"Fourteen Days in October: the Cuban Missile Crisis": http://hyperion.advanced.org/11046/

"Information on the Cuban Missile Crisis": http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~bayer/cmc/INFO.HTML

     In the pursuit of historical study, accuracy of factual representation is critical. With the growing use of the Internet as a means of transferring and obtaining information, special care must be taken to establish the integrity of each site. Anyone with access to a computer and a few spare hours can put information on the relatively unregulated "net". For this reason, caution must be used when employing this technology for research. Extra attention must be paid to the verification of each author's sources and purpose in order to ensure reliability. If used properly and in good faith, the Internet is a wonderful medium for presenting historical information. Texts, documents, photographs, audio recordings, and even videos can be instantly accessed from anywhere in the world. In theory, this multimedia, interactive networking tool has many advantages over the traditional textbook; but it is easily misused. A comparison of two sites on the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrates the wide range of quality that exists side by side among the mass quantities of information housed on the Internet. One example will show the amazing possibilities that this technology holds, while the other will show that the Internet has more than its share of poorly researched, shoddily presented junk.

     "Fourteen Days in October: The Cuban Missile Crisis" is an excellent example of what can be accomplished on the Internet. The site was constructed by two college-level students from research done for a paper. The paper was well received, and, following qualification for a national competition, adapted to a web-site. The authors of the site seem to have no political agenda, and construct the quality site, admittedly, because of an interest in the technology, and the prospect of further competitions. The focus of the site seems to be on factual representation, with only a small amount of interpretation. The authors explicitly cite the sources used for the site, including many primary ones, to give their presentation credibility. In addition to their sources, the students provide an entire page explaining, not only their personal background, but the history and motivation for the site itself. It seems that they have nothing to hide, and the information they present can be taken as accurate.

     As for the kinds of information being displayed on the site, they are numerous. It contains a mass of valuable and interesting evidence surrounding the crisis. The site provides dossiers on the key players including President John F. Kennedy, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, and other prominent figures from both sides of the conflict. There is a brief summary available for those is search of a modest superficial glance; but there is also a detailed, day by day, account of the crisis that delves into great detail, and provides preliminary analysis of the actions taken by both nations. The analysis seems to be even-handed, providing various plausible arguments while avoiding any jump to conclusions. The site is visually wonderful, providing many pictures along side the text. There is a special page containing the wealth of photo reconnaissance gathered during the crisis. The reader, or viewer, is given an opportunity to scrutinize the same photographs that convinced officials in 1962 that the Soviets were assembling launch sites in Cuba. This effect brings the crisis to life in a way that is not possible through mere text. To give the event an even greater sense of reality, the site offers the dimension of sound to the presentation. One can listen to a sound clip from Kennedy's speeches to the American people, or a ten-minute oral narration of the crisis. All of this information is presented in a manner that is coherent. The site gives both a chronological telling of the event, and a thematic breakdown of the major issues surrounding those tense days.

     Technically, the site is masterfully created, with interesting backgrounds, appealing colors, and impressive visual effects. Although the site contains a large number of pages and an abundance of information, it is very easily navigated. The site is broken down into different areas, each of which is labeled and its content explained; so whether one wants to find biographical information on Fidel Castro, the technical specifications of the Soviet SS-5 missile, or hear a sound clip from President Kennedy, the information is easily found. In addition, one can test his or her knowledge about the crisis by taking a quiz at the end of the site. One can even discuss the event with other students and teachers on the interactive web board. Overall, this site is an excellent way to get information on the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is straightforward enough for the computer illiterate, yet provides an expanse of information ranging from a simple timetable of events to a detailed account of this dangerous period. "Fourteen Days in October" could be a valuable tool for students of just about any level, or even the curious history buff looking to expand his knowledge.

     In contrast to "Fourteen Days" is the site "Information on the Cuban Missile Crisis", a bland presentation put together by a Turkish student at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. This site provides an example of the risks taken when using the Internet as a source of historical research. While the author plainly identifies himself, offering information on his personal background and motivations, he neglects to adequately acknowledge his sources. This brings into serious question, the validity of his statements. The facts presented, while for the most part plausible, are not cited properly, making it difficult to corroborate his evidence. A more pressing problem is the speculation he leaves floating aimlessly, with little factual foundation offered to ground them. It is not that his conclusions are necessarily erred, but he has not provided adequate basis for arriving at these conclusions. Furthermore, he discredits conclusions that differ from his by stating that they "have too many problems associated with them," but without going into the specifics of such problems. Flat assertion, especially without the backing of notable sources, is not a sufficient argument against other conclusions. While his own conclusions may be arguably valid, his quick dismissal of other plausible scenarios raises some question. One must always doubt information that is not backed by evidence.

     Technically, the site is not as impressive as "Fourteen Days". For one, it is only three pages in length, and thus, lacks the depth and factual support present in the other site. It is weak in presentation as well as content, employing only a few photographs to accompany the text. The text itself was grammatically poor, which is understandable due to the fact that he is Turkish, but, nonetheless distracting and unprofessional. The site is not interactive and contains little of interest besides the mediocre text and photographs. The one saving grace is the provision of many links to related sites, including well-constructed ones like "Fourteen Days". It would be hard to find much use for this particular site in the light of its shortcomings; but it may be useful as a starting point from which to explore the many other links on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

     By comparing the two sites, it is evident that there are good and bad aspects of information hunting on the Internet. From the first example, the advantages of multimedia, interactive presentations are easily recognized. They give life to the topic, while providing a vast store of organized information. The second example demonstrates that all historical sites do not meet such high standards. Poorly presented accounts, which are insufficiently grounded in evidence can be dangerous to the Internet researcher. He or she can be led astray if not careful in the acceptance of information. While the weaker of the two sites was probably never intended for use as a resource tool, and was admittedly a computer class requirement at the author's university, the sad reality is that his site is classified right next to it's high-quality counterpart in the web-search directory. The site could be easily mistaken for a qualified source of information, despite its meager presentation. This illustrates the dangers of researching on the Internet, as it is left to the individual to sort through the junk and pick out the gems.