Representation is so important in all professions. I may want to do the right thing, but I know I do not have the same cultural familiarity and life experiences as someone from a different background. Preserving everything we can so that the source is still available when the right people want to access and interpret it seems like a valuable use of digital archiving.

It seems to me that only the wrong kind of people choose to manipulate this. Are there internet 'vigilante' groups on the internet that seek to prevent harmful tampering? Is there a way to monitor anything non-specific in such a large and abstract space?

I had no idea this was such a problem or that people would take advantage of it in such a way. I really shouldn't be surprised I guess. It is very concerning and infuriating. Whether or not someone central controls the internet, people will always take advantage of power or a lack of it. Just as some people are 'more equal than others,' 'some free speech is freer than others.'

This is definitely beneficial. This makes it so much harder to destroy information accidentally or intentionally. I think of all of the books burned in Nazi Germany and I am sure during other periods of social and political upheaval. Having access to digital information from multiple sources could help to combat propaganda and misinformation. The problem is that the masses do not always have the tools or knowledge to sift through the volume and complexity of information available. I wonder if work could or is being done in this area.

I have used the William Blake Archive in other classes. It is most useful to have a consolidated collection of an artist's works, particularly for a student who would otherwise have no access to such a treasure trove of artifacts and information. Digital archives are so wonderfully accessible. It is just a matter of knowing they are there.

This is very interesting. I would love to see the editing history of other works. Imagine all of the changes made to great literary and musical pieces. You would get to see not only the finished product but the process of the artist as well. Even being an accident, I think this is such an intriguing discovery. I wonder if anyone purposefully tracks edits for this purpose, or if, like me, they only use the document history if they have accidentally deleted something.

This truly does sound like detective work or a close reading of a poem. The smallest details are more important and interesting than you might think.

I find this so fascinating about physical sources. There is so much to be learned from the material, the written information, the art or pigments. It would be so easy for a single person entering information into a digital system to dismiss the small details that another might be able to find the significance of if they were to interact with the original object. I find that comments written on assignments can be hard to decipher and it can take two or three sets of eyes to figure out a word. This could be even more difficult when dealing with worn artifacts or documents.

It seems to me that there is a lot of room for error. Is there a requirement of any kind to acknowledge the margin of possible error when people are researching using these records as there is in scientific research?

This makes sense, but I had not thought of it before. I can imagine it would be very difficult to determine what information or artifacts should be prioritized in this process when so many interests and values are involved. Having representation from different communities would be so important in this process. Parts of history could easily be brushed under the mat and cultural stories lost if only people of a certain identity are making decisions around what information is important to preserve.

It is incredible just how much information is stored away. Before digitalized collections, it would have been incredibly difficult and time-consuming to access and compare records in different institutions. I often wonder how academics and researchers could ensure a thorough understanding of a topic when there could well be information they did not even know existed. I find it hard enough to know where to start even with the internet.

I honestly find it hard to believe that Twitter can be considered digital knowledge. Twitter in itself is known for its notorious spread of false information and toxic behavior. Nevertheless, thinking of a source as data to me is using accurate knowledge to better ones understanding or arguments on a specific topic. Any form of discovered knowledge can be considered data whether digitized or not, its just a term used to aid ones argument or understanding.

This could potentially be a great addition to historical and archivist professions. However, it does indeed bring in a potential social media context into historical works which historians and archivist may or may not be a fan of. It's hard to tell honestly how they would interpret this feature. While it could potentially be beneifical for others to share their or upload relevent histrocial context to varous works, it could also bring in some of the bad. for example just look at the toxic behaviors seen on twitter when someone makes a comment about some historical event. While twitter is indeed quite off topic, the idea of people publicly posting comments and opinions on historical work can't come without controversial backlash.

This makes sense from a logistics standpoint. Libraries (the big ones) host millions of works and the vast majority of people probably only read a small fraction of those. I would assume digitizing the entire holdings of a library would take a considerable effort even with access to OCR software. Nevertheless, this ties nicely with what we are learning this week since it pinpoints how exactly effective is OCR technology in the context of historical digitization?

I think we are at a point where the outcomes of digitization in the realm of historical documentation and archives are quite apparent. Having a "digital archive" over a "physical archive" in my opinion, offers more pros than cons considering the increased accessibility and efficiency of accessing historical knowledge. However, it is true that there is defiantly less of an emotional connection to work when millions of files are shown on your laptop screen versus physically analyzing them in person at some sort of historical library.

We need more of this; Not just in Canada, but worldwide. Archiving is a great way to store historical documents for future teachings; being able to digitize EVERYTHING, not just mainstream books that go through big publishers, gives everyone a chance to make history and get their truth out.

Although many do keep this as an option. There is a way to disable the defaulted signature and even put in a custom one for future uses. Usually I like to just leave my name and a quick thank you. But at times I have had the signature be quiet long and it has definitely saved me some time and headaches. So it is not always the case that an email was sent from a desktop if you don't see "Sent from my iPhone", I also know some people that purposefully delete the signature once they've written out the email in order to seem "more professional".

Although reasons may differ from place to place and situation to situation. I believe the preservation of sources by digitizing them allows for a better record to be kept. It also aid's in todays digital age where it is much more convenient for someone to log into their laptop and read a source while at home rather than having to travel to a library, or academic center in order to get the same information.

Thinking about the search function as a thing that has changed over time, either due to it's own functions or just the things it had access too is a bit mind bending.

You still run into the problem of history being written by the 'winners' too. It is easier to find and discuss things that were explicitly written but to read between the lines or consider what/who was left out of the written record is a more intricate process

Artifactual qualities must be easy to lose as a physical object is digitized and why the systems we learned about last week (dublin core, DCMI Vocab etc.) are so important to understand and utilize in digital humanities. This article has made me pause a few times to draw connections to or contemplate my own experiences.

This kind of blew my mind a little bit. I remember learning about primary and secondary sources in high school but it was mostly explained that wikipedia did not count as a primary source but it could lead to some good primary sources. I've never been taught this or thought of primary sources like this.

Digitization has many advantages, however, it creates a more mechanical exchange. When you're sending emails or taking pictures on the phone, it is a completely different experience than receiving physical letters or pictures. So although it is more efficient, it can take away from the meaningfulness of the act and make it less personal.

All social media uses meta data in one way or another. Instagram for example uses location tags, hashtags, and many other types of features to organize the app. There are so many ways in which these apps gather information to sort posts into groups and target specific audiences. Metadata is used everywhere I just did not understand the extent of it until recently.

There is so much information in metadata that is not easily accessible if you are not aware of it. It is interesting to note how much more information we can find if we know what to look for and how to look for it.

I do think libraries are still a viable and very useful resource but when I do have the option, I do tend to lean towards being able to read on my laptop or phone having a PDF version of whatever I am accessing in front of me. The rise in technology to do with this has also grown. I personally have never owned a kindle but I have used them back when I was in elementary school in 2010 (I know I'm getting old, don't let it sink in) and I will say it was a great way of not getting distracted while still reading digitally as there were no text messages or notifications to do anything else. Even today, Amazon now offers being able to purchase a book on a kindle and since they don't need to waste money on manufacturing the book/resource. They actually offer it at a discount compared to the physical copies.

This statement rings especially true for me. As someone who spends a large amount of time learning about technology and software, it can be absurd how complex our everyday household objects are. When trying to explain these ideas to someone who hasn't studied or invested a similar amount of time into the subject, it can be quite the challenge to reach an understanding on why something is or isn't working.

The idea that if people are not motivated by profit they will not do work

This leads to a whole other off-topic conversation about how authors are being held accountable directly and often very quickly after they publish a book and then whether or not to alter a book based on the loud feedback from readers.

I've had this experience, and it was frustrating. I wrongly assumed that I would access to past posted content from when I had my subscription.

I still think this way, with the exception of few things (like videos, personal blogs, emails etc), in the back of my brain I always think that you could track down a physical copy of the thing I'm lookin at on the internet.

I had no idea that the end of Obamacare had caused so many websites to stop running. The fact that they ceased so quickly and could've continued that way gives a lot of thought about how even though the internet is accessible and has no central control, there is still power structures and control.

This whole analogy was a really good way of putting into perspective what the internet goes through.

This reminds me how penicillin went unpatented by it's discoverer in hopes to have it be widely accessible.

I have often heard that the internet was and is to this day held up and maintained by a few people that started things as hobbies. I don't know how true this is but it does add to that mythos and magic feeling that the article mentions technology (and the internet) can have.

I actually hadn't thought about this. It is interesting that so many references now have "broken links." I wonder for some references, would providing the name of the article and the authors be a more effective way to source than providing a link? Since providing actual URLs may not work.

I think this is amazing to do but also could have some draw backs. It would need to have some sort of security measure as I think some text in any language, religion, culture is considered sacred and should be treated with respect but obviously the world does not work as it should all the time. In my opinion the collection should have two layers to it, one which would be open to general public and a second that can only be accessed through a certain code (which could be through application/online quiz/ etc..) that only allows people that actually care enough to learn to get access what is considered to more "sacred" important files. (although all files would be important)

I think this approach to the matter is a fantastic step forward to such a sensitive issue. The items being archived are no more the archivist's property than they are the institutions property. These records belong to a culture that we should aim to preserve independently of our own, and we cannot truly attempt such a feat if we try to claim ownership over every piece we host. After all, in essence, these records are knowledge that local indigenous communities are offering to preserve for us as opposed to it being lost to time. Some of it may never be shared with outsiders of that community, yet some of it may be shared, and surely that value alone would be worth the cost of the preservation programs.

To give an analogy to this idea, if you could prevent the library of Alexandria from burning, even though you may never personally access it, but others might, would you? or would you let it burn and lose an unknown amount of knowledge and history in the process.

To continue on from my other point, I also support this statement, at least in part. I think that if a survivor of this situation would like their reference to be privatized, then due consideration should be taken in such situations. However, I do not think it would be a good idea to abstain from digitizing records based on this merit alone. I think that a middle ground of blacking out personal information would be a good practice while still keeping the evidence and history of our past intact.

I think that it is important to keep these records of our nation's past as a reminder of where we came from and what horrid mistakes we made. Without these records, future generations may be doomed to repeat the same atrocities committed at residential schools, as well as other places. I also think that the ability to digitize and spread these documents allows the families of those affected to finally find closure in what has happened to their families.

I think it would be difficult to decide the best way for sharing history of Indigenous peoples. The memory institutions are interesting since they would provide insight for those that are not well informed on their past. It is important to know what Indigenous peoples would be okay with sharing this information though with proper credit to where or whom they got the items/information they are sharing. Ultimately it should be their decision on what, or if at all, to display to the public.