The readings for week 2 focused on the role of lay public-created historical narratives in doing history. One of the more important points I think was discussed was Wolff’s point that the lay public often relates historical narratives in an attempt to promote specific worldviews (this of course implies that trained historians are less susceptible to this, though certainly not invincible). Wolff’s discussion of Wikipedia and the entry on the Origins of the American Civil War included how certain editors engaged in fierce web debates over the validity of their contributions to this period of history and how their arguments revealed possible views on the world today. This is an important point to make, as shaping history to promote beliefs about current events is something that is dangerous to the study of history.

I was reminded of a time my cousin argued that public support for the United States entering World War II was overwhelming on the belief that the U.S. was need to defeat the Axis nations. He argued this as a parallel which justified the modern day wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my years exposed to the academy and professional historians, being required to read for classes, etc., I know that public at the time had mixed to negative feelings regarding the U.S. entering the war, but here was a completely different interpretation of history, no sources presented, being presented to argue in favor of completely different wars in completely different contexts.

A valid question arises from this story and the articles of Wolff and Madsen-Brooks: because it shapes a worldview, is it less valid? Now of course, in my story, I know from historical texts that my cousin’s assertion is not true, and though he didn’t present sources, maybe he’d read other historical texts that examined similar data and resulted in different arguments.

I found an additional article, titled Digital Archives: Democratizing the Doing of History by Cheryl Mason Block (found on Google Scholar searching ‘digital history’). The article details a study of graduate students who were middle school history teachers and having them use a digital archive and hypertext documents to write a research paper. The resulting find was that history becoming more learner-oriented. As these students searched through documents in random sequence (not page by page like with traditional books) the students sought information that they had been exposed to, but knew less about (the information had been often omitted from their school’s textbooks) and wished to know based on what they liked to teach.

This is important because of the potential for an individual’s beliefs about history to influence what they learn. If my cousin wanted to justify a modern war by examining the date through a hypertext document, he might miss information that otherwise would prove his argument wrong. While hypertext documents have an incredible potential for teaching history, people picking and choosing evidence (or not examining all the evidence in sequence) could lead to more information being presented as history, as in the Wikipedia article on the Origins of the American Civil War. People like User 172 and my cousin have searched historical documents and primary sources, but information presented in a hypertext format could lead to inaccurate information being debated as history.

To me, this highlights the importance of trained historians, those who know how to examine sources, place the sources in context of other sources, and draw conclusions by acknowledging the many contexts. As with any tool, digital history should be used appropriately and carefully, with the proper instruction preparing you to use it.