I noticed a conversation at Cliopatria when I was web-surfing yesterday. It connects to yesterday's post here. Here's my comment via Cliopatria:
For those of us who teach in rural areas and/or at institutions with smaller libraries, the digitization of historical sources has not only greatly expanded the possibilities for both students and researchers but also allowed more efficient travel because of finding aids and indices made available online.
A good point is made that students, like other humans, often gravitate toward the path of least resistant. (For example, it's usually easy to catch them cheating off the internet since most don't even scroll past the first page of results on the search engine for their topic.)
Therefore, it's our job as teachers, instructors, and professors to teach students how to discern good sources from less reliable and/or appropriate sources. Even before the internet, I'm not confident that most students spent an adequate amount of time in libraries or archives since, just like now, they often left their work until the last minute.
Those students and individuals who are conscientious will want guidance as to what types of sources that are availalbe to them - whether in print or online - are reliable and most appropriate according to the experts. The internet also makes it much more posssible for those with this expertise to share it beyond the limited bounds of printed journal articles not available to everyone.
Also see the AHA blog for a related discussion we all need to be involved in: http://blog.historians.org/articles/159/aaup-calls-for-cautious-approach-to-open-access
Comments