, we can all
contribute multiple histories online simultaneously. For example, there is a
recorded history of Milly adding a new chapter into her face book history while
 participating in the online group discussion.

Participatory culture is being co-created everyday  user generated histories

being constantly updated. Some participants have more power, ownership and
control over that reality than others – but the question for all of us is the same –
How do we want to interfere?
4. Permanence – As it has been touched upon previously, everything we do online is documented as “There is also
Alison you go. Every transaction (i.e. message) is saved and recorded in history; it can permanence to
not be erased, even if we press the delete button. It is still saved in cyberspace’s material
electronic achieves. generated. Do you
think anyone will
Just think of all the histories you have created by surfing the web? Do you send ever watch our
emails, take part in online chats, discussion forums or even upload videos on You video?”
Tube. It’s all saved. E.g. Our video will
be uploaded
Do you consider the implications of this? For example, when your chatting to your forever
friends in face book, do you ever stop this think this information could come back
to haunt you later in life? Do you ever make a draft of blogs, face book posts
before you click on the publish button?

A great example of this tracking and recording history can be seen by viewing the
‘history’ pages located on each article page. It records every single revision made
to the page.

Due to the permanence of all these online records, content found within are
increasingly being used in legal and criminal investigations. Example: personal
emails between colleagues and/or clients can be used in investigations.
5. Changing - Rheingold article (utopian views of CMC) All three of us in
history – we need - Internet isn’t making user generated histories, it provides a platform  it is rather the film are pretty
literacy – Milly the literacy of users tech savvy, we
- Tangible parts of communication media practices eg. Web pages, Facebook, know how to use
Wikipedia – do not just churn out user generated histories  it is our literacy that the technology to
forms the link suit our purposes,
- Knowledge, skills – “technical power to be used intelligently and deliberately by in this case, a uni
an informed population” assignment
“Which realities? Which do we want to help make more real and which
less real? How do we want to interfere (because interfere we will, one
way or another”

6. Risks of history 3 noted by Kate Bowles: Alison’s long

2.0  future – -Difference of opinion dialogue
Renee -Be more evaluative
-Shared authority

User Generated: A kind of grass roots participation and contribution to a web2.0

enabled site
Histories: the idea of several histories, not just single authored, selectively edited
history.

2 major implications:
User generated means that the whole concept is actually quite political, given the
grass-roots nature of user generated content. We are witnessing a shift in the way
media operate, the individuals place in the public sphere and questions of
gatekeepers and access to knowledge. There is a tangible power shift occurring.

Perhaps we’ll see a greater sense of clarity and less bias in examining history due
to the huge volume of primary material we’re constantly creating. We’re creating
history right now, history that can be easily documented, searched, catalogued and
interpreted. To researchers, these qualities are invaluable. E.g. Rheingold quote
re: Wikipedia.
 ‘Every one of Wikipedia's millions of edits, and all the discussion and talk
pages associated with those edits, is available for inspection−along with billions of
Usenet messages. Patterns are beginning to emerge. We're beginning to know
something about what works and what doesn't work with people online, and why’.
Rheingold, 2009.

Also Ellison’s research, indicating a line of questioning regarding our behaviour.

Contribution as Social Capital?

References:
Boyd, Danah and Ellison, 2007, ‘Social Networking Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship’, Journal of
Computer Mediated Communication, vol.13, no 1, pp210-230
Burgess, J. & Green, J. 2009. Chapter 6: YouTube’s uncertain future, YouTube: Digital Media and Society Series,
Polity
Ellison, N, Steinfield, C & Lampe, C, 2007. ‘The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and College
Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12, No. 4,
pp. 1143-1168
Habermas, J, 1989, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois
Society, trans. Thomas Burger, Cambridge, Ma, MIT Press, in Squires, C, 2000, 'Black Talk Radio: Defining
Community Needs and Identity', The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Vol. 5, No. 73, Accessed
17/9/08, Sage Online Journals
Rheingold, H. 2009, ‘Participative Pedagogy: for a Literacy of Literacies’, available at http://freesouls.cc/essay/03-
howard-rheingold-participative-pedagogy-for-a-literacy-of-literacies.html, accessed 5 August 2009
Rosenzweig, R. 2006, ‘Can History Be Open Sourced? The Future of the Past’, The Journal of American History,
vol.93, no1, pp117-146, available at http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42, accessed 5 August 2009
SMS Dictionary, 2009, ‘SMS shorthand abbreviations’, http://www.smsfun.com.au/sms_dictionary.php, accessed
10 August 2009
Wikipedia, 2009, Social network service, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_service, accessed 11 August
2009
Wikipedia, 2009, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia, accessed 11 August 2009
Wikipedia, 2009, SMS language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_language, accessed 10 August 2009
Wiktionary, 2009, Appendix: English internet slang, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Internet_slang,
accessed 10 August 2009