Tag Archives: Data

“The Annotated World, building a more social map” presentation by Ed Parsons, a geospatial technologist from Google

Today I attended a seminar presentation by Ed Parsons, the geospatial technologist from Google, titled “The Annotated World, building a more social map”. Parsons presentation was hosted by the Geography department in University College Cork. Although geography is not my area of research, geomantics, GIS, and geospatial tagging are some of my research interests as a digital arts and humanities scholar. Parsons presentation demonstrates how disciplines of the humanities can be revived and transformed by incorporating the use of computational methodologies, theories and tools in traditional humanities’ research. Subsequently, the discipline, in this case, geography shifts from being the study of the man-land relationship to the study of the man-land-computer relationship. Therefore, ‘digital’ geography, if it could be called that, becomes not only relevant to those studying the features and phenomena of the land and the earth, but it becomes an interest for computer scientists and multinational corporations such as Google who are looking to mine geospatial data to enhance their digital services and products, and the experience of the interaction between humans and computers.

With the employment of digital technology in Geography, Google has transformed the discipline into a marketable, knowledge product. This is evident from the creation of highly successful digital services such as Google Maps (a web mapping service and technology) and Google Earth (a geographical information programme), which are responsible for the radical transformation of how users surf the internet and how the user interacts with space and time in a digital and physical sense. The transformation of the user’s interaction with space and time may not be an obvious point until one considers how a traditional cartographic map or a digital map are windows to the past because they offer a glimpse of geospatial history in 2D and 3D form. The Historical Imagery feature in Google Earth allows the user to look at satellite imagery of Earth and travel back in time 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago. With this service, the user can observe how our environment is changing both naturally and unnaturally over time.

[Google Earth Tutorial video]

The main points of Parsons presentation are as follows:

(1): How Google is using geography and geospatial data to overcome the problems of human-computer interaction by helping the user to locate and increase the accuracy of their search results through GIS (Geographic Information System).

(2): How we are moving beyond the traditional cartographic map with annotated, digital maps.

(3): Google’s future developments.

(4): The death of the desktop computer.

According to Parsons, “Google is all about finding things,” but in order for Google to be able to find location-specific information, such as if one was searching for a plumber in Cork and not New York, then “Google must use geography to help answer these questions”. By identifying the whereabouts of users, Google can solve some of the problems of human-computer interaction by filtering information content and reducing data deluge or the amount of inappropriate or inaccurate search results to those that only match the user’s geospatial data. Parsons explains that “1 in 3 searches on Google are about places” and that every time one uses Google one is also using GIS because there are algorithms processing information behind the scenes. All this content is being brought together unstructured and the majority of this information is accessed from mobile devices, which raise the question about the status of the traditional desktop computer as a species on the verge of extinction.

Beyond Maps

Parsons claims we are moving beyond the traditional cartographic map, but the first steps of this movement involved the rather simplistic and limited digitisation of maps, which only provided static, digital images, thus failing to serve as a solution to the functional and conceptual limitations of printed maps. In other words, the printed map was first recreated in digital form before it became what it is today.

Parsons questions:
• “Are there other ways of encoding the cartography in maps?”
• “What is the underlying information [that can and should be expressed]?”

The maps we use today, however, are radically different from traditional cartographic maps or the aforementioned, first digital maps because they are not static and dimensionally restricted. Instead, today’s maps are dynamic and dimensionally unbound because they are capable of manipulation in 2D, 3D and 4D form. By 4D I mean ‘Time’ because today’s maps make the boundaries of temporality malleable in a digital sense because they provide the user a view of the past, present and future. Touring the planet Mars on Google Earth is one example of how today’s maps show us the future. As well as being capable of manipulating visuality and temporality in a geospatial context, Google Earth can transcend the biological limitation of the human body in the digital realm. One can visually explore the oceans on Google Earth 5.0 without having to get their feet wet, to use a submarine or having to hold one’s breath during submersion. Although one will most likely hold their breath when they become immersed in the spectacular oceanic imagery. Sea-ing is believing!

Not only are today’s maps dynamic, but their creation is entirely different to the solitary task of the cartographer’s unidirectional inscription of his/her knowledge with ink on to vellum or paper. Today’s maps, however, are interactive – their creation is a democratic process involving a bidirectional exchange of knowledge between consumer and producer. This collaborative collection of geospatial data is then harvested to write algorithms and to display information in pixelated form on digital devices.

The Annotated World

As Parsons remarks, “People define places” because place is a social construct. In order for one to gain a sense of what a place is like, one must build an idea about that place and what it means for people. “Cork needs people to describe it,” Parsons explains, and Google is drawing from the online well of collaborative knowledge by requesting user participation in reviewing and rating places to construct a shareable sense of place. Parsons reminds his audience of the often-quoted joke, “On the internet no body knows you’re a dog,” to emphasize the unreliability of anonymous online reviews and ratings. Google, however, ensures reliability by adding a social element to the reviewing process. For example, the places I intend to visit will already have been annotated by people I know, but “not everyone’s opinion is equal,” Parsons claims. For restaurant reviews, Google bought ZAGAT to add professional restaurateurs’s opinions to the amateur food critics reviews. “All this, Parsons claims, “is combined in annotating the world around us”.

In addition to annotation, today’s maps are personalised and customised, which increases intimacy in human-computer interactions because it creates a sense of what I call artificial familiarity between the user and their computer. Personalisation and customisation humanizes our digital devices and gives the false impression that it is conscious and aware of our needs and desires. One of the ways Google achieves artificial familiarity is by offering the user search result choices that are dependent upon temporality – times of the day. To use Parsons’s example, if one is searching Google for places to eat late on a Friday night then the choices provided will be based on one’s previous eating habits appropriate to that time of day. If one is searching for places to eat on a week day then Google will not offer one the fast food search results of a kebah or burger shop that one wanted when socialising on a Friday night. This is another example of human-computer interaction where the computer is endowed with human qualities. In this case, our customised and personalised digital devices demonstrate the ability to learn and remember from previous Internet search requests and selected results. When digital technology becomes too customised and personalised, however, Parsons claims it crosses the boundary called the “creepy line”.

The Future: Where is Google going with GIS?

One of the possible future developments of Google in the next 5 years or so that Parsons discusses is 3D maps. The advantage of these maps, in comparison to today’s maps, is that they are captured in single time in 2.5D. 3D maps of the future will give a photorealistic view of the world, but Parsons claims they are not useful for particular tasks because “the real world gets in the way of information”. In other words, the annotation is compromised by the heightened visuality in the maps. Therefore, Parsons considers 3D maps to be mere “eye candy”, which differs significantly from the enhanced functionality of the hybrid approach – a second potential future development of Google, which Parsons discusses.

One area of geography that is largely unmapped by Google is the great indoors. Parsons claims, “70 of our lives are spent indoors or inside”. Mapping this uncharted geographical frontier was challenged by the unavailability of Wi-Fi in public buildings such as shopping malls and retail stores, but it is also challenged by the task of gaining permission to map a private space. With the increased availability of free and customer restricted Wi-Fi access in retail stores, Google can use Wi-Fi to locate and track the movements of shoppers as they navigate the store, thus creating a consumer-created blueprint of the inside of buildings from the geospatial data transmitted to Google from user’s handheld digital devices. Tracking and mapping our whereabouts outdoors is one thing, but tracking and mapping were we go and what we do indoors takes a step too far in to the private zone. Although it takes the breech of privacy to a whole new level, one group of people that would greatly benefit from the invasion of our indoor lives would be those interested in data mining consumer-behaviour analysis. If used correctly, consumer-behaviour data could revolutionise how people shop and experience products within shops, which are often hampered by a general lack of accurate, observational knowledge about how customers navigate and interact with products in store, which is essential knowledge for sustaining and maintaining a healthy and happy retailer-consumer relationship.

Google Now

“The map of the future, Parsons explains, “is not a map” because maps are not good for representing geospatial data.

Google Now uses context driven information. The example Parsons uses is notifications of traffic conditions that are not provided by sensors tracking the movement of traffic on roads, but instead they come from users. Millions of users are moving around and Google is using their geospatial data to generate real-time information content that is not requested by the user, but the geospatial information is sent directly to them. “All information,” Parsons emphasizes “is geospatial and does not need a map”.

Death of the desktop computer

As I mentioned earlier, Parsons noted that the majority of Google search results are attained from handheld digital devices instead of desktop computers. Parsons claims, “we have come to the end of that metaphor”. The desktop metaphor is being replaced by the (biblical?) metaphor of the tablet – the tablet computer, such as Apple’s iPad. Unlike Moses’s tablet, however, today’s tablet computer is not designed to operate after being broken in two during a fit of rage.

The desktop computer is also at threat from an up-and-coming hands-free digital device that Parsons says might be available to purchase by this time next Christmas. Google Glass are augmented reality glasses that give a more direct interface with the user from their direction approximation with our eyes. Google Glass combines the virtual and the physical world, and the magic of this amalgamation can be found in the middle ground between the two. A product of that magic is ambient information (http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Ambient_information).

I mentioned earlier about how in human-computer interaction the computer is created to be pseudo-human or quasi-human in its interactions with us. With Google Glass, however, it could be argued that the computer is not only being created to simulate the ‘human,’ but it is becoming a part of the human – an inseparable part, to be precise, because Parsons informs his audience that Google wants us to wear Google Glass 24/7.

Wearable computers are attractive in numerous ways, but if one’s location and behaviour is being tracked 24/7 because our devices will be attached to us all the time then are we any different from the micro chipped animals whose migrations patterns we observe?

When we embrace digital technology, we’re extending ourselves, transcending the limitations of our biological and mental selves, but at the expense of our privacy and our precious connection to reality – it’s a double-edged sword!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Data Visualisation – Anaesthetic or Aesthetic?

In my last blog post I discussed “The State of the digital Humanities: a report and a critique” by Alan Liu. In his article, Liu argues that the digital humanities is missing what he calls “Data aesthetics” (27). The list, line or bar graphs and tag clouds, Liu contends, reflect “the near-total imaginative poverty of the field in crafting an aesthetics of data” (27). Despite Liu’s claims that there is more focus in the digital humanities on metadata than “the look-and-feel of data” (27), however, the “availability and democratization of data” has brought about a vast increase and popular demand for data and information visualization (Lang n.pag.).

Data visualization can be defined as “the use of computer-supported, interactive, visual representations of data to amplify cognition” (Card 1). Data visualisation, however, not only amplifies cognition, but it also helps one deal with the “Data glut (McCandless),” by reducing “the mental load” on the user (Cawthon & Moere 2). David McCandless maintains that using our eyes is one way of coping with information overload because sight is the fastest of our senses. Eyesight has the same bandwidth as a computer network. Using aesthetic visualisations, therefore, facilitates knowledge compression and increases the speed of knowledge digestion because it stimulates the visual cortex of the user’s brain. In a sense, data visualisations resemble works of art to infiltrate the mind of the user. As McCandless notes, visualisation creates a new language that alters our perceptions. The interactive component of data visualisation allows us to participate as “data detectives” in the search for hidden clues exposed by the visualisation process. As Jer Thorp observes, visualisation makes data human by putting it in a human context. When data is sewn into the fabric of the real world, it gains meaning and weight. Realising this fact alters our dialogue with the information we are attempting to transform into knowledge.

Having said that, however, data visualisation is not a fool proof endeavour because a picture is not worth a thousand words if the viewer cannot decipher it. Nick Cawthon and Andrew Vande Moere observe, “the notion of beauty is not a normative element”. Perception of aesthetics is highly subjective. Therefore, an object cannot be viewed in isolation to its social environment and socio-cultural context because of the cultural and cross-cultural differences in visual language interpretation. The pitfalls of visualisation, Bresciani and Epplen claim, are “due to the fact that the meaning of symbols and colours are not universal” (11). This is evident from the foreground-background preferential differences in art of Western and Asian cultures, the cultural differences in the meaning of the colours red and green, and the way some eastern countries display time in a right to left format. As well as the problem of cultural bias, both the data visualisation user and designer require visual literacy and previous knowledge and experience with interpreting graphical displays. The psychological and aesthetic restrictions of data visualisation can confuse the user if the inherent meaning of the visualisation is ambiguous, but ambiguity may have a positive effect by effectuating new insights through creative interpretation of graphical depictions of data.

Questions to consider:

(1): Is data visualisation an aesthetic or anaesthetic? Does it enliven or numb the mind of the user through the graphical representation of abstract data?

(2): Why is aesthetics an important factor in information visualisation?

(3): Is visualisation a technology, a science or art? Does it have aesthetic value or merely aesthetic pleasure? Does data visualisation dilute perceptions of art or broaden its conceptual boundaries? Does data visualisation have to be artistic to be effective?

(4):  Data visualisation could be considered as an interdisciplinary subject? Do you think it flawlessly integrate science, art and design?

(5): Does data visualisation distract from the main goal of knowledge transfer? Is it more than a form of decorating or aestheticising dull data?

Works Cited

Bresciani, Sabrina, and Martin J. Epplen. “The Risks of Visualisation: A Classification of Disadvantages Associated with Graphic Representations of Information”. 2008. PDF.

Card, S. K., et al. Readings in Information Visualisation: Using Vision to Think. San Diego: Academic P, 1999. Print.

Cawthon, Nick, and Andrew Vande Moere. “Qualities of Perceived Aesthetic in Data Visualisation”. 2007. PDF.

Lang, Alexander. “Aesthetics in Information Visualisation”. PDF.

Liu, Alan. “The State of the Digital Humanities: A Report and a Critique”. SAGE 11.4 (2012): 8-41. Web.

McCandless, David. “The Beauty of Data Visualisation”. TED. 2010. Presentation.

Thorpe, Jer. “Make Data more Human”. TED. 2011.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

A Liu-cidal Massacre of the Digital Humanities!

In “The State of the digital humanities: a report and a critique,” Alan Liu discusses the advances made in overcoming the past short comings of the digital humanities, but despite these progressive developments Liu argues the field (not yet a discipline in Liu’s eyes) still posses major inadequacies that drastically reduces its potentiality — its inherent capacity for growth, development and expansion into a future representation of the Humanities.

In juxtaposition to Liu’s claim, however, some digital humanists contend the digital humanities will never represent the Humanities, but will in fact be an entirely separate discipline, or semi-separate discipline as Willard McCarthy proposes. McCarthy says:

But let me offer a different criterion for success: simply to be accepted as one of the community, to sit at the table among equals and talk, then to go back home to a department of the digital humanities, with its students, programmes, seminars and so on, and get on with educating and being educated.” (McCarthy 2009)

Akin to Liu, Patrik Svensson disagrees with the view that the future path of digital humanities will diverge from the Humanities. Svensson states, “it seems quite unlikely that the digital humanities would ever become a fully separate field” (para. 18). Similarly, Katherine N. Hayles warns that it would be “a tragic mistake” if a “radical divergence” occurred. In relation to the assimilation-distinction agenda of the digital humanities, Hayles states:

The kinds of articulation that emerge have strong implications for the future: will the Digital Humanities become a separate field whose interests are increasingly remote from the Traditional Humanities, or will it on the contrary become so deeply entwined with questions of hermeneutic interpretation that no self- respecting Traditional scholar could remain ignorant of its results? If the Digital Humanities were to spin off into an entirely separate field, the future trajectory of the Traditional Humanities would be affected as well. Obviously, this is a political as well as an intellectual issue. In the case of radical divergence (which I think would be a tragic mistake), one might expect turf battles, competition for funding, changing disciplinary boundaries, and shifting academic prestige (qtd. in Svensson para. 17).

Having said that, however, Liu, Hayles and Svensson’s preoccupation with the digital humanities’ disciplinary assimilation or distinction negates the total point and purpose of digital humanities scholarship. The essential nature of digital humanities is its ability to transcend disciplinary boundaries and facilitate interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary research. Digital humanities achieve this through the utilization of computational tools and methodologies, which establish an open-access virtual platform where information is not located or designated by disciplinary boundaries because these knowledge walls become soluble when submersed in a digital solution. It is for this reason that attempting to predict whether the digital humanities of the future will represent the Humanities or become its own discipline could be viewed as a futile endeavor, which appears to be fueled by a subconscious, technophobic fear of rapid change and development, and nostalgia for the simpler time when print culture was dominant in society. Knowledge unification and dissemination, however, is the intrinsic nature of digital humanities research, which is irrelevant to Liu, Hayles and Svensson’s fears of an inter- or intra-disciplinary divide with digital humanities and the Humanities on the basis of a print-digital binary. Even though it is attached with the prefix of ‘digital,’ the digital humanities is still in many respects ‘humanities,’ albeit in an alternative form. Therefore, the focus of concern should be on what digital humanities can do to compliment, advance or transform the Humanities, regardless of whether it has a symbiotic or aposymbiotic relationship status with the Humanities.

Moving away from this debate and returning to Liu’s article, the following will be a summary of some major points Liu mentions.

(1): Scale

Considering the sheer size of Liu’s article, it is rather ironic that he highlights ‘scale’ as one of the shortcomings of digital humanities. Liu criticises early digital humanities websites and projects, such as the William Blake Archive and the Walt Whitman Archive because of their difficulties with scalability (18). Liu compares early digital humanities projects to the “Tardis in the BBC Doctor Who television series” because “they were larger on the inside than they seemed on the outside” (18). However, due to the large scale of digital projects being developed at present, Liu argues, “that scale itself has snapped into focus as one of the field’s constitutive concepts”(18). Subsequently, “scale is a new horizon of intellectual inquiry,” but scale will always remain a mountain where the fruits of intellectual inquiry flourish at the summit (21). For large-scale projects such as the Linguistic Atlas Project, the fruits of intellectual inquiry are perpetually unattainable and out of reach of the plucking fingers of curious scholars involved. As William A. Kretschmar, Jr. states in relation to the (American Linguistic Atlas Project):

We cannot come to an end of the work because we are witnesses and archivists of how Americans talk, and they keep talking differently across time and space. Neither do I think that our humanities-computing representation of our research is capable of being finally perfected, of achieving some perfect state, because technology keeps changing and the demands placed upon our research keep changing. If we view the entirety of the Linguistic Atlas Project as a “large-scale humanities computing project,” the word “finish” is just not part of the deal. And we are not alone. While the creation of, say, a variorum edition may seem like a project that can be finished in both senses, actually we need to make new editions all the time, since our idea of how to make the best edition changes as trends in scholarship change, especially now in the digital age when new technical possibilities keep emerging.

The computational tools and research inquires of digital humanities scholarship is inconstant — continuously evolving and changing with time — which fuels project-scale growth. Therefore, scale is an irreducible, inevitable and (for the most part) and unavoidable constituent of digital humanities research.

(2): Form

Liu argues, “the field has so far largely lacked a considered focus on new media forms, whether in terms of genre, rhetoric, or style.” (24) According to Liu, digital humanists are “theoretically inattentive to the formal […] differences between the “static page” and “template-driven websites,” and “‘born-digital forms’” and “digitized-print forms” (24). Therefore, Liu contends, “digital humanists tend to understand new-media forms as residually print-centric” (24). To say that, however, digital humanists perceive the likes of Google Books as merely books and Wikipedia as only an encyclopaedia is a gross misconception and misinterpretation of the adoption and incorporation of print related terminology to describe new media technology.

For example, is an eBook a book? Not all, or even the majority of digital humanists, would answer ‘yes’ to this question. Although it is called a ‘book,’ an eBook is only a digital ghost or manifestation of a particular work. The most prominent distinction between an eBook and a book is the fact that an eBook is not inseparably attached or connected to the physical medium of representation. A physical copy is required for one to read a book, while an eBook requires downloading, a physical carrier and a physical reading device with the necessary software for the work to be represented for the reader so he/she can read it. Even though an eBook is viewed by many, without a great depth of consideration, as simply a book in digital disguise, the physical limitations of the print medium are not translated to its digital counterpart. Therefore, this raises the question: Should we be calling an eBook a book if the limitations that define a book are absent from an eBook?

(3): Data Aesthetics

According to Liu, “Data aesthetics” are missing from the text-oriented side of the digital humanities (27). The list, line or bar graphs and tag clouds reflect “the near-total imaginative poverty of the field in crafting an aesthetics of data” (27). Liu claims there is more focus on metadata than “the look-and-feel of data” (27).
Therefore, “the secret formula” for Katherine N. Hayles embodied experience of information, as Liu suggests, is the collapsing of “the phenomenological divide between metadata and data” (28).

With that in mind, one must ask: What about D3.js? Is D3 not ‘aesthetic’ enough for Liu? Although I agree that list, line or bar graphs are rather mundane ways of visualising data, one must ask oneself: what is more important the formal qualities of data visualisation or the meaning of the data the visual form is expressing?

Perhaps Liu is correct in saying that digital humanities is not yet prepared to represent the Humanities. Digital humanities may never be ready, but is it the goal of digital humanities to be a representation of the Humanities, a replacement for it or a self-defined discipline? This is a difficult question to answer, but if I had to choose what I believe to be the most probable outcome I would pick the latter outcome. As I said early, digital humanities is, in many respects, Humanities in an alternative form, but this “alternative form” is continuously evolving and changing with the rapid advancements in technology, along with the reconceptualization of intellectual inquiry as a result of these advancements. As Heraclitus claims, the only constant is change and if the digital humanities is in a state of perpetual inconstancy then we might not be witnessing the end of Humanities, but only the end of Humanities as we know it.

Kretzschmar, William A. “Large-Scale Humanities Computing Projects: Snakes Eating Tails, or Every End is a New Beginning.”

Liu, Alan. “The State of the digital humanities: a report and a critique.”

Svensson, Patrik. “The Landscape of Digital Humanities”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Examining Database Projects – The 1881 Canadian Census Report

First and foremost, the major problems and challenges with the 1881 Canadian Census project that Lisa Y. Dillon discusses in her article can be summarised as a result of the collaboration (or lack thereof) between social science historians and genealogy groups, who employ conflicting project standards, goals and objectives of data processing. The extremely large file size of the 1881 census project and limited funds available for data processing led to this collaborative union between social science historians and genealogy groups, but it led “to compromised data quality to a certain extent” (166).

Data cleaning and checking difficulties were not only caused by the “hundreds of geographically-dispersed volunteers using fairly basic data-entry programs” (166), but also the decentralisation of data entry efforts. LDS issued a different set of objectives to social science historians. Data entry was further compounded by LDS’s use of Universal Data Entry Software instead of CFP or MHCP that offer automatic prompts or checks (167). LDS chose software simplicity over quality verification software features thus causing the presence of “preventable typos” in the database (167).

In addition to the issues with LDS’s guidelines and choice of software, LDS also instructed their volunteers to enter the same data twice and compare results. This instruction, in my opinion, appears to be a laboriously counterproductive task not only because appropriate software could have eliminated this unnecessary task, but also it’s a time consuming task that does not eliminate the repetition of data entry errors from the first inaccurate entry made.

Furthermore, the division and uneven distribution of microfilm strips, the lack of distinction between volunteers’ and enumerators’ comments, the partial exclusion of crossed-out line entries, and the omission of family numbers further impeded data entry accuracy.

Having said that, however, these aforementioned issues were possible to address in comparison to other irresolvable issues such as the mistranscriptions of last names — which could be a result of an original enumerate error, poor microfilm quality or illegible handwriting — and the Francophone-Anglophone linguistic translational discrepancies.

Dillon notes that the omission of French accents by the Anglophone volunteers and its inclusion by Francophone volunteers created a significant problem with the 1881 Census project. Subsequently, additional work is required to restore the French accent in the database.

Although Dillon highlights a significant number of problems with the 1881 Census project, the genealogy group volunteers were only responsible for a surprisingly low percentage of errors – 1%. (It is worth noting, however, that the 1% Dillon quotes is the percentage for ‘detected’ errors; not to mention the percentage of undetected errors not yet accounted for.)

With these problems in mind, Dillon claims that the 1881 Census project was affected less by transcription errors than decisions made at the commencement of the project (173). Therefore, Dillon proposes that the conflicting collaborative standards of social science historians and genealogy groups could be eliminated by centralising data entry rules and processes with the identification of a central institution that could dedicate sufficient personnel to inspect the project work (174).

The latter point Dillon makes about the inspection of geographically dispersed volunteers’ work may not have been as feasible at the time the 1881 Census project was being created. In our modern day society, however, project work collaboration and inspection could be easily conducted in a Web 2.0 environment because the vast majority of society have adopted social media as one of their primary sources of communication.

When marking-up Prof. Ruth Sherry’s bibliographic index cards in XML and TEI P5 for the Frank O’Connor Research website, I found it extremely beneficial to be able to collaborate with my colleagues and supervisor via social media to resolve any issues. Some of the difficulties encountered in the 1881 Census Project that Dillon mentions, I experienced when marking-up the bibliographic index cards, such as illegible handwriting, crossed-out material, typos and errors made by the author, and occasionally some poor quality material that had been soiled and thus making the text indecipherable. Marking-up, however, wasn’t the challenge; deciding what quantity of the material to mark-up was though. Dillon refers to this discrepancy between the needs of academic and genealogical researchers because social science historians desire to record everything while genealogists aim for 100%, but limit their variables. When it comes to this decision, I tend to agree with the social science historians record-everything rule because I believe in the adage that, “If you’re going to do it, do it right,” which is, I suppose, the message of Dillon’s article.

Dillon, Lisa Y. “International Partners, Local Volunteers and Lots of Data: The 1881 Canadian Census Report.” History Computing 12.2 (2000): 163-176. JSTOR. Web.

Frank O’Connor Research Website

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine