Today, while researching potential archival sources for a dissertation project, I was listening to This Week in Google (TWiG) with Leo Laporte, Gina Trapani, Jeff Jarvis, and special guests Chris Messina and Andy Carvin. (If you don't listen/watch TWiG, it is an hour long weekly show covering the developments of 'the Googleverse and the Cloud', among other things, and part of the larger TWiT family of programs) I was interested to listen to Andy Carvin discuss his use of Twitter to curate others tweets about the recent revolts across North Africa and the Middle East. His twitter handle is @acarvin and is highly recommended by myself if you want to see how Twitter is changing the way journalists can cover and transmit information about current and developing events.
The reason I mention him is that I found his commentary on how he developed contacts in the Libyan community during the recent and ongoing conflict interesting. To paraphrase, he said that one necessity in establishing relationships was verifying the validity of the source, mainly because Andy was not on the ground but instead geographically 'isolated' in the USA. Yet, using the power of communication that is Twitter, Andy is able to convey an informative perspective of events on the ground, due mainly to his close relationships established online. He described one way in which he began to establish how a potential Twitter source could be verified- he analyzed the networks of their tweets. This involved both looking at data, like the tweets and retweets of a source, and cultivating personal relationships with those who could guide Andy towards those alias accounts that could be trusted. The data was out there- but the context, in effect what Andy is attempting to provide, could prove elusive to those not intimately associated with the event.
You can watch or download the episode I listened to here. The part discussed above occurs between 8:12 and 13:05.
In previous posts, I discussed how digital archives present to historians similar challenges to those faced by journalists with regards to the incredible 'data dumps' coming out of news events today- (Gina Trapani hits on this in the selection listed above) how does one establish authority and make the linkages of networks readable so that validity and applicability to ones interest can be easily discerned? Networked behavior in the spread of information is not something Twitter, or cell phones, or even the telegraph 'created'. Networked behavior in the spread of information is an old behavior whose circulatory process is made ever faster with new technological innovations.
The problems briefly outlined by Andy Carvin are similar to those encountered by historians in their own craft. In my own limited work in peasant studies, I found that understanding the networks of particular Russian peasants- in religious life, feasts and celebrations, travel to markets and fairs, marriage patters- all of these behaviors better informed my understanding of how they reacted to historical change. Once more source material is made digital, these networks of behavior can be more readily analyzed and interpreted. In many ways, Andy's quest to bring followers the most accurate curation of the data firehose coming out of Libya could have major implications in the study of historical networks.
As the sources of both the historian and the journalist become increasingly digital, I believe the tools and outcomes desired by both will share common cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment