Monthly Archives: November 2015

Social Media Strategy

My final project is an online exhibit for Gunston Hall using a content management software called Omeka. I have created this site in conjunction with Fenwick Library at George Mason University to give a tutorial to graduate students. The tutorial itself has been completed, but the site still exists for those who were unable to attend. This site has three main audiences: students who can utilize it in their coursework, archivists with large amounts of material, and artists wanting an online presence for their work. In order to reach them I have created the following strategy to engage them through social media.

Due to the visual nature of my site, there are three social network sites that appeal to my project: Facebook, Tumblr, and Instagram. These sites have a large number of users that provide more opportunity for exposure. Posting a minimum of twice a week will allow new users a better chance of coming across the project, and to show that it is still active. Tumblr and Instagram only allow small messages with each post. Therefore these posts will likely include the title of a particular aspect of the site (either a specific item or collection) with a brief description. Facebook does allow for longer posts, and the message can be one or two sentences. The posts are intended to highlight a particular aspect of using Omeka or to show an example of using the site. I will include links to my site whenever possible. Anyone viewing the posts can comment or share the post. My aim in using these particular sites is to provide screenshots or images from my site to allow anyone seeing the post to have a clear understanding of the post.

The success of this strategy will be seen by a number of different measures. The first is how many people are following the account. This number will show the reach each post is attaining, and if enough people are viewing the information to make the effort worthwhile. Another key measure is the amount of ‘chatter’ the posts generate. This can be number of comments, likes, shares, etc. that the posts are accumulating. As people talk about the project, it has a better chance of spreading and getting a wider audience. One measure that shows the overall effect of the social media strategy is to see how many people are looking at the project itself. Since I am hosting my project on my personal server space, I am able to look into the amount of traffic on my site – how many views, which days have more, etc.


Crowdsourcing in Digital Humanities

There are a number of institutions that have embraced the idea of crowdsourcing in order to help them complete large projects. The best example of this is Wikipedia, where people in the general population become contributors who can then add or edit information on a website. This has become a powerful tool for researchers, as it allows a much larger pool of people to make their documents readable for computational analysis. Crowdsourcing is a way for small institutions to accomplish large amounts of work with limited budgets.

The types of activities that crowdsourcing entails usually involves large amounts of data entry, where people are required to transcribe letters or books or to correct transcriptions done by optical character recognition. This becomes such a time consuming task when the collection is several thousand documents, that the institutions cannot complete the work in any meaningful length of time. By having the general population help with the legwork, the institutions are able to have the time consuming tasks completed with minimal drain on resources.

Crowdsourcing can be very enticing in this respect, but there are a number of concerns that need to be taken into consideration. The first is how are the contributors going to work on the materials. Since most, if not all, of the contributors will not be local to the institution, the source materials need to be in a website. The design of the site is critical, because if it is confusing for newcomers, they may be turned any before being able to make any meaningful contributions. I have contributed to one crowdsourcing site focused on transcribing letters – Transcribe Bentham. It took me a while to figure out which letters were completed, needed further editing, or had not been transcribed at all. Pointing out which areas still need work is a key way to keep people contributing, as it shows not only what needs to be done, but also how much work has already been accomplished.

Another main concern is attracting contributors. No work can be done if no one knows it exists. Another crowdsourcing site I worked with is Trove, which is an Australian site by the Australian National Library hosting a large number of newspaper articles. The site allows users to edit the OCR text that the computer generated. What the library found was that people were contributing to the articles they themselves had a connection to, whether it was a local article or had some tie to their family. The key to any crowdsourcing project is finding those people who are willing to put the effort into completing the work. One way to do this is to allow the contributor to make a personal connection with the material, and to give positive feedback on their work.

Reading an Article on Wikipedia

As scholars, Wikipedia creates a major problem. There is a wealth of knowledge and materials available to anyone, but the drawback is anyone can edit the material. How do scholars utilize this tool? There are a number of steps a person can take in order to solve this issue.

The first is to inspect the content itself. Does the writing sound scholarly? How much depth is there (ie. – is it simple, short paragraph per section, or lengthy details)? Once satisfied with the content, how is it referenced? Any scholarly article needs to have extensive research in order to legitimize its facts and argument.

Another key way to check the accuracy of a Wikipedia article is to check how much and often it has been edited. Anyone can view past versions of a page, including the user who made changes and where. This can be seen by clicking on the ‘View history’ button on the top right of the page. Here people can see trends of how often a page is changed and to what sections, which can show whether the information currently shown is considered fact or if it is still debatable.

Some institutions have large numbers of links throughout Wikipedia. One of the best ways to see them consolidated is by using linkypedia. This site listed all the major institutions with links, and shows the various topics and pages that Wikipedia uses their information. Cross checking the individual pages with these institutions is one way to validate the information shown on Wikipedia. Most institutions frown upon citing Wikipedia as a source, and linkypedia is one way to find sources that do not have negative connotations.