|
Home :: New Media Reviews
reviewed by Ryan Combs
-
BibleGateway.com is a website designed for online study and access of the scriptures. Unlike other sites that may have only one version of the Bible in one language, BibleGateway boasts thirty-five different languages and twenty-one versions of the Bible in English. Among the oldest are Jerome’s Vulgate (AD 405) in Latin, the Wycliffe New Testament (1382) in English, the Luther Bible (1545) in German, and the King James Bible (1611) in English. There are also many modern versions, such as the New International Version and modern translations in Chinese, Arabic, and Creole. For those who would prefer to listen to the Bible, the site offers ten different versions and translations to play directly from the Internet in streaming audio.
by Randy Astle
reviewed by
-
Mormon cinema on the Internet is a moving target.
Because change in this medium occurs so rapidly, the information
presented in this review will necessarily become dated in a few months
and much more so in the years to come. What I hope to provide,
therefore, is a snapshot of online resources related to LDS or Mormon
cinema near the beginning of their evolution. I believe that the
Internet will become the next great force in both Mormon cinema and
world cinema in general, if it has not already done so. Hence, while
the current article may prove useful for contemporary readers by
surveying online resources currently available, hopefully it will also
be of interest to readers years from now by providing a glimpse back
into one of the greatest, and newest, LDS art forms in its infancy.
reviewed by Howard C. Bybee
-
More than three million Internet sites offer their services to
genealogists and family historians for research. This truly exhausting
array of Internet sites makes online genealogical research more
convenient and more confusing for beginners and professionals. Keeping
up with innovations can easily distract an Internet researcher.
Individuals, family organizations, corporations, nonprofit
organizations, libraries, and governments continually create more
online content, much of it useful for family history and genealogical
research. What we used to call genealogy has morphed into family
history, and the web serves as both the scholarly publisher and the
vanity press for primary and secondary sources used by genealogists and
family historians of every degree. Researchers are spending more on
subscriptions and document downloads and less on travel and copy
orders, and governments have discovered a revenue source for supporting
their archives and record repositories by charging for downloaded
digital copies of vital records and by licensing companies to scan and
publish documents on the Internet. Competition is keen for digital
rights, creating a competitive atmosphere between Internet publishers,
both fee and free. Keeping up with proliferating websites is a
challenge to the professional and amateur researcher, who must
discover, sift through, and subscribe to a growing array of resources
in order to write family history.
reviewed by Richard D. Hacken
-
As a vital first step in substantiating and documenting
historical details, there can be no substitute for a primary source derived
from as close and contemporaneous an observation of a given event as possible.
A historian unable to consult authoritative and honest voices from the past can
verify little but is left to tinker with tradition and supposition. Until quite
recently, the main mode of examining a primary source has been one on one—one
scholar face-to-face with one original document in one physical space.
Historiography has been slowed by travel expenses, time constraints, vagaries
in obtaining permission, and other logistical difficulties standing between a
historian and a source, wherever it may be housed. The steps of human progress
in the arts and sciences of transcription, publication, photography,
photocopying, and microfilming have been precursors to digitization, the latest
boost that virtually places a document’s image or essence before the critical
eye of the scholar.
|
|
|