For this week’s blog I read/browsed these five websites focusing on the creation of a Digital Portfolio or identity. I browsed the following five sites:
I would say the five lessons I learned, in no particular order, would be the following:
Privacy – One of the most consistent comments I saw across these articles was that privacy was vital to always keep in mind when posting on websites. In particular, Google and Facebook were the most egregious when it came to storing personal data.
Networking – Obviously, the uniquely interconnected nature of the internet and the almost infinite scope of it allows for an unprecedented level of networking that can put you in touch with people all around the world.
Connection – In addition to business connections, the more casual and personal nature of a website allows for you to make human-to-human connections that would be more difficult with something like a physical resume.
Participation – Websites are also interactive, so it allows anyone visiting your site to ‘interact’ with you and your ideas, personality, etc…
Cleanliness – It is important to keep your digital appearance, like your physical appearance, clean and well-tailored to give off a professional demeanor. It’s important to make a site look aesthetically pleasing to any potential recruiters.
So far, my side of the project has been the easiest to work out. Google Gemini is in fact very good at transcription, and I’m using some handwritten archival papers that I collected myself as test subjects. I still have to visit the Special Collections to officially request the archival documents, but I’m pretty optimistic about what they will be able to give me. I visited them about a week and a half ago and they had some diaries and scrapbooks that seemed perfect for testing out the transcription capabilities of Gemini. The one I’m most interested in is actually the report cards from the very early years of Mary Washington College, but those were too large for me to view at the viewing table. Regardless, I’ll get all of those request forms in either today or next week, and I should be able to plug them into the AI. Since my side of the project is going so smoothly, I’m also going to start working on the website front-end, just to organize things and make them look pretty. I plan on using the DKC’s free media resources and hopefully by the end of this week or next I will have at least a rough outline of what I want the site to look like. Otherwise, the project is going well and I’m excited to start putting the pieces together…
Pick two of the projects above and use the five JAH Digital History Project Reviews criteria (Content, Design, Audience, Digital Media, and Creators) to blog reviews of the two projects.
I thought that Famous Law Trials was a much more aesthetically pleasing website. I felt like it presented its information in a much more approachable and accessible way. Stanford’s Mapping the Republic of Letters was a much more intellectually stimulating site. What I mean to say in summary is that Famous Law Trials was more like a popular history book compared to Stanford’s Mapping the Republic of Letters website. Stanford’s Mapping the Republic of Letters had more substance, but that substance was ultimately futile in comparison to Famous Law Trials because the former was far easier to access compared to the latter. I think both sites did a comparable job in terms of appealing to their respective audiences. Stanford’s Mapping the Republic of Letters had a better in-depth access to the digital media that this course emphasizes. Famous Law Trials had a notable western European/American focus that Stanford’s Mapping the Republic of Letters doesn’t suffer from because one has a much more focused scope compared to the other.
Q: Based on your review of the Digital History projects above: Think about what you like about these digital projects as a whole, and what you don’t. What works and what doesn’t? What elements would you want to incorporate and which do you want to avoid in your own project? When was the site created and are there any signs of that time of creation? What sources do they use and present and how?
A: I like how all these different projects orbit around a central goal: education. Each of these websites seek to make information easily accessible to all. I don’t like how, ultimately, all these websites struggle to recreate how genuine scholarly reach feels. All of these websites succeed in presenting information, although some succeed more than others. I think the ease of access and accessibility definitely contributes to the widespread appeal that a website provides; although, I think many digital history websites sacrifice substance for style.
I hope to integrate the ‘smoothness’ or quality UI that some of these websites possess. Some of the websites don’t feel as clean and as intuitive as others. I definitely want to avoid the former and pursue the latter. Some websites require very little thought to navigate, which is a good thing. I found that Valley of the Shadow and Digital Scholarship Lab were particularly good at their UI/UX. That’s not to say the other websites were bad, but they didn’t feel as advanced as the aforementioned sites. Some of the websites are definitely created earlier than others and you can largely tell based on the ‘cleanness’ of some sites compared to others. These sides typically use quality sources that are nonetheless shallow in terms of critical history. They largely stick to the standard historical narritive.
AI 2-page essay. I chose to have Google Gemini write me an essay about the revolutions of the year 1848, since it’s a topic I am currently interested in.
AI Generated Image:
1) Reflect on the essay and image created as well as discussion of AI art and essay generation as a whole.
I found myself impressed by the work the AI did for me. Especially as someone already knowledgeable about the topic, I found it to be an accurate if dry and sort of shallow summary of the 1848 year of revolutions. All the information looked at a glance to be true, and I was also sure to ask for citations. The citations were at least real books that matched up with the bibliography. The art has improved a great deal, but there is still a sort of ‘uncanny valley’ feeling to the images created by AI. The images, while good, feel too sharp, too off-putting, and often unable to hold up to scrutiny. I was especially pleased with the essay, which surprised me with its accuracy and quality of writing. If formatted correctly, I probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the AI summary and Encyclopedia Britannica. I think if properly verified, AI summaries can be useful and synthesizing and summarizing complicated historical events.
AI Generated transcription:
I uploaded this image, page 478 of the Fredericksburg cemetery registry. I asked the AI to transcribe the image for me, and this is what it told me the page said:
“This is a transcription of the handwritten entry in the “RECORD BOOK” for the Fredericksburg National Cemetery, dated January 1901.
The document records the official reservation of a burial plot for Major Thomas E. Morris, placed adjacent to Lieutenant Colonel Edward Hill.
Transcription
Copy of letter received from Department Q.M.G. January 17. 1901
Depot Quartermaster Office, C.E.M.
Washington D.C. January 16. 1901.
Supt Richard R. Hill
National Cemetery, Fredericksburg, Va.
Sir,
The Quartermaster General of the Army has authorized the reservation of a site for future interment of Major Thomas E. Morris formerly of the 15th Michigan Infantry in the Fredericksburg National Cemetery adjacent to that heretofore assigned for the interment of the late Lt.-Col. Edward Hill, 16th Michigan Infantry, in compliance with his request. It is understood of course that this is not to interfere with the assignment of a site for the interment of the wife of Col. Hill by his side.
Please make proper entry upon the records of the Cemetery and report your action to this office.
Very respectfully
(Signed) T. E. True
Major & Quartermaster, U.S. Army
Depot Quartermaster
In compliance with above instructions the following site is reserved,
Site A. 1. 5th Corps Monument terrace, first grave site from monument and adjacent the grave of the late Lt.-Col Edward Hill 16th Mich Infantry is hereby reserved for the future interment of Major Thomas E. Morris formerly of the 15th Michigan Infantry.
Jan 18. 1901.
[Notation: Cem 2/3 05] [Notation: Jan 29. 1901]
Historical Context
Edward Hill: A notable figure, Lt. Col. Edward Hill was a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions at Cold Harbor during the Civil War.
The Site: The “5th Corps Monument terrace” refers to a specific prestigious area within the Fredericksburg National Cemetery near the monument dedicated to the Union Army’s 5th Corps.
Would you like me to look into the military service records of either Major Morris or Colonel Hill for you?“
2) Explore how well the platform you chose was able to transcribe the handwritten page.
I was quite impressed by the Google Gemini transcription, especially considering that the handwriting was extremely difficult even for me to make out. It was able to do a good job not only identifying the content of the text, but it was also able to situate the text properly within the context surrounding the text. The AI was able to figure out without me prompting it that it was the page of a cemetery ledger, and it was able to provide me useful information based on that context.
In all honesty, I need the Honors class credit. I am interested in the topic, though.
2) What is Digital History? What is Digital Humanities? How are they different?
Digital Humanities is the broader umbrella that covers different topics housed in a digital space. Digital History on the other hand is a sub-topic of the digital humanities. The difference is that Digital History can remain focused on digital spaces as they apply to a historical concept.
