Week 4: History in the Age of Abundance? How the Web Is Transforming Digital Research

    Understanding the new era of history in the digital realm raising multiple questions about the structure and path in which research and credibility takes the historian. The past few decades have called for the serious questioning of archival practices and bias created by algorithm in researcher practices. Ian Milligan is the Associate Vice-President in the University of Waterloo's Office of Research. Primarily, Milligan focuses his research on web archives and their implications for researchers and historians (University of Waterloo, Ian Milligan, 2023). In his book, History in the Age of Abundance? How the Web Is Transforming Historical Research, multiple themes of bias, data structure, and ideas surrounding the digitalization of history are understood. 

Privatization: Unspoken Bias in the Digital Realm

    One key aspect that I found interesting was Milligan's understanding of the fragility of the internet archive. Instead of analyzing the fragility as we have done before in class, Milligan points out the fact that there is an "infinite web" and plenty of space and storage to host an "infinite" amount of sites. Milligan even goes as far to acknowledge the inevitable and present bias in his methodology of archiving; "crawlers", as he called them, would pick through the internet and recommend which sites to sell advertisements on based on traffic generated, promoting those sites (Milligan, 79). In a response written to Milligan's book, Tim Hitchcock makes an excellent point in analyzing the issues surrounding the bias present in the privatization of the web and how it affects the archival process. He notes that by understanding how the mass archive of the internet is largely held by private hand, and is in turn used for profit, the way historians should approach sources found on the internet should be different (Daniel J. Story, Jo Guldi, Tim Hitchcock, Michele Moravec, 2020). 

Replacing Bias with Bias?

I would furthermore advance Hitchcock's point in saying that not only is the agenda pushing of sources faulty for research, it also further minimizes the masses gaps still present in the internet archive. In recognizing the bias present within an archive and still choosing the highlight the development of it's size, Milligan proposes to the reader to observe bias and be vigilant in discerning information from the biased nature; By "framing finding appropriately", Milligan is asking the reader to remove a bias held by an author and leave it subject to the writers' universal, uncontrollable, predisposed bias (Milligan, 87). Hitchcock once again points out the flaw in Milligan's argument for the correct way to approach a bias found in sources; Milligan believes the sources found on the internet will widely dictate what is discussed, yet Hitchcock points out how the archives of the 19th century did not leave from for discussion on race, gender, and sexuality, yet topics are being discussed in abundance with those sources (Daniel J. Story, Jo Guldi, Tim Hitchcock, Michele Moravec, 2020). Once again,

Organized, ignoring the Holes

    Milligan pushes forward to the idea of research and how the internet must be categorized to best suit the needs of it's users; Milligan believes its important to know the type of sources being implemented, knowing that not all users of the internet are doing research level browsing and forming historical understanding on primary sources found on the web (Milligan, 83-84). I would argue, however, that knowing the bias from the fragile nature of the internet alone calls for a wider inspection of sources, academic or not. Milligan wishes to help us understand the limitations and power of the internet archive, yes, but does not actively warn how personal bias in search engine and privatization of sources and media interlinks with mass gaps in the internet archive, both on research and personal level. The truth is that no amount of organization can combat bias and holes in the digital realm. 

Ultimately, Milligan is writing a book describing the danger, rather than actively trying to understand how to combat it. His explanations of the HTML and what it actually stores among other conversations add a vast amount of weight to the topic. My take away was primarily based on the dangers either ignored or underrated surrounding the holes of the internet archives and how they advocate for bias in  the media world.

Questions:

1. Hitchcock mentions the privatization of archives and sources. What implications does this have for historians and researchers?

2. How do you think we should approach the unavoidable bias of the internet that Milligan suggests?

3. Do you agree with Milligan's "word twisting" and bias-shifting idea of taking a source to "frame it correctly" (pg. 87). 

4. Milligan seems to believe that we should truly understand who is and isn't using the internet for academic purposes. How does knowing what is and isn't available help us dictate the manner of internet dissection? 

5. Hitchcock details how even with archives that don't advocate for certain histories, research is still being done with those sources on sexuality, gender, and race. What does Milligan's implications infer with this? 

References

Milligan, Ian. History in the Age of Abundance? How the Web Is Transforming Historical Research. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2019. Available via UCF Library/ProQuest Ebook Central: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=5732673Links to an external site.

Story, Daniel J., Jo Guldi, Tim Hitchcock, Michele Moravec. "History’s Future in the Age of the Internet," The American Historical Review 125 (October 2020): 1337–1346. Available via UCF Library/JSTOR: https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhaa477

Author Bio: Ian Milliigan, Professor, Associate Vice-President, Research Oversight and Analysis, University of Waterloo