My selected newspaper article and archive both focus principally on the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) which is responsible for the construction of much of what can be found on the Prince William Forest Park camp grounds.  I’m interested in the historical factors and motivations that underpinned the founding of the CCC, along with the question of what they had constructed was ultimately used for.  Hence the significance of these sources for my research. Finally, I found a photo from Flickr Commons of one of the cabin camps located at Forest Park.  This is one of the camps that members of the CCC built.

During Tuesday’s lecture, the notion was discussed that when using the internet, there’s nothing to distinguish between reliable and unreliable websites.  Consequently, the point continues, the internet may expose the average, unsuspecting person (particularly students) to a number of unreliable sources, created by individuals with no special credentials or expertise, that appear equally credible to sites and sources created by experts.  This point stood out to me, and I think a passage included in the readings for May 23^rd (to be discussed below) is of particular relevance for a response.

Now, it’s certainly true that a number of unreliable sites and sites run by non-experts are interspersed throughout the internet with credible ones that are created by experts, and that, because of the availability and accessibility of the former, unsuspecting people are more likely to take them for granted.  Indeed, there are several factors concerning the internet that makes this state of affairs fairly predictable:

• It allows virtually anybody to publish material on virtually any subject, regardless of expertise.
• Many people, particularly students, rely on it for research.
• When doing research, many people use search engines, such as Google, which will offer the most searched sites, but not necessarily one’s that are run by experts.

So there’s admittedly a potential for people to be fooled by unacceptable and unreliable websites and sources, and that’s certainly problematic.  But it seems to me that it’s a potential easily overcome, and that, consequently, there isn’t a very serious problem to begin with.

Counterpoints

There are three points that one might adduce that are in opposition to the foregoing argument:

1. Although both unreliable and reliable sources are available on the web, and it’s not always clear which are which at first glance, with well-honed research skills, users can learn to discern the credible from the incredible.
2. Although the opinions of experts should certainly be given more weight than non-experts, the opinions of non-experts shouldn’t be dismissed outright as being unacceptable.  Rather their arguments should stand for themselves.
3. Even if a non-expert’s interpretation isn’t well supported, he or she can still offer valuable information to experts.

1. Research Skills

It’s admittedly the case that there are frequently countless websites dispensing misinformation alongside more trustworthy websites, and that the misinformation isn’t normally clearly marked as such.  This is certainly a problem, but it seems to be that it’s easily solved.  With research and critical thinking skills, it seems reasonable to suppose that the risk of being fooled by misinformation is correspondingly decreased.  To develop such skills is to develop the knowledge and ability to identify credible authors and proficiently examine arguments.  Tuesday’s lecture provides an example of this.  When visiting the Hitler’s Museum site, we asked about its veracity.  We checked the author, and ultimately looked up the host of the site.  Although it can take some time, this is a fairly straightforward process that can be learned by just about anybody.

2. The Quality of the Arguments Themselves

But there’s more to determining the reputability of a website than just looking at the credibility of the author(s).  Even non-experts can have useful insights and make cogent points.  For this reason, one must also examine the arguments themselves that appear on a site, and not just dismiss them on the basis of the lack of expertise.  Argument analysis, too, is a skill that can be honed.  One can, for example, visit a website concerning logical fallacies, to expand one’s arsenal of analytic tools.

3. The Value of Non-experts to Experts

Finally, even if the arguments of non-experts are dubious, they can still offer valuable information to experts, so non-experts shouldn’t be dismissed outright simply in virtue of their not being experts.  The section entitled “Exhibits, Films, Scholarships and Essays” in chapter one of “Digital History” by Cohen and Rosenzweig, for example, indicates how, although historians tend to be suspicious of the theories and interpretations or non-experts, they still gain from the efforts of non-experts in compiling primary sources.  Thus our most recent reading assignment provides some insight into a previously discussed issue concerning some of the potential disadvantages of the internet.  Although the chance that the unsuspecting or inattentive internet user will be deceived or misled is increased by the fact that there are non-experts publishing about academic matters, nevertheless, non-experts can make significant contributions and can still provide useful and invaluable resources for research.

My Chosen Topic and Research Question

My chosen topic is Prince William Forest park.  I’m interested in the founding of the CCC, and the use to which many of its projects had been put.  So my research question is “Why was the CCC founded, and how were the things they built put to use (i.e., what was the purpose of the things they built?)?”  I know the CCC built several cabin camps, for example, but what were the originally used for?   Why did the CCC build them?

The most intriguing issue for me what was discussed in class on Tuesday was the one concerning the extent to which all sources will be viewed as having equal authority, weight, and veracity, regardless of the author or quality.  The point was that, since sources from both experts and laypersons can appear on the Internet, there’s a danger that people, particularly students, won’t navigate through sources with discretion, and will treat them as all being of equal worth.  Basically, the point is that there’s no filter to eliminate untrustworthy and unreliable sources,and students will be just as likely to select these ones as they are reliable ones.  This interests me because it seems to me that, to the extent that people don’t examine sources and arguments critically and thoughtfully, there is a risk of people being influence by unreliable sources since they are so prevalent on the Internet, and they frequently appear on commonly used search engines such as Google.

I’ll probably research Prince William Forest Park.  The three historical topics that I’m considering researching are: 1) the history of the CCC in relation to its projects on the park grounds,because I’ve actually stayed in a cabin there before, which was built by the CCC, so it’d be interesting to learn about its background; 2) the history of the OSS and how the park was used as a spy-training facility,because I’d be interested in learning about some of the activities that have taken place there so I have greater perspective and understanding of the park when I visit; 3) the history of the people who lived in the area prior to the establishment of the park, because it’ll help me appreciate the kinds of lives people led there in the past whenever I visit.