To digitize or......no, just digitize!

The questions it seems being asked of us are: whether or not digitizing is the answer to humanity related disciplines' survival and 21st century adjustment and what we can achieve by doing so, or not doing so?  The answer for me is really simple.  Just do it.  It may seem vast, after all, there are centuries of works to digitize.  But really, we need to start somewhere.    David Eun, in Katie Hafner’s piece stated it best, if we really do look at the metaphorical glass of the digitizing process as half full, then we really are doing the discipline a disservice by overwhelming ourselves.  There has to be a starting point somewhere in the preservation process of historical objects.  The biggest concern, as pointed out by almost every author we read from, is money.  Yet, there are an array of organizations, companies and individuals that are taking enormous strides in attempting this inconceivable feat.  From manual labor to flat out donations: Google and I.B.M. for instance.  The truth of the matter is, history doesn’t stop, meaning, we will never catch up with the digitization of every record.  However, as New Orleans witnessed firsthand, we cannot risk losing historical items that cannot be replaced. 

Is this process something we can even gain something from?  Absolutely.  As Gallagher put it, the web strengthens the public’s want for more info.  Gallagher also shares that museums do not risk the peril of disappearing forever because the web encourages its viewers to interact more within the social realm.  The viewer is not isolated as one would suspect.  As the viewer obtains more desire for information, they will realize that no digital representation of an object can ever replace the intrinsic value of seeing the object first hand, and therefore encourage museum attendance.  In an article from the LA Times, it is explained that museum attendance has been increasing, though they are not quite sure how to factor in the variable of the downturn in the economy. 
   

The Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, CA has combined most intriguingly the concept of collaborating digitizing information and the physical presence in a museum.  For instance, you walk through a life like representation of a concentration camp, where there are digital recordings of vulgarities called out to you as you pass through, just as the detainees at these concentrations camps experienced.  (museumoftolerance.com)  

Turkel's convictions are that more and more job postings mention digital history as either a desired skill or even a requirement.  We need to be thinking critically about what exploring the digital world and applying it to history can do for the career outlook for many students.  Turkel argues, historians, as well as other disciples, suspect breaking into the digital aspect of history is for other generations to take care of.  Turkel wants his pupils to be “producers” and not so much classified as only “users.”  Turkel argues that centers cannot be the only ones expected to jump aboard the digitizing wagon, Turkel contends that new history programs need to be “programming historians.” 

Taylor, shares that these new programs pose an interesting shift in how students need to think about history.  History students were conditioned to think linearly, not by quantifiable means, such as other scientific and mathematical disciples do.  Students and experts of history need to solve complex social issues.  To do this, they need to distinguish and crunch hard data from other sources, not necessarily connected to the incident they are specifically studying.  Tax records, property records, manuscripts, journals, genealogy records, all these offer hints and clues as to why such events are led up to in the first place.  Maybe this type of information can dissuade or even encourage different actions to prevent, what many say, "history repeating itself."

Cohen, possibly my most agreeable author, suggests that there are so many benefits to the mass sharing of information, even for the ones producing the work.  The accessibility of their work helps build their reputation.  So while there may not be immediate financial gain for sharing their work, the sharing of information gains them more notoriety in the subject which could possibly lead to more financial opportunities.  Producers need to lobby for more open access as well to historical documentation.  The additional pertinent information out there will only benefit their work! 

Lastly, open access, digitizing and web publishing only further the history discipline in the sense of it being taken seriously as a subject that matters infinitely, as well as help other historians collaborate on their work, and gain insight and feedback from others where they may have overlooked.  We need history, but mostly, we need it to remain a passion for the public.  The public has a desire, and right, to know about itself, freely and readily.