One of the first goals of the Critical Digital Humanities (CDH) collective has been to create a space for digital collaboration. This virtual space would provide a buffer between a fully completed work and a digital draft, allowing research and experimentation while allaying fears of creative failure. However, as so often occurs with the creation of space, the first step was one of defining limitations more so than possibilities.
For most members, privacy was the primary concern. The virtual space should shield digital creations in their nascent states from the wider audience of the Internet, for on the Web it is nearly impossible to differentiate a work-in-progress from a finalized project. Such a lack of finality, rather than a weakness of the Internet, is one of its most cherished attributes. Although the constant flux of the Internet is somewhat of a nightmare for archivists, the Internet’s ubiquity and flexibility form a central component of digital innovation. Yet, by cloistering our digital creations the CDH would be attempting to hide from these very currents of ingenuity.
In the search for a virtual space the dominance of Facebook in the realm of social networking brought it quickly to the top of discussion. Yet, Facebook was just as quickly disregarded for its manipulation of digital privacy. Through frequent modifications to user settings, which are buried within a confusing array of obtuse privacy controls, Facebook attempts to slowly push its users towards a previously unheard of state of digital exhibition. Facebook’s sporadic pace of innovation, at times glacial and at times explosive, helps to keep users relatively passive and unmotivated to pursue privacy reforms.
Twitter, the other dominant social network, was of no help either. Considering our project, the 140 character limit of Twitter was its most glaring fault. Twitter is more of a broadcast system than a virtual space; it provides connection, but little content. It could be used to create a private, direct-message communication network, but Twitter’s lack of digital storage and the ease in which messages can accidentally be shared publicly are also negative factors.
The most promising candidate for a private, collaborative virtual-space was Ning. Ning is similar to Facebook in that it utilizes semi-public user profiles as a base of connectivity. Most importantly though, Ning is a closed network. While it resides on Ning’s own servers (there is no self-hosting option, and it is not open source software), each Ning account is an independent and disconnected network. There are some options within Ning to branch out to Twitter, Facebook, and the wider Web, but the rapid pace of change regarding social networking APIs (Application Programming Interface–software bridges between separate platforms) makes these functions unreliable at best.
Ning’s lack of connectivity to other social networking platforms is not necessarily detrimental, as it accidentally provides an additional, albeit thin, layer of privacy. Ning’s most glaring downside was that it became another digital location to maintain, another place to maintain a profile and monitor activity. Ning’s closed system, while hopefully supplying the privacy members were looking for, attributed to social networking fatigue. Also, lacking the most innovative ways to display media, it was very likely that Ning would not be the best place to host cutting-edge, or even more nostalgic, digital creations.
Although Ning was a central location, it also forced a workflow upon members to provide their digital works in a certain place, and in a certain way. Still under consideration as a tool for social networking and virtual space is Google+. Just released to the general public from closed beta, Google+ is promising, but also a bit unwieldy. Kimberly will be writing a review of Google+ in a later article. In the end, CDH members will gravitate to the digital tools they want to use, and those would most definitely be outside a of restrictive system.
In the attempt to create a virtual community, we were also creating limitations. Instead, the CDH should be fostering innovation and creativity. The CDH needs to leverage the talent of existing members, consider their pre-existing tools and workflows, and help those without digital skills learn them. This is the basis for the Digital Nuts and Bolts workshops that will be occurring later this academic year.
In the meantime, the search for a virtual space is ongoing, but instead of a single platform or digital walled-garden, it may consist of a variety of tools with varying degrees of seclusion. Privacy on the Internet is fleeting at best, and the most crucial factor is often the user’s familiarity with the service, instead of the service’s technical proficiency. There is a need for a virtual space in which authors and artists can feel free to fail, to experiment beyond their current capacities–in time this may prove to be the Internet itself.
