Wiki-Writing

One of the blogs that I subscribe to, Museum 2.0, is written by Nina Simon. She just published "The Participatory Museum", and while I can't wait to get my hands on a copy, her writing process has intrigued me. In her blog's March 24 post, she talked about the process by which she actually wrote the book. Rather than sending off select pieces to trusted critics, Simon put herself and her work out there and posted her rough drafts on a public wiki. Those that signed up were allowed to comment, and apparently did so quite constructively.

The idea of being so up front, open, and trusting with your work seems to me to be quite intimidating. Three cheers to Simon for being able to put herself out there and trust that the public would treat her fairly. From the sound of her blog, they did just that. I am glad to hear that, while so many were initially interested in helping her, the end result was a manageable number of participants. I think if I were to follower her lead, I would be worried about either getting no responses or about being so overwhelmed by them that I would be unable to give them all the proper amount of attention.

One of the biggest things that I noticed from Simon's post was not necessarily the technicality of the responses given, but the motivation and confidence that putting her work out in public gave her. It makes me wonder how many other people have had this same idea, and how many are in the museum field, as Simon is. Right now there is a lot of talk about finding ways to be more transparent, and in being more inclusive when it comes to the visiting public. Could writing museum material in public like she did be a way to do more of this? Would this format work for exhibit design, public programs or articles? Or does the format work better for something more long term, like a book? Would a pure history topic be more successful, especially if contribution requests were aimed at others interested in the topic? I am very curious to out for myself, and will have to think about it more as my thesis starts to come together. Maybe not for the thesis itself, but definitely for anything that comes later. I think it is a wonderful way to get a broad range of responses from what would otherwise be a narrow pool. Great work, Nina Simon, and thank you very, very much for sharing your process. I'm looking forward to reading your book!

Historians vs. Economists

I will be honest, the worst classes for me in college were micro and macroeconomics. I had to take them to fulfill my International Relations and Political Science credits, and while the macro side was interesting for the most part it didn't really click with me. One of the things I did enjoy was seeing the involvement economists have in the political world. That was why the recent poll posted on the History News Network asked why economists are more present in politics then historians are.

It is an interesting idea. It seems to me that as historians, we seem to dwell more in the past. Very rarely do we venture into the what may happen in the future. Economists, in contrast, create models for the future. I would like to see more historians do what we do best, look into the past, but then use what we know to project into the future. Politically speaking, a lot of current political issues (health care, gay rights, etc.) can be compared to issues that past administrations have faced (social security, civil rights, again etc.). I understand the point that Ezra Klein makes about money. Most of the issues currently being worked through revolve around the budget. A country that is so much in debt has to conscious of where it spends its money. To that extent, I understand involving economists and think that its an excellent idea. But I also think that those of us who study history can and should take a more active role in making policy.

Since the 1970's the field of history has moved away from the traditional Great Men and War focus, and shifted, as Justin Fox mentions, to more cultural topics. Race, gender, sexuality, and ethnic studies are all vitally important, and still need to be looked at. But I don't want us to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater and eliminated the possibility that our voices will be heard when it comes to making important policy decisions. 

So how does this play into museums? I think that, whether as historians or as museum professionals, it is our job to help educated the public about those decisions that have been made in the past, and how those impact what is being examined today. If the general public doesn't have a basic understanding of the background of these topics, how can they make an informed decision when they choose those who will represent them? Whether its explaining the process itself, as the State Historical Society in Iowa does with their wonderful exhibit on the caucus, or another museum that highlights the history of the GLBT community in the United States, we can help people see the connections between the past and the present. Are you up for the challenge?

Here is a video of the Iowa State Historical Society's Caucus Exhibit. Enjoy!