Zhdanovism

When I searched the term “Zhdanov Doctrine” on Google Chrome, 27,000 results showed up. The first result was the Wikipedia page, and the third result was Encyclopedia Britannica. I scrolled through the first five pages of Google results and, scattered amongst various wiki articles, pronunciation guides, and articles, were a few links to sources that I may find useful for my digital project. One resource is a scanned version of the Encyclopedia of Censorship, which Google Books so kindly added to the Internet. Google is helpful because it searches the web for relevant information about key word searches and puts all the results in one place. Unfortunately, it does little to put the most pertinent articles on the first page; instead, it puts popular and recent results on the first page. I found some primary source essays by Zhdanov, the creator of the Soviet doctrine, that will be interesting to read for background information on my topic, but they were on the third or fourth page of the Google search. Usually, I do not go beyond the first page when searching for things on Google. The strength of a Google search is that so many results can be found, but this is also the weakness; the proverbial gold panner must wade into the waters of Google prepared to sift through a lot of rocks and silt in order to find nuggets of gold.

Both Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica have very similar articles referring to the Zhdanov Doctrine. Both of their articles are titled something different, which threw me off at first. Wikipedia’s article is called “Zhdanov Doctrine,” whereas Encyclopedia Britannica’s is called “Zhdanovschina.” When I searched “Zhdanov Doctrine” in Encyclopedia Britannica’s search engine on their website, Andrey Zhdanov, the man, popped up, as did the term “Doctrine,” but I had to follow a link from the article on Zhdanov to get to “Zhdanovschina.”

Wikipedia and Encylopedia Britannica’s articles are only two and three paragraphs long, respectively. The information on both is the same, and they even share a few of the same sentences, such as “Earlier critics and literary historians were denounced for suggesting that Russian classics had been influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Molière, Lord Byron, or Charles Dickens.” I looked at the history of the Wikipedia page and that sentence was added in 2006 (the page has not changed much since then). I was going to look at a physical copy of Encyclopedia Britannica to see whether Wikipedia stole the line from the Encyclopedia or vice versa, but the library no longer has a physical copy of the Encyclopedia. The lady at the reference desk said that the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica came from the physical copy, so I am assuming that Wikipedia copy/pasted some parts of their article from Encyclopedia Britannica, even though they did not cite them at the bottom of the page.

One of the strengths of using Wikipedia for research is that it is accessible and easy to use. There is a Wikipedia article for nearly everything and, as I mentioned above, these articles are easy to find, usually showing up as the first search result. Additionally, Wikipedia’s structure and design is easy to use and easy on the eyes. Most long articles are broken up into sections and a table of contents provides hyperlinks to the different sections. Wikipedia’s gray, blue, black, and white aesthetic gives it a professional look and makes it easy to read. Wikipedia, however, can be edited by whomever, wherever, whenever, which makes it a less reliable source than Encyclopedia Britannica, which is maintained by a team of editors.

Encyclopedia Britannica articles were written “by external advisers and experts,” as their website says, and is now watched over by editors. Because the articles have been written by experts in their various fields, they are more reliable and can be used for scholarly research. While this is true, Encyclopedia Britannica lacks the clean-cut format of Wikipedia. I think their website is not as visually pleasing as Wikipedia or as well lain out.

While both websites have general strengths and weaknesses for research, I found them equally helpful for gaining an overview of Zhdanovism because both articles were so short and contained the same information. It would have been more helpful to have longer articles, but long articles are not the purpose of encyclopedias. 

Word Count: 723 words. 

The Smithsonian X 3D Project (with special guest: Abe Lincoln)

The Smithsonian X 3D program scans exhibits and artifacts from the Smithsonian museum in Washington, D.C. into 3D computer models. They upload them to the web so that users can look at the models from different angles and scroll closer to get an in-depth look at the minute details of the exhibits.

Face mold of Abraham Lincoln

This tool would be very helpful in classrooms for many reasons; indeed, part of the reason the Smithsonian decided to start digitizing their exhibits was for the benefit of students.

One reason this tool would be helpful in classroom situations is because it is expensive to take a classroom of students on a trip to Washington D.C. Many schools across the United States do have class trips to the Smithsonian, but not all students are able to go because of the cost. Plane tickets or gas must be bought to get to the museum, and lodging must be found. Additionally, there must be money for food, souvenirs, and museums fees or tips. When I was in high school, my mom, grandma, and I road tripped from Seattle to the East Coast to visit American historical sites, and even though there were only three of us, it was still an expensive trip. By having Smithsonian exhibits online, students from both high income and low income students can visit the exhibits online without having to spend the money to see it in real life. Of course, a downside to viewing things only online is that students do not get the experience of visiting these things in real life. As we talked about in class, it is a different experience viewing things in person versus online. When viewing things online, there is a layer of removal that one does not get when one views something in person. Also, students would not get the experience of taking a trip with their classmates and making lifelong memories. I will always remember the trip that my mom, grandma, and I took not only because of all of the American history we were able to see but also because we were able to deepen our relationships with one another along the way.

My mom and grandma join the Lincoln family

Sixteen-year-old Abbey and her mom become Washingtons

A second reason the Smithsonian X 3D website is helpful for students is because of the feature that allows the user to view the artifact or exhibit from different angles and zoom in on specific details. Often, in museums, glass separates the onlooker from the exhibit in order to preserve the artifacts, which are often fragile. Sometimes, exhibits can only be seen from the front, so it is impossible to see what the back or underside of an artifact looks like. With the Smithsonian’s 3D technology, students can explore all angles of an artifact and get as close as they want. Perhaps it is not as accurate and handling the artifact in real life, for these exhibits have been digitized, but students are not usually allowed to handle artifacts anyway. This is the best way for students to get a full idea of what these artifacts look like.

A third reason that this 3D tool is useful in the classroom is because of the “tours” provided. Most of the artifacts come with a tour comprising of several slides with information about the artifact. Every time a user advances a slide, the computer zooms in to the particular part of the artifact that the slide is talking about. There are additional reference pictures in the slides, too. This is helpful because it provides information and visual aids that a teacher does not have to search for him or herself. On the other hand, if all the information is on the screen, it may discourage teachers from doing their own research.

Overall, the Smithsonian X 3D program is very well-developed and useful in classroom situations. The team working on this project has only digitized a very, very small percentage of the historical and cultural material that the Smithsonian owns. If they are able to continue creating a 3D database, there will be a vast amount of resources available for everyone everywhere for very little cost.  

Word Count: 680 words.