Was unfamiliar with this term. Googled it and realized doing so is participating in digital history. Neat moment for me.

is 'regular' history not also in principle reproducible. There are mountains of reproduced textbooks and historical writings. Am I missing the definition of reproducible?

I think this is an incredibly important part of history in general. Throughout the history of history there have been many failures. It seems to me that with such a grand scale as digital history can achieve the failures can be just as grand.

My favourite part of history in general! The written story is always a fun step to me.

Honestly not what I was expecting from this curse, but looking forward to it!

This is a very honest way to write and would take courage too, especially as a professional with a reputation at stake.

I find this statement particularly interesting since google is such a powerful entity in the study of history.

Other peoples failures can help you to learn from their mistakes, allowing you to make different mistakes and find new solutions

I found this interesting. Coming from my CS background, I always interpreted open-source as a simple indication that users were free to make modifications to the source code. The concept of the elephant graveyard of software is new to me.

I find this concept fascinating because it would also provide a window into the mind of the researcher- I find my research notes, although a mess, are oftentimes more fun to read as all my information is in them vs the final draft which had to have information edited out for the sake of maintaining an argument

Would a research project ever be complete if this were to be the norm? if anyone can constantly add too it, then will there ever be a real conclusion?

Track changes really help me visualize why and when information is there.

The timeline of when additions were made may not be important to the finished product but it would still be interesting to see the train of thought.

Collaborative work would mean new areas being explored. If multiple people come into one project with different avenues of thought it opens up the possibilities and depth of the research.

Even if a historian believes they're sharing trash, a new set of eyes could find something totally new. 'Trash' is subjective.

The historians doing the leg work should still get the credit they deserve.

This shows a progression of the field. Sharing snippets of work on social media is a god way to transmit ideas to a large platform. Condensing the gist of what you're doing to 140 characters may make more people intersted in your research.

Honesty i work is so important. It will also open up opportunity for historians to create counter arguments should they discover something else in the source material.

I've experienced this paranoia before too. I'd just hope it wouldn't cause others to omit true data.

This also relates to history and fact checking. If others are looking at your source material factual inaccuracies can be changed before they are passed on to more people.

This full open notebook idea seems a little excessive to me. You should be able to keep some of your findings and methods private, for your own benefit. It's not selfish just strategic.

This makes sense to me. Once you are done with something you often give it away. In this instance, the sources an be further combed for more arguments to be made.

It would be helpful to have a strict definition of "open" in this context.

Sharing learning is a way to assist others in their educational career. Its a nice thing to do, but I definitely understand why not all historians do this. Long hours went into the notes, they should be yours to do what you please with.

I'd imagine this would run into issues dealing with giving credit sometimes. You're getting your information from the historian who studied a primary source, not the primary source.

He obvioiusly sees the potential in open notebooks; by undertaking his research in this way, he is going to see which challenges arise, and will likely investigate ways in which to mitigate them which could lead to developments in this area.

I think that this would be a great impementation so that researchers could trace where their work goes.

If this were more of a standard, perhaps people would be more inclined to share their research because it could be traced back to them.

No two people will look at something the exact same way, and will have different but valuable contributions to offer. Caleb McDaniel seems to see the value in openly sharing work.

This isn't making use of the productive fail. Perhaps where one researcher went wrong, another could find a different approach. Hiding these failed results inhibits the possibility of resolving or developing these ideas.

It is important to distinguish between allowing people to access your work and modify the original, or to allow access and modification through version control (which is what I assume Caleb McDaniel is alluding to)

True, people would be more inclined to share their work with people they know and trust. They may have the mindset, "Why would I want to share my hard work with total strangers, who may take the credit?"

Even as a student, this is something that I struggle with. I am constantly scared to publicly share my thoughts/opinions, as I am always asking myself "but what if I am really wrong??".

This reminds me of math class, my teachers always said you could not get full points with just your results. You had to show, every step you took to get to your results.

I think this is a noble idea but I still get anxious at the idea of embracing a changing medium where previous work in an out-of-date format may be lost to future digital historians. I know that the same could be said of paper sources, but with digital sources they are only lost because someone does not not where to look online, rather than the multitude of ways paper sources can be lost or destroyed.

I love this quotation, it is both humourous and accurate! Academics don't want more pressure on their work (though critics and readers certainly would like it!)

would this mean that id a historian is researching something and another historian or anyone, for that matter, is researching the same thing that the second person can modify the first's research/findings?

This is a very good idea (allowing people to get a larger picture of the scientist's work) but this could also lead to having more information that needs to be sorted through to get the information one is looking for. So this would end up taking up a lot more time in the research process.

It'd also be nice if they had an other window of it in a computer generated text rather than Philips hand writing. This would reach more viewers to be able to understand his research.

You would need like a team to do this, because a person questioning your work may not always be right.

I completely agree, I understand other classmates comments about the fear that academics may have about others stealing their ideas and publishing first. The prestige that comes with a published work is very important yet won't collaboration and the sharing of ideas before publication help shape and refine a work even more? Would it not benefit to have various perspectives and collaboration through various fields in as many projects as possible?

This aspect of open notebooks is what really appeals to me, I love the concept of being able to share ideas with people worldwide to receive honest, positively constructive feedback.

I'm very interested to see how having digital open source notebooks would influence the way we practice history. I think it would lead to greater collaboration but could also present a challenge when it comes to identifying authorship. If anyone can access your work at every stage, what's to stop them from using it as their own? I think there's still a lot to figure out, which makes it so exciting as it is very new and evolving before our eyes.

This is a great idea. It is very important for people to understand the whole process that another researcher has taken in order to get all their information.

Interesting idea. How will academia deal with copyright issues as open-data grows and becomes more prevalent?

This is a really good point. In this era of 'fake news', there is so much important and relevant academic knowledge that's shut away in pay-to-view repositories normally only accessible for other academics. Why write these papers if they can't be viewed and used by most people?

Interesting idea, but it might be difficult to prevent this concept from strangling the very reason open source might be effective.

Is this not a scary concept though? Having your research notes - effectively the foundation of your work - so publicly available and open might invite people to mess with your work. Definitely some pros and cons here.

I don't think Caleb fully explores the possibilities for collaboration in this blog post, but he certainly seems open to them. With Hypothes.is, we can see how browsing through other people's reading notes might help us to identify a book or article of interest or grok an insight that eluded us on first reading.

One of the things I find exciting about open notebook science and history is not the prevention of error, but rather the sharing of error. Caleb might say it later in this blog post, but much of science and history is the finding of null results. In chemistry you might try 30 experiments to eliminate possible reagents or identify the most potent reagent. We tend to publish the 31st experiment, the ultimate, positive finding, but if we also shared our notes on the 30 earlier experiments, we would more rapidly advance knowledge and save each other time. Similarly, sharing that an archive doesn't have certain resources is often as valuable as publishing on the cool resource they do have.

This is the article that got me excited about open notebook history a couple years ago.

Finally figured this out!

Not sure if there's a way to embed the image, so I assumed the links to the images would be okay.

I tried exporting as pdf from Dillinger.io, but it displayed an error. When I exported html it worked. Did you have this issue? Follow up: When I did this (twice) I was at a coffee shop using wifi. I just tried this at home (still using wifi) and it works quickly. I can't explain the original error. Dillinger.io seemed to time out.

Anyone know how to do this?

how do you open the readme.md file? I can't seem to open it up no matter what command I type into DHbox..

bookmarking this for when I want to change the default behaviour of the hidden .git file on DHBox

typo. should read 'exit'

If you are looking for a collaborator I am too.<br> (Please see replies, I misread the instructions, no live collaborator needed.)

I started 4.6 the next day after 4.5 and logged back on to DHBox. When I did a cd .. I was put into the /home directory. So I did a cd jeffblackadar to get back to my working directory (I don't know the real name for this) Suggest doing a pwd first to check where you are, then if you are in the repository directory do a cd .. to get to the directory above it. If you are working straight through, you can ignore this.

Trying to do about what? I didn't understand what we were supposed to explain so I just typed "Trying to figure out DHbox".

For clarity I think this "branch" matches "branchname" in the previous command. It's clear in the example a couple lines below, "experiment" is the new branch name. Just mentioning per a double-take I had.

After I type git log, the cursor returns for me. For whatever reason I don't need to type q to get out of the git log. Maybe because my log is short right now?

This part is a little unclear. I had to name the file to get out of nano. Simply hitting "enter" didn't do anything.

I created a repository in Gitbub. Then I was asked to do a "Quick setup — if you’ve done this kind of thing before." Apparently I need to run some commands to set up necessary files like a readme.md. This is different than when I made my first repository. I am wondering if I am seeing this because I already made a repository and the first one gets set up with all of the necessary files (like readme.md) out of the box. I am not sure what to do, I expect I will learn about the commands Github expects me to run in exercise 4. I mention this because I can`t really proceed to the next part of this exercise until I solve this.

can someone explain this further please?

Me in first year trying to get pages (mac wordprocessor) to get page numbers to start on the second page rather than the title page.

Can someone help me out here?

I don't know how to quite make changes inside that folder? I have it installed but I don't know the command to enter it if that makes sense? I scrolled up and I think i'm missing how to do that.

I personally found this to be awesome. Moravec has very strong beliefs about politics being transparent. It's good to see her concept of transparency applied in more than one situation.

I admire her for doing this! I think this is something I would find overwhelming at times if many people were commenting before I had the opportunity to finish the thought.

Fascinating quote. I'd like to explore the processes by which history making takes place more thoroughly.

I like how she carries on this tradition that promotes transparency, by using transparency. She evidently puts into practice what she believes in.

I kinda like the idea of writing something than publishing it and hearing feedback. If your writing something and constantly hearing feedback, it's going to change a lot of what your doing and also cause a long delay in the process of getting something published. Of course, this is just one con I'm pointing out.

This is exactly (I think) what Caleb McDaniel was speaking about when he discussed the idea of an open-source notebook. Historians, and academics in general, are curious people. Sharing knowledge and findings, as well as ideas are intrinsic to pursuing a career in academia. However, the societal pressures on academics that keep them isolated go against the very nature of curiosity and collaboration, which in turn impede and isolate academic writers.

We're reading in public

I can't imagine putting in so much work and effort, then leaving it in the hands of people who don't seem to know what they're doing despite the fact that they should. This is perhaps one of the caveats of collaboration.

It's surprising how seemingly few publishers are willing to support open-access projects.

We need editors who specialize in digitized work like this (however, they might exist and i'm just simply not aware of them)

I think that any online publication that is free for students or researchers to access (even better free for the public) is what is 'generous' in publishing. Anyone that is willing to have their work available for free simply for the benefit of those wanting to learn more about whatever it is you wrote about.

As a fan of visuals I would be interested into seeing how the varying amount of visuals would impact the overall quality of the finished piece.

The author is making abundantly clear the obstacles that can arise using technology.

Wordpress is so user friendly and offers great results. I enjoy running Wordpress on my blog.

I think, in a way, the new generation of historians have an advantage in this area. Having grown up with technology as a larger part of our lives than older generations systems may seem more intuitive to us. That's not to say technology and comfortableness with it cannot still be learned and is an area that is continually changing.

It would be interesting to see the differences in the print vs. online publications of this project (including the different amount of images). As something that wasn't meant to be in print I think that seeing how the online version compares to the print version could be an interesting example of how the internet can work in these types of projects.

That would be extremely frustrating.

This is an important experiment that, when successful can aid in emliminating some of the fears about being reduced to the amature which Kathleen Fitzpatrick discusses in her article on "Generous Thinking". Completing this project would show scholars in the humanities that they can display their work on a digital platform while still retaining the same professional accreditations that a standard journal article would have.

This point is important in understanding that it will be a difficult process trying to make any changes in the current academic institutional format. Big changes on both the institutional and individual levels will be required.

I think this feature is brilliant and going to be great for research in the future

Students often live in fear of getting called on plagiarism because they didn't cite something correctly but the idea that a historian- someone far more advanced in the field of study than an undergrad student- put work out into the public and was expecting it not to be fact checked is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around

I do believe historians will be held more accountable. There may be more effort into ensuring accurate work is presented. However, an unfavourable outcome may occur in which historians omit information to protect the documents from being linked to the article.

Having links in footnotes would be such a valuable source of information. Not only would it hold authors more accountable it would be more easily accessible to those who wish to read it.

Fact checking can be such a time consuming but important task. It would be nice if all the information published could be verified without a doubt. That would lessen the amount of misinformation translated and allow historians to uphold their dignity. However, that is unrealistic considering how much time would be required to fact check. As misinformation is published it may be used and adapted into further material, lengthening the effect the information has.

If it became standard practice for historical journals it could cause other historians to become more familiar with the source material. Which, in turn, would allow them to furhter develop the research if so desired. It could potentially offer another argument on the topic. Offering up your source material would open a dialogue to further learning.

That's such a neat multimedia feature. I think adding links adds validity to the authors statements and an extra layer of material for the eager reader.

Making scholarly articles shorter and more concise will make them more accessible to a wider variety of people. Some people can take a genuine interest in something but not have the capacity to read a 30 page article. Something so long can be intimidating, especially to someone newly interested in a topic.

Good example that highlights the progress being made in the history field. The field is adapting and progressing into the digital era, as the world around us changes, so must we. being stagnant will only harm ones success. All academics have to understand that they must keep up with the world around them.

Trevor Owens recognizes that Zotero Commons will facilitate collaboration by making it more easy to track sources and access bibliographies of others.

Not sure what this means?

It seems that people predominantly make the time to double-check their work, but are more reluctant to invest that time in the work of others. I believe that open collaboration projects would help to minimize or alleviate this.

I've actually seen this method used in online articles and on social media (facebook/tumblr) and I think it's becoming more standard for readers of our generation to expect links to proof (or "receipts" as it is often termed in social media). What I'm trying to say is that linking to sources directly is no longer seen as "radically transparent"

It would make sense that fact checking becoming quicker would cause historians to do it more often but I don't think that anybody wants their work to be unreliable even without this. It could possibly be that fact checking made easier might allow historians to find facts they did think to look for before because they previously only wanted to do only as much as necessary to begin with.

Once again high lightening something that has been mentioned in last week's reading. The importance of narrowing down information for the reader and selecting what was most important.

Maybe there needs to be a new way of judging digital academic works. Not necessarily lowering standards, but perhaps having more flexibility in terms of footnotes and sourcing?

Not only this, but it allows readers to be collaborative in their own ideas with those of the author on a much more personal level. Interesting how technology and both keep people away and bring them closer together at the same time!

Looking back on this article from nearly a decade down the road, I find the optimism of this article really interesting. While we can see the use of the hyperlinks in this article and in most modern blogging, scholarly articles are still most often rendered as ersatz versions of traditional paper journals. I would love for all articles (or even a majority) to be well linked, but I'm not sure who the labor of this work falls on (authors or editors).

This is a good point, often the focus is observing others and it can be easy to forget the part you personally play/can contribute.

I totally get that, in school it was about trying to make up our own opinions and guessing why the curtains in Giovanni's Room were blue, for example, as opposed to actually reading and appreciating the flow of the story.

I strongly agree with this statement. The humanities help one contextualize the world they live in.

I believe the humanities are very important to our understanding and appreciation of the world.

The author is really focusing on how her words may be critiqued. I suppose this makes sense based on the information she posed earlier about reading against the author. Even so, pointing out all the ways her words can be misinterpreted makes her seem really aware of her readership.

I can really appreciate this quote. We can be critical readers more often than readers with a desire to actually understand.

It's kind of sad when it is put this way. Perhaps this is part of why there is such an emphasis (through annotations and slack) of working together in this class.

Very important that people learn to admit their mistakes and avoid attaching their self-worth to being right. We are all human, and we WILL make mistakes so we shoudn't succumb to societal constructs that being wrong is a bad thing.

These qualms should be less of a driving force for the open sharing of research. The research seems to create high personal stakes (i.e funding, reputation) that make the researcher vulnerable to the ideas and criticisms of others.

If only digital history was regarded as this. The sharing of information and research, as I mentioned in another annotation, is for a collective benefit.

This is an important mindset to embrace. You learn so much more by listening than by speaking. Taking on this type of mindset, in my opinion, results in almost the same thoughts/convictions as those deduced from critical thinking because you are subconsciously contrasting new information with what you already know, and either solidifying or formulating an opinion.

This is an interesting point. I think what she's getting at is that if a subject or field is analyzed to its core, information and conclusions can change many times and this, to some people, may be regarded as a lack of progress.

Kathleen Fitzgerald recognizes the importance of learning through debate and presenting opposing views. This is directly related to the notion of collaboration and working in the public so that there is opportunities for such dialogues to arise.

The humanities are always evolving, and they are diverse. This combination makes it more challenging, but not impossible to thrive. I just think it will take some time to determine which are the most appropriate methods for carrying out research and doing it justice so that it becomes more of a widely-recognized field.

Kathleen Fitzgerald seems to be implying that we have to work together in order to progress and to tackle problems that we can't do on our own.

This reminds me of the discussions historians had about Harper's focus on Canada's military history being used to further a nationalistic agenda. The amount of money put in the remembrance of the war of 1812 and the renaming of the museum of civilization to the museum of history are two such examples.

I agree with this. The purposes of studying in the field of humanities sometimes takes a bit of thought to articulate (maybe at times the reasons can be abstract). However, this article does a good job at listing a few purposes for studying in this field (see beginning of previous paragraph).

I have a cousin right now who is getting her PhD in Sports Medicine and one of her colleges just finished and moved back to Porto, Portugal and we actually went out to see her three weeks ago, and she was explaining to me, no one will hire her. And with the jobs she is looking at, they are only willing to give her a masters salary. She's saying shes going to have to move to find something too. It's really hitting everyone.

My personal opinion is that you have to find something you enjoy doing. Your not going to go get a PhD in something if your not happy with it. Not all of us are cut out for medicine or law. Personally, I think I would hate both. I'm fortunate that my passion is a 'professional career' but if i did not enjoy school, there be no way in hell i'd be still at school at 4am on a Friday night, and not because i'm behind but because i'm just barley keeping up. I think you shouldn't push your child into something they don't want to be, and an arts degree opens doors. A degree is a degree, you may not get a job immediately like someone in medicine, but hey, your still ahead than where you were four years ago.

This is another cycle which I have experienced firsthand, I have been taught by a professor over two years who is without a doubt one of the best professors I have ever had. He did not have a permanent position in the university though students had lobbied for his appointment. When less students are drawn to humanities, there becomes fewer posiitons for people to teach the humanities, which, as Fitzpatrick points out, perpetuates the decline of the study of the humanities.

I agree that the canon within the fields of the humanities has largely remained the same, thereby maintaining the social hierarchies. There has been more of an awareness more recently for the need to expand the canon, which is occurring very slowly as academics argue over which texts to keep and which to add.

As someone currently in a humanities program, I completely agree with this. Since deciding on my program of study I have been told countless times that I will have difficulty finding a job with a humanities degree. Even when reassured that my degree offers me many job options, people seem to dismiss the importance of the humanities in contrast to 'more secure' programs. There definitely needs to be a change to remove the belief that the humanities are becoming irrelevant within today's economic environment.

Fitzpatrick shows a great awareness of the lenses through which her words may be perceived. I think it's very smart that she is able to acknowledge that the issues she is addressing may seem insignificant to some people, while arguing for their importance. In studying the humanities, I completely agree that the they have the potential to help in countless ways, but only if people in the discipline are willing to change things.

Being able to actually recognize the argument of a piece of writing is something which is not commonly taught, especially in high school. Fortunately, I've had a professor who emphasized the importance of identifying the argument and helped our class learn how to do so step by step. I've found it to be especially useful when reading as it makes you engage more thoroughly with the text.

I think in light of our discussions on open research, this point is valid. Just because we put ourselves out there for criticism and discussion doesn't mean that contrary opinions are wrong. Of course, sometimes it does.

When I studied abroad at the University of Liverpool, I actually took a class focusing on the UK general elections between 1945 & 2015. The amount of data that I had been collective was massive, and we only focused on certain parts. Very interesting to look at and analyze for a poli sci student like myself!

This is really interesting application of digital tools. This data is fascinating when displayed visually.

More minds working may mean more confusion comes up. Such as not grouping the categories as efficiently as possible, varying ideas don't always come together appropriately in collaborative work.

I believe accessing and reading data that the government generates is a big step towards fair transparency. However, manipulating could cause further problems as data becomes manipulated in different directions.

Fair point, 'open data' can mean a variety of things to different people. History is often cast in a way that seems very tradition and 'old fashioned' based on the very principles of the field.

It appears from the readings so far that getting data online and shared with everyone is a process that takes a lot of time but would, for historians, be a good resource.

I think this is a good start, but not everyone will know what to do with this information, and how. I myself, was under the impression that this sharing of data was primarily related to bureaucratic or financial aspects of the government. I found it really interesting and helpful that later in this article, Milligan demonstrated firsthandely with some examples what could be done with the data.

This type of information is important to note because for example it help businesses out to help gear their sales to certain customers. So not just historians can make use of this.

This seems like a good idea, but the implications on census statistics and such seems dangerous somehow.

Could people be skeptical about this because they are worried it would eliminate jobs/make the field more competitive??

As others mentioned, I too understand where this comes from. I know I used to be like that a lot, until the situation changed and I was the one who needed it from someone else - 'sharing is caring' is how i go about now

A theme that I have noticed within this weeks and last weeks reading

Are there not already online copies of books and articles? It seems kind of "old school" to travel to another city to find a book or article.

this is what I meant about having open research, the last person who contributes to the project, for example, get's credit for everything that everyone else did before him even though he used their findings.

Doing the laborious parts of a job can be a pain, and I can see why anyone doing so would want to have credit and control over the material they uncovered. However, as long as their shared work is in an equally reciprocal relationship I believe there would be many benefits to sharing primary sources.

This sometimes tedious task could become so simple with full digital archives. But, of course, that is a huge task.

IT's nice to see how a user friendly and customizable program like Wordpress is used professionally.

Interestingly, I think there's already an amateur community of family historians who do a great job with this kind of cooperation. I know from my dad's 10+ year quest to dig up our family's history that collaboration between individuals in the online genealogy community is really common. These communities share all kinds of data, and not all of it comes from centralized sources like national archives, but also the local level. From what I've observed, there's a kind of reciprocity that exists in these communities. Interesting to consider whether how to pressure to publish original research in academic may contribute to a kind of hoarding of information on the part of professional researchers.

I definitely understand why a researcher would feel this way, but to be fair, if your means of collecting data is scanning old documents it strikes me that the data you collect is already less "yours" than if it came from an experiment or from your own field research. And really, to expand on that further, does any data concerning human participants/subjects ever really belong wholly to the researcher? Surely such data belongs more so to the people being studied (even if they're long dead) than the researcher.

I think that until this mindset changes among historians (and other academic fields) open-source research will not take off. If we value the sources over how we interpret and synthesize them than we will continue to meet incentives to hoard academic research rather than open it up.

This definitely seems to make sense it would save a lot of time and effort to share but I'm curious if may be there no way around doing everything separate.

I can see why this would be a concern. I mean nothing would be worse than you starting a research project, than someone else seeing what you are doing, does it better and publishes it prior to you and they get the credit for the idea.

This is what I was saying and I notice that others commented on in a previous article. We should be looking at getting the information out there, working with various other fields as much as possible, attempting to create work that is not just 'mine' but ours. Any advancements done in research or anything else should be seen as an advancement for all and hopefully it is. This is why open notebooks and changing digital archives and archive policies will help this become a reality or stronger reality then it is today.

http://wcm1.web.rice.edu/open-notebook-history.html

When everything is boiled down, I do think this is likely the final underlying objection. Perhaps it is human nature and just as children grab back their favourite toy, we will always need to resist the urge to announce "that's my research".

Of course it is a good idea not to waste time, money, and effort collecting the same piece of data, but can't anything be said for the process of handling old documents or of taking in the fragile paper, faded text, or other contextual aspects? After all, people do still enjoy reading a paperback.

Never heard of this/what it would be compared to American/Canadian feminist studies.

Moravec seems to recognize that conducting research open-access not only is a tool for collaboration, but a way to document the way her approach to the subject and her findings evolve. This affirms her previous statement that she is "also interested in the methodological implications of doing history digitally (How Digitized Changed Historical Research) as well as the ethical implications of digitizing archival materials."

Moravec is very mindful of the benefits of open access, the level of focus she pays to ensuring her work is accessible truly shows her approval of the changes taking place within history scholarship.

Thinking outside the norm is usually a sign of progress. As historians adapt and the field adapts Owens' ideas will be the norm.

Owens seems to be someone with great interest in technology and developing digitally. I think this mindset os very progressive for the field and will do it well.

I wanted to look into this book a bit more and followed the link. One quote that I found represented his stance on collaboration was, "I’ve gotten the OK to share drafts of the chapters as they start to come together. I’ve found that I benefit dramatically from doing my writing in the open where folks can help me refine and sharpen my ideas before they end up fixed in any particular medium.” http://www.trevorowens.org/2016/12/theory-craft-of-digital-preservation-my-next-book/

Trevor Owens knows the value of open collaboration because it can take a project in directions that it may not have gone by working alone. He sees collaboration as something that positively impacts his work.

This is so important to do, because technology changes so fast and society needs people who are able to mold to the changes and find new ways of doing things.

It would be interesting to see his perspective on some of the points from Caleb McDaniel's article: Zotero Commons, and also the idea of being able to trace where your reasearch goes.

Milligan collaborated to write a textbook, so he must have a positive inclination for working with others.

Hello

This is something I encounter when I submit assignments for class. I don't have the Microsoft Office suite, I use LibreOffice (formally Open Office - Linux) and while the two programs are similar, they are not the same. I constantly need to consider formatting and how I save my files because while LibreOffice can open and use .docs, Microsoft will not open .odt. Frustrating.

Wow, what a cool project. As this is my first intro into digital history I like learning about some interesting avenues it can take. This one in particular sounds really fascinating.

This is such a good use of data. I think it is interesting to get to know specific characters but even more useful to compare that to the general public. Getting an insight to a group of people that would be hard to know is important.

What an amazing insight into her world.

It's always important to take into account who were the recorders of history. Rich dead white men would've had a very different experience and prioritized recording different things than a member of a minority.

I guess that is also true, we know of the big impactful events. But, I still believe it would be interesting to see how it impacted literature. Maybe you would not be able to form an argument out of the data, but it would be an interesting visual.

What an interesting tool! The data on this I'd imagine could be pretty overwhelming, but once you've dug through the superfluous stuff I bet there'd be interesting trends.

I can definitely relate to this. I've had very little exploration from other HIST classes into the tools discussed above. It's unfortunate considering the overwhelming importance of some previously hidden trends (as evidenced above).

I find it fascinating that the evolution of digitising history continues to create exponentially more opportunities for historians and the public to data mine precisely. Each building block within the process allows more refined information gathering and encourages the "forking" of thought paths.

So many aspects of the world are designed for anglophones as technology improves the ability to translate and transmit projects to different areas should improve though.

Ineresting note.

Keep in mind causation vs correlation when working with big sets of data. It may be interesting to visual different aspects of time, but that doesn't mean they are directly related.

Humanity's skills at record keeping have surely improved overtime. Record keeping provides more data to work with and will make it easier for future historians to gain knowledge about a certain area.

Programs that hel comb through bug sets of data using key words and other elements are sure to help, right?

What an interesting time we live in. New technology and ways to access information has definitely opened up the possibilities for what people ca do. I'm not so sure too many people are educated enough on what's out there to take advantage of these opportunities though. I'd imagine academia still take the vast majority of opportunities in digital humanities.

Fascinating! Those tools (which seem pretty basic now) are still so helpful and vital.

Information overload makes me think of how social media has changed how we interpret the world around us. We are so surrounded by world news and random information as we browse the internet it can sometimes be too much to fully process.

Good defintiion/explanation

Seeing data can always help me ingrain the information more completely in my mind.

Never heard of these...

Organizing data can either be a wonderful practice or the source of continuous frustration. Either way, having finished spreadsheets make moving forward so much easier. It is so much easier to reference information that is organized and easily accessible.

A lot of repetition of this phrase, but I don't believe I am fully grasping what he means by this.

It's important to remember your audience. Although it would be fun to constantly work on 'passion projects' where you write material/do research with yourself in mind, that's not always realistic. Know your target audience and figure out what appeals to them seems to be the point here.

I enjoy posing questions to myself as I begin a project. I think it's important to answer my questions in my work. If I have them, maybe readers do too. It appears like Baker was working through his own questions as well.

Just checked out the website! What beautiful data! I all honesty I had only heard of the six degrees of Kevin Bacon before this...

Digital elements can be very helpful and help bring a project into a more modern realm of history. But, just because they are digital does not mean they add value. It is important to recognize this.

This description of writing reminds me of what I've learned in my journalism classes. Get to the point and don't be superfluous in doing so!

Making work concise and ensuring every element strengthens the quality of the project is important. A sign of growth is being able to acknowledge what aspects of your work can be cut.

What a niche subject, it's interesting to find where some historians decide to take their research!

Is it wrong to not make an argument within data? If the visual representation of the data added background information or could help the reader visualize the topic would it not still be okay to include them? I think of it as the introduction in an essay. You make arguments but you need to offer thee reader information as well, to ensure you have evidence to back up further points.

This language is a little unfamiliar to me. I can figure out what it means but I am definitely not used t this style of writing/word choice. Maybe this course will expand my vocabulary a bit as well.

Interested to see what challenges I will face in this course. It's a little bit intimidating but I'm trying to stay optimistic.

Not my strong suit, I know I can be pretty stubborn and get frustrated with 'failing', will work on this!

This is a very useful paper. Minor comment about .csv and .tsv. Commas and tabs can be problematic as delimiters for data meant to be structured on columns when a field may contain a comma or a stray tab. Choose a delimiter that is not as risk of being in the data already.

As a communications and digital humanities student, the way that the humanities are evolving is very essential in order to keep up with more traditional "techy" areas of study. Technology, social media and the expectation/need to access what you're looking for in an instant is real and isn't going anywhere. Plus. the "humans" that the humanities are observing, studying, working with are all influenced by technology in one way of another so it only makes sense to understand the technology that shapes us as people in a shared technological society.