Response to "Always Already New"

Only less than two pages into this article, I just had to laugh. Giltleman says that "the internet is wrong about it's own history," when she's referring to a mishap in a program that read a few scanned documents wrong translating the word "interest" into "internet". That reminds me of this "quote" that's been floating around the internet for a few years now...

And speaking of Abraham Lincoln... (insert awkward transition here.) Gitleman contrasts the documentation of history before and after the invention and popularization of the internet. Before the web, history was a record of the past. When newspapers were delivered, the "breaking news" featured within them was already days, if not weeks old, depending on if we're taking about pre- or post- Pony Express ;) Now, "breaking news," is just that. I can look up an article on an event merely seconds after it occurs. There really is no "history" to document, after all, the event could still happening while the article hits the newsstands (and by before it hits the newsstands, I mean before the post is published onto a website.) History, in modern terms, takes place in the now. History is no longer the periodic documentation of the past, history is the constant tracking of the present. And as far as digitization of history goes, it's hard to view timelines. Digital articles can be altered, moved to different websites, and all together deleted. After all, it's said that the average lifespan of a webpage is somewhere between 40-70 days.

Even in the internet's infancy, critics talked about the hard to call line between "the true and the false, the important and the trivial, the enduring and the ephemeral." (Well, I guess my addition of the picture of Lincoln wasn't too far fetched as far as where this post is going... this is a happy coincidence!)  The article even continues to talk about how is possible to cite an article off the internet, and your brain can be filled with complete BS. It is possible to find a website with literally anything on the internet. If you wanted to find a website on how to properly elect an octopus into office, I'm sure it wouldn't be too far of a search before an article was found.

The web offers plenty of uncertainties within citations. Citing a book induces no fear because even if a book is 50 years old, unless every copy of the book was burned in a horrible fire, it would be possible to track it down. Now, people run the risk of citing a website that will someday expire. In a digital world that is meant to keep everything accessible at all times, things sure are tricky to find.

Case in point: The internet is sketchy as hell.