Blue is the Reverend Deodat Lawson
Orange is Thomas Brattle
Green is the Reverend John Hale

I just had an idea to separate the frequency into individual clouds, maybe. Some of the words get lost because they are really small since they were used less in one source versus the other. But those words are also important for my thesis. It might show my idea better if I kept them in individual clouds instead of combining them. I will have to play more!

Reading through some secondary sources, but mostly primary sources from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, pertaining specifically to Salem, I’ve decided to try to prove the transition of perception of the trials over time from acceptance and support, through criticism and disbelief, to sympathy, apology, and regret.

First I analyzed A Brief and True Narrative of Some Remarkable Passages Relating to Sundry Persons Afflicted by Witchcraft, at Salem Village which Happened from the Nineteenth of March, to the Fifth of April, 1692 written by the Reverend Deodat Lawson.

Second I analyzed the “Letter of Thomas Brattle, F. R. S., 1692″ written by Boston merchant Thomas Brattle.

Third I analyzed A Modest Enquiry into the Nature of Witchcraft by the Reverend John Hale.

My next step is to complete a color coded analysis comparing words from each text within one word cloud. I’ve been using TAPoR and AntConc for textual analysis to determine which words should be included in the cloud and are relevant to my thesis.

Thoughts, comments, questions? See everyone tonight! (It’s my last Grad class EVER, woooo)

I’ve also read a lot of secondary sources that offer numerous explanations for the hysteria in Salem. While some authors try to objectively consider the possibility of witchcraft in Salem, others look for political, economic, and scientific reasons to explain the tragic events.  Each different approach provides further insight into the mystery of the Salem witch trials.

There was one article by David Harley called Explaining Salem: Calvinist Psychology and the Diagnosis of Possession that I’m considering using as a basis for my thesis for the final project. He states that his “intention here is to show that the distinction between the effects of witchcraft and possession was important in several cases before 1692 and that it played a crucial role in the collapse of the Salem trials and subsequent explanations” (310). He discusses and compares various works (that I’m also using in my thesis for 711) analyzing the authors use and definition of affliction, bewitchment, and possession. I’m thinking about using the same sources he utilizes to test his argument using digital scholarship.

I was able to find digital texts of the sources and I’m glad to have that part out of the way. Although surprisingly most of them weren’t available through Google books. I’ve started exploring and playing with some of the sites from this week too, but I haven’t yet decided which method would work best for my idea. I’m a visual person myself, so I’ve been exploring a lot of the visual graphs on Many Eyes, and even found one related to the Salem trials. Although, I’m not really sure what it’s supposed to be visualizing. But it does change based on the words entered into the interface. I have a lot more playing to do with the websites and topics to determine where to go with my idea. Any thoughts, ideas, or questions would be greatly appreciated!

I’ve also read a lot of secondary sources that offer numerous explanations for the hysteria in Salem. While some authors try to objectively consider the possibility of witchcraft in Salem, others look for political, economic, and scientific reasons to explain the tragic events.  Each different approach provides further insight into the mystery of the Salem witch trials.

There was one article by David Harley called Explaining Salem: Calvinist Psychology and the Diagnosis of Possession that I’m considering using as a basis for my thesis for the final project. He states that his “intention here is to show that the distinction between the effects of witchcraft and possession was important in several cases before 1692 and that it played a crucial role in the collapse of the Salem trials and subsequent explanations” (310). He discusses and compares various works (that I’m also using in my thesis for 711) analyzing the authors use and definition of affliction, bewitchment, and possession. I’m thinking about using the same sources he utilizes to test his argument using digital scholarship.

I was able to find digital texts of the sources and I’m glad to have that part out of the way. Although surprisingly most of them weren’t available through Google books. I’ve started exploring and playing with some of the sites from this week too, but I haven’t yet decided which method would work best for my idea. I’m a visual person myself, so I’ve been exploring a lot of the visual graphs on Many Eyes, and even found one related to the Salem trials. Although, I’m not really sure what it’s supposed to be visualizing. But it does change based on the words entered into the interface. I have a lot more playing to do with the websites and topics to determine where to go with my idea. Any thoughts, ideas, or questions would be greatly appreciated!

I do like that “Evidence” is separate, so you can view all the graphs, charts, data, etc. But I do wish they had incorporated links to the evidence throughout the “Summary of Argument” as well. That way you know what it’s related to and have the information you can reference also linked to the evidence. I guess I don’t feel like everything flows together and I lose the idea of why they put all this history together into a web site. This digital history is also available to read in a related book – I couldn’t find it cited on the website – but I had to read it for a previous class at GM: In the Presence of Mine Enemies: War in the Heart of America, 1859-1863 by Edward Ayers. It’s essentially the same idea just in printed form.

I enjoyed exploring PhilaPlace and the Euclid Corridor because they each digitally present history in a vastly different form. These two sites offer an experience of a location and its history through social, cultural means as well as collective memory. I prefer this presentation versus a transformation of a book into a digital format. I do realize that you can’t really compare these sites because their final goals are different. However, I do believe they’re all good beginning examples of the different methods that can be used to present various topics of history digitally.

Patrick Leary discusses how various searches online provide resources that he doubts he’d ever be able to find through old fashion searching. He also discusses the scale of what will be available. With this vast resource readily available, there will be new problems for researchers. He touches on how successful search strategies are important in order to find the best mix of keywords to get the data you need. Certain phrases might result in too many results or too few. The method of searching will change and we will have to consider new methods and options in our future as historians. Especially if we do work to make our projects a reality.

I’m not sure that I agree with his developed concept of “offline penumbra”. I know that throughout his article he discusses the amount of information/books/etc being added to the internet, but I really hope that anything that is not online will continue to exist. Although a lot of resources have been digitized and continue to be digitized probably as we speak, I believe there is more to appreciate and understand from analog data. A lot of the primary sources I need for my research topic have been digitized and are available online for my use. While I absolutely love that I can do most of my research from the comforts of my home, nothing in the world can compare to the time I’ve spent at the Library of Congress holding and reading from a book that was originally printed in 1692. Maybe it will only be a resource that specialists will be concerned with, but I really hope that despite having a vast network of digitized data people will still want the old school.

TimeThreads – with the tagline – Weave your own History

What do we think? Good? Bad? Entangling?

I have a few mockups for your feedback/criticism. As a reminder, I’m making an iPad app and not a web page so the layout and options are going to be a little different. Any and all help is greatly appreciated. Thanks

First screen that students will see

Topics page - which icon works best? X's, hearts, or little tiny cute threads?

After selecting a topic, it takes students to the beginning of the thread

The heading was: Va. Students Get iPads as Aid in History Classes

Apparently the state Department of Education has a program called “Beyond Textbooks” where 230 iPads will be distributed to students across VA “in an effort to use wireless technology and digital textbooks to help students learn history.” (I found a brief but related article here). Well hello digital history in the classrooms, let me introduce you to my iPad application!

I haven’t come up with a title yet, but the idea is the same as I posted on September 9th. It’s an alternate way of looking at history through a series of digitized historical sources linked in numerous ways, which allows students to discover various routes and facets while learning history.

There will be three (possibly more) methods that students can select from in order to start their journey:

1. chronologically
2. source type (ie: newspapers, books, documents, etc)
3. location on a map

From this point students work through a series of clues, puzzles, video clips, images, and documentation in order to discover the different ways they can organize and link historical moments, blunders, and discoveries that connect throughout history and to aspects of our modern culture. Through this process students will learn how to explore and examine these events and draw conclusions as historians.

(thoughts, questions, additional ideas, etc etc??)

You honestly never know what people will post online given their free will and ability. Wiki pages such as Tosh.0 was temporarily banned because fans and haters of the web based show flooded this page with all sorts of facts – most of which were not facts at all. But being a comedian hosting a show that works towards mocking and joking of all people in society, it’s not entirely shocking. Although I wiki-ed the show after reading Roy Rosenzweig’s article, Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past and found that it had been restored and limited to polite and proper facts relating to the show, instead of making fun of Daniel Tosh’s mom.

I believe that Wikipedia allows the general public to become historians. It presents a place on the web where everyone is on a level playing field. Whether they are experts in the field or not, anyone can become the professional in Wikipedia. Rosenzweig writes “Still, my view is tempered by the recognition that the encounter between professional historians and amateur Wikipedians is likely to be rocky at times” and he follows this with a statement from historian J. Hoffmann Kemp, “I feel that my integrity has been questioned. I’m too tired to play anymore.” This relates to a previous post of mine where I questioned the role of the historian on the web. In a web presence like Wikipedia, historians have to cede control to users who may not necessarily be qualified on paper but have a knowledge base that allows them to contribute to this resource. Does this impact your perception and the validity of Wikipedia as a resource? What about the role of historians on the web?

I interpret Wikipedia as history based on historical fact but also on the culture of modern perception, understanding, and methodology. Wiki pages themselves track the interests, content, and history of its existence, which can reflect the interests of the public in history. These pages provide more than just information, you be the judge whether it’s true or false, but they also provide discussions that guide, inspire, enrage, and more from users on the web. It’s also a representation of our knowledge and what people in this digital era consider important or worth sharing. Even if you don’t find Wikipedia to be a reliable or valuable source, it’s digitally tracking and presenting history and I believe a good starting point for presenting history on the web.