In appreciation

I met Roy perhaps ten times. At conferences in the booth. In the trailer at CHNM. At lunches where we’d discuss potential collaborations and the future of electronic media. We’d cluster round screens showing each other what we’re up to. I’d chat with him at the DC Area Tech & Humanities Forum. Ordinarily I’m not sure such occasional contact would lead me to post alongside Roy’s close friends and colleagues. But for Roy and for those who love Roy I really want to. He deserves it.

I’m not an academic. I’m only partly versed in how the academy works. I'm not sure which parts of Roy’s work have most scholarly merit. Nor do I know which parts of CHNM that Roy was heavily involved in. But as a publisher and a fellow enthusiast of digital history there are some things I do know.

Roy’s understanding of digital history and its potential was spectacular. I’m not sure I know of anyone else who had quite such a handle on what might be achieved. Every time I talked to him I learned and was enthused.

Reading a paper written by Roy or looking at a project that Roy worked on one cannot but be impressed. What better example than his essay on the differences between Wikipedia and standard reference works (http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42) – it’s infinitely clearer, more balanced and more constructive than the polemic that dominates the subject.

For me Roy was exceptional because he was more a facilitator rather than an owner of ideas and projects. He was an enabler of people. His ideas and implementation of those ideas always seemed grounded in generosity, in sharing and in moving things forward. This is not common in my world.

The field of digital history is well populated with ideas. Very few of these have been carried out well. I look over the glittering array of projects at CHNM, and beyond that to the enthusiastic and well informed staff. They seem both to be infused with a bit of Roy.

I know that every time I use those sites I’ll be thinking of and missing Roy.