Online archives on manuscripts: the popular vote
Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 | Uncategorized
WSJ page showing the 'Discuss' section
You may have received an email from me when I added you to this SCGMA blog. I maintain this blog, and in fact my interest in the Global Middle Ages project has a social media spotlight.
This is why last Friday’s May 8 Wall Street Journal article entitled ‘The Next Age of Discovery’ resonated with me… in particular, a small section featured on the side-bar, under “Discuss”…
The article describes some of the digital techniques used in the recovery of manuscripts. If you scroll down, under the “Discuss” section you can read (as you can see on the screenshot):”What are the best online archives for historical documents, art and artifacts? Share your favorite sources at Journal Community.”
If you select that area, you will be taken to a blog-looking section where you can post your favorite archives. By 4PM CST of May 12 there were (only?) 3 suggestions by readers.
I could not stop wondering that we do not see this type of popular vote in this type of topic. Though it is arguable how ‘popular’ the recommendations of the Wall Street Journal readers are… I was still intrigued about tools out there to assess (and effectively visualize) popular preferences in topics that are often thought of as being exclusive to the academic arena… and how that information is being incorporated in academic research.
Your thoughts are welcome, as always!
Posted by Ana Boa-Ventura
1 Comment to Online archives on manuscripts: the popular vote
I think part of the reason for a lack of comments is that most websites for print-based newspapers usually don’t generate a lot of comments. The NYTimes seems to be the exception. Now, places like HuffPo, on the other hand, see a deluge of comments. Every online site wants comments, but they’re not all equally good at attracting them. I suspect that results from a combination of audience, design, and topic.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 13, 2009