My own Facebook page has not done that well. Maybe it is an issue of how I am promoting it. I have sort of left it because the existing Pembroke Facebook group is great. Sure, it is its own specific public. But it has opened up opportunities for me. I will not abandon my page. I think once the project gets more popular it will be a better platform. And I should be careful not to just use the Pembroke Facebook page. But it has been the best approach because those people are interested in this project because of their interest in historical Pembroke (one that is personal and nostalgic). Sure, I want to brush against the grain with my method and reach out to others. And so I am doing that through networking, as well as contacting the library and the seniors centre to advertise this project. But just because a community is particular and not historically 'entirely representative' does not make it an inherently problematic public. I am building on top of these histories and publics. I am creating infinitely more entanglements through my approach - in a sense it mirrors the lack of chronology of my map (something I did not like about TimelineJS).
The most effective approach has been through the Pembroke Facebook group, a page with over 4000 likes. It is a vibrant online community with daily updates, sometimes several times per day. Of course this is a specific public, one that has a certain nostalgia attached to it which is reproduced by the people. It is an online hub for strangers and neighbours to talk about Pembroke, post photos from the past, etc. It is not really an advertising page. So by using this page I am approaching a certain public, creating more publics when I post (for those who comment, like, read my post). Those who do nothing with my post are a public as well. For instance, maybe people do not reach out to me because they believe this historical project is for the much older times. Thus I must be more deliberate and explicit in that I can use anyone involved. I have even used family members to get an understanding of this era for Pembroke.
Does widening my 'advertising' space, thus creating and reaching more publics a better approach? This gets at how we value more information from more people as a better thing. I m not saying this is wrong at all - just because I point out an 'issue' does not deny its value. This widening method allows for a more diverse approach and thus a more diverse history from a variety of publics, intersecting or entirely apart from each other. Yet it does relate to open access. It is not necessarily that the open access and the internet allows me to approach more audiences, thus making this an inherently better project. Rather, I now engage with and create new publics - ones I would have never interacted with if I chose a more traditional approach. Social media create new avenues for open access projects - but these are not necessarily inherently better.
I remain painstakingly aware of the crux of critical public history: that our awareness of different publics and the various stakeholders are important in avoiding a singular history. Regardless of the fact that this digital environment has accessibility issues, I must take care to make the history itself accessible. This is not an idealism attached to open access. It is a recognition that if I am to be ethical - that is, attempt to recognize the different histories involved - I have to at least try to keep them potentially approachable. My first thought here is the Aboriginal histories involved. Thus I want to also create a way for people to share their stories. I want to make this website living. In conclusion, a meaningful history necessarily cares for the various stakeholders involved.