(Did this elsewhere and thought I'd share. Suggestions for improvement gladly accepted. Possibly ignored, but accepted. :D)
I sometimes get the impression there is confusion about how a historian does history on the Internet and how we can judge their work. The following is my concept regarding being a historian on the Internet and will not address content but rather how a person can gain credibility in an area where there are no tests, no oral exams, no peer reviewed papers, no book sales, no TV spots.
1. To be a good historian, a credible historian, first and foremost you must admit when you've made a mistake. You don't have to rend your clothes and put ashes in your hair, just say, "I made a mistake. The correct information is..." If you don't do this your credibility will remain at zero.
2. Interact with others. Give them a chance to speak their piece, then reply without rancor or vitriol. Make your case to the best of your ability and remember that a resolution to differences may not happen.
3. A "urinating contest" is pointless, there are no prizes awarded here for being meaner than the other person. Avoid being emotional and don't give in to the temptation to fling zingers at people. Chat rooms and Facebook are the place for things like that.
4. Support your claims. Tell people where you got your information. Remember that the data you present is judged by the source. "I heard it on the History Channel" is at one end of the scale and "Gerhard Weinberg states on page ..." is on the other end. If you refuse to provide sources you not only waste people's time reading something that isn't actually information, you also show that you haven't done the research to make your claim with any strength.
5. Exchange ideas and be ready to change your position if strong evidence shows that your current stance is not valid or is weaker than the information warrants. If you can't do that history may not be your area.
6. Your home country/state/town/school is probably your favorite, but keep in mind that no country/etc. is ever always in the right. Be prepared to acknowledge the dark side of your national history. Trying to sweep it under the rug makes people suspect you're not being honest with them or yourself.
7. If you're going to make a claim that's contrary to the currently accepted state of information on a subject you should be very well prepared before you start. You should be ready to recheck your material. Be ready to present your sources, nobody should automatically accept that a speaker has correctly represented the facts, or that their sources are unimpeachable.
8. I'm sure I forgot some things, feel free to add and help us all be better Internet historians.
I sometimes get the impression there is confusion about how a historian does history on the Internet and how we can judge their work. The following is my concept regarding being a historian on the Internet and will not address content but rather how a person can gain credibility in an area where there are no tests, no oral exams, no peer reviewed papers, no book sales, no TV spots.
1. To be a good historian, a credible historian, first and foremost you must admit when you've made a mistake. You don't have to rend your clothes and put ashes in your hair, just say, "I made a mistake. The correct information is..." If you don't do this your credibility will remain at zero.
2. Interact with others. Give them a chance to speak their piece, then reply without rancor or vitriol. Make your case to the best of your ability and remember that a resolution to differences may not happen.
3. A "urinating contest" is pointless, there are no prizes awarded here for being meaner than the other person. Avoid being emotional and don't give in to the temptation to fling zingers at people. Chat rooms and Facebook are the place for things like that.
4. Support your claims. Tell people where you got your information. Remember that the data you present is judged by the source. "I heard it on the History Channel" is at one end of the scale and "Gerhard Weinberg states on page ..." is on the other end. If you refuse to provide sources you not only waste people's time reading something that isn't actually information, you also show that you haven't done the research to make your claim with any strength.
5. Exchange ideas and be ready to change your position if strong evidence shows that your current stance is not valid or is weaker than the information warrants. If you can't do that history may not be your area.
6. Your home country/state/town/school is probably your favorite, but keep in mind that no country/etc. is ever always in the right. Be prepared to acknowledge the dark side of your national history. Trying to sweep it under the rug makes people suspect you're not being honest with them or yourself.
7. If you're going to make a claim that's contrary to the currently accepted state of information on a subject you should be very well prepared before you start. You should be ready to recheck your material. Be ready to present your sources, nobody should automatically accept that a speaker has correctly represented the facts, or that their sources are unimpeachable.
8. I'm sure I forgot some things, feel free to add and help us all be better Internet historians.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1JhAcnm
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire