Tony Guidone’s presentation was engaging and I really enjoyed how he brought in coins and newspaper articles from the past and let us examine them. The information he provided as well as the reading we did the night before really put keyword searching into a different light for me. I find it to be a very useful tool for when I’m writing papers and just want to find something immediately, but the Illusionary Order article talked about how when researchers do this, they tend to stop looking for many different sources and therefore lose the element of different opinions and writings. For example, in 1998 the Toronto Star was cited 74 times out of 67 dissertations, but after the Toronto Star was digitized in 2010, a year with 69 dissertations, it was cited 753 times. The paper argues that this is a result of historical researchers not branching out into other sources and only getting their information from one area. This reduces their chances of getting different information and opinions on the time period because it limits them to only one area of Canada and to only one group of writers and publishers in that one newspaper. This could end up negatively impacting their research and doesn’t give enough room for nuances. 1
Guidone also pointed out in his presentation that by only looking at specific pieces of information, we lose a lot of context that might help us in learning even more about the time period and boost our argument in papers. Like how when we only look at one very small article in a paper, we lose what other news that had happened that day which can lead to a loss of understanding what life was like during that time. He also pointed out how men were the only newspaper writers for a long time so we lose how diversity comes into play during that time if we only read the words of men, and one could argue that most of those men were probably white too so we lose even more varying opinions.
Digital media keyword searches do make it easier to find very specific topics however and can be very helpful in finding that information quickly and without wasting time. I’ve used them a lot in papers before, especially in high school, but now that I’ve learned about how limiting it can be I’m definitely going to try and branch out to use more sources in the future.
I think it would take a lot for a digital project to cause social change because it would have to be entertaining and interesting enough for a lot of people to see it and want to share it. Many of the digital projects we’ve looked at have been for very specific areas, such as the Enslaved Children of Mason project, and wouldn’t apply to a lot of people. Theoretically, another university could see this project and replicated it with their own founder and then another university does it and then it continues on to most universities, but I sincerely doubt that will happen. This kind of project wouldn’t be able to apply to colleges who’s founders didn’t have slaves, or those that don’t have the money, time, or area to put up this kind of project. It also depends on how widespread the hypothetical social change would be. Is this all of American society? Just this university? Just this class? Because I think a digital project could definitely change a classroom or even a universities society, but I think it’d take a lot for one to affect American society and cause such widespread change. 2
