Boggs, who interviews like an affable blacksmith, stressed the practicality of digital history and that it has the capacity to be extremely democratic, both in its content and availability. He also noted that many of his colleagues and students, though comfortable with using digital media, know less about the creation of it, and some purposely so. Another main message from this week's readings is that computers are 'not going away.' Especially when people find projects like Rome Reborn, they do indeed have access to 'the next best thing,' and Boggs wants to be sure that each new class of graduate students can create useful and beautiful tools that will serve the needs of the public, as well as other scholars.
Two questions arise from the selection of readings and films this week, which concern funding and technical expertise. The article "History, Digitized (and Abridged)" stated that the cost to scan certain presidential papers ran $7 to $11, but doesn't explain why. This seems an extreme cost, especially when the Library of Congress would almost certainly (?) have at least of the equipment and a ready supply of unpaid interns looking for experience until the job market vastly improves. Secondly, to make an analogy to museum work, when curators design an exhibit, I hardly think they are down in the gallery with a hammer, nails, and paint, crafting the exhibit themselves. So too, I think that no one should be afraid of entering digital media because he/she lacks programming skills. Just because digital history began with programmers does not mean it must belong to them.
