1,068 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2017
    1. surveillance capitalism

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

    2. digital history, unlike ‘regular’ history, is in principle reproducible.

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

    3. Value ‘fail’

      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.

    4. Style - they write with verve and fluidity, grace, clarity and cohesiveness

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

    5. we will learn how to scrape data, how to find meaningful patterns within it, and how to visualize

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

    1. So far, I have completed three essays while “writing in public,” relying on feedback from people I have never met in person.

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

    1. Is Google changing our historical consciousness

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

    1. Open Notebook scientists place a premium on sharing even the results of failed or small experiments

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

    2. It depends on what you mean by that term. In the world of software development, the decision to release, or make “open,” the source code for a program can mean two very different things.

      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.

    3. What would happen if historians made their research notes public? What would it look like to make our notebooks “open source”?

      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

    4. research notes public

      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?

    5. Microsoft Word’s “track changes” feature is essentially a version of version control, a way of seeing precisely how a text has been modified at a particular moment of time.

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

    6. But there is no easy way to tell when specific additions were made.

      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.

    7. By inviting others to see our work in progress, we also open new avenues of interpretation, uncover new linkages between things we would otherwise have persisted in seeing as unconnected, and create new opportunities for collaboration with fellow travelers.

      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.

    8. But that thinking dodges the full implications of the fact that trash (and treasure) are in the eyes of the beholder

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

    9. hard-won archival victories

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

    10. many historians on to platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, and Wordpress

      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.

    11. intellectual exchange, integrity, and honesty

      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.

    12. that someone is always watching, eager to find fault.

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

    13. so that errors can be more easily spotted and corrected

      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.

    14. Open Notebook Science (ONS) is the practice of putting one’s entire lab notebook online, so that other researchers have access not just to a scientist’s publications, but to the underlying data, methods, and experimental results that drive research projects forward

      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.

    15. we are usually willing to share sources when we are finished with them

      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.

    16. can mean two very different things

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

    17. archives of the universities

      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.

    18. research notes public

      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.

    19. I’m going to see what it’s like to keep an open notebook for my new book project.

      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.

    20. One possible way forward is to do as Open Notebook Scientists have done and create a stepped system of notifications that communicates to readers how much of a researcher’s notebook or source base is being shared.

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

    21. Digital notebooks, however, could overcome this challenge as well. The solution here is version control

      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.

    22. By inviting others to see our work in progress, we also open new avenues of interpretation, uncover new linkages between things we would otherwise have persisted in seeing as unconnected,

      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.

    23. Open Notebook scientists place a premium on sharing even the results of failed or small experiments, which often produce what scientists refer to as dark data.

      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.

    24. the decision to release, or make “open,” the source code for a program can mean two very different things.

      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)

    25. Many are willing to share old notes or sources with inquiring students or friends.

      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?"

    26. our writing is often hampered by the paralyzing fear “that someone is always watching, eager to find fault.”

      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??".

    27. but to the underlying data, methods, and experimental results that drive research projects forward.

      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.

    28. Digital history should embrace the impermanence of the medium, use it to convey the changing nature of the past and of how we understand it.

      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.

    29. scrutiny from more potential fault-finders, it is hard to see its attraction.

      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!)

    30. In most cases, though, open source software (OSS) is code that anyone can inspect and change even while the software is in active development. It’s software that encourages collaboration and sharing at the earliest stages of a project’s life.2

      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?

    31. Open Notebook Science (ONS)

      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.

    32. Thanks to the notebook’s digitization, modern readers are no longer so constrained; anyone with access to the Internet can now see what Phillips wrote without having to travel to the Boston Public Library in Copley Square, which is where the original resides.

      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.

    33. o that errors can be more easily spotted and corrected.

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

    34. but imagine how our publications might be enriched and improved if we lifted our gems to the sunlight before we decided which ones to set and which ones to discard?

      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?

    35. our scholarly values of open intellectual exchange, integrity, and honesty.

      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.

    36. what would it look like to make our notebooks digital and “open source” from the very beginning of a project?3

      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.

    37. but to the underlying data, methods, and experimental results that drive research projects forward.

      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.

    38. What if someone “scoops” an idea before it can be published? And what if a publisher won’t publish articles whose data and sources are already so open and available?

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

    39. The result is a vast repository of knowledge and thought hidden from public view, a black hole’s worth of historical “dark data.”

      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?

    40. Much like the stepped licenses that authors can choose from the Creative Commons, these badges encourage scientists to be more open about their research even if they cannot make their entire notebooks immediately “open source.”

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

    41. In most cases, though, open source software (OSS) is code that anyone can inspect and change even while the software is in active development. It’s software that encourages collaboration and sharing at the earliest stages of a project’s life.

      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.

    42. By inviting others to see our work in progress, we also open new avenues of interpretation, uncover new linkages between things we would otherwise have persisted in seeing as unconnected, and create new opportunities for collaboration with fellow travelers.

      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.

    43. Ultimately, however, the prevention of error is not the most exciting promise made by Open Notebook Science or Open Notebook History.

      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.

    44. What would happen if historians made their research notes public? What would it look like to make our notebooks “open source”?

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

    1. two images

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

    2. Try 'exporting to' pdf

      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.

    3. Go ahead and make some more changes to your repository. Add some new files.

      Anyone know how to do this?

    4. Open up your readme.md file again

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

    5. Google 'show hidden files and folders' for your operating system when that time comes.

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

    6. edit

      typo. should read 'exit'

    7. you let your collaborator know

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

    8. $ cd..

      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.

    9. what you're trying to do

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

    10. branch

      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.

    11. You can escape the git log by typing q

      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?

    12. Hit y, then when it asks you for the file name, hit enter.

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

    13. Click 'create repository'.

      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.

    14. Command line' allows you to interact with the computer at the terminal prompt or command line

      can someone explain this further please?

    15. get things just right

      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.

    16. You now have a folder called 'Spoon-Knife' on your machine! Any changes you make inside that folder can be tracked with commits. You can also git push -u origin master when you're inside it, and the changes will show up on your OWN copy (your fork) on Github.com. c. Make a fork of, and then clone, one of your classmates' repositories. Create a new branch. Add a new file to the repository on your machine, and then push it to your fork on Github. Remember, your new file will appear on the new branch you created, NOT the master branch.

      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.

    1. I follow in the footsteps of other women who sought to erode the distinction between public and private to reveal the politics underneath

      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.

    2. I draft all my work in documents shared with readers for comments and critique.

      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.

    3. Writing in Public is my small contribution to making visible the processes by which history making takes place. 

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

    4. I follow in the footsteps of other women who sought to erode the distinction between public and private to reveal the politics underneath.

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

    5. Writing in public counters this.

      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.

    6. These processes often leave the academic writer isolated.

      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.

    7. Writing in Public

      We're reading in public

    1. It is extremely difficult as someone who is part of a web publishing software project and has published different types of content-driven digital projects to sit on the sidelines for her own publication.

      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.

    2. Michigan was one of the first presses willing to experiment with and support digital-first writing projects

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

    3. The team is just now addressing my project, and trying to determine how to handle publishing two sets of images

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

    4. My project remains stuck as the digital and the editorial teams decide whether this will be mounted in original UMP platform, used in the Digital Culture Books series you’re probably familiar with, or the new Fulcrum platform, which to-date has only published online collections that serve as addenda for print books.

      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.

    5. (my online version contains nearly 90 images, and the print contains 39)

      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.

    6. He had a complete “manuscript” available through a URL, which he would have discovered had he looked at my digital project.

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

    7. WordPress

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

    8. Platforms and Domains

      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.

    9. This was the first I had heard of a print version.

      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.

    10. It is extremely difficult as someone who is part of a web publishing software project and has published different types of content-driven digital projects to sit on the sidelines for her own publication.

      That would be extremely frustrating.

    11. I really wanted to demonstrate that a junior scholar could mount their own digital project, have it peer reviewed in the open, and receive approval from a university press.

      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.

    12. Had I been asked two years ago if my project could have served as a prototype or guinea pig for the digital publishing initiative UMP is leading I would have been glad to help shape the development and design for authors producing narrative-driven digital publications

      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.

    1. Allowing anyone to link out to an author’s primary sources

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

    2. one of the only times a historians footnotes were so rigorously fact checked.

      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

    3. do we think historians will start to write differently

      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.

    4. as simple as clicking a link what do we think will turn up everyone else’s footnotes?

      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.

    5. When several historians rigorously fact checked Abraham’s footnotes

      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.

    6. if it became standard practice for historical journals

      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.

    7. you are only a click away from scans of many of the declassified primary sources Suri used to develop his argument.

      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.

    8. a brief

      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.

    9. challenge historians to consider methodological questions anew.

      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.

    10. Zotero Commons will facilitate exactly this kind of radical transparency for primary source material in historical scholarship.

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

    11. <shamelessplug>

      Not sure what this means?

    12. This kind of double checking doesn’t happen that often largely because it is so time consuming.

      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.

    13. you are only a click away from scans of many of the declassified primary sources Suri used to develop his argument. This gives the reader a radically transparent view into the source material supporting the case Suri argues.

      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"

    14. So, the question is, when it takes 15 seconds instead of 15 hours to fact check a source do we think historians will start to write differently, or otherwise change how they do their work?

      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.

    15. a brief 4 page adaptation

      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.

    16. as simple as clicking a link what do we think will turn up everyone else’s footnotes?

      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?

    17. This gives the reader a radically transparent view into the source material supporting the case Suri argues.

      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!

    18. Sunrise on Methodology and Radical Transparency of Sources in Historical Writing

      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).

    1. not incidentally, why it would not be a waste of time for those of us who work in those fields to take a good hard look at ourselves and the ways that we engage with one another, in order to ensure that we’re doing everything we possibly can to model the ways of being we’d like to see manifested in the world.

      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.

    2. paying attention, of listening, of reading with rather than reading against.

      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.

    3. engaging with the world

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

    4. Let us start with a basic definition of the humanities as a cluster of fields that focus on the careful study and analysis of cultures and their many modes of thought and forms of representation — writing, music, art, media, and so on

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

    5. That, in the face of such a world, I am noodling about the importance of listening for the future of the university may appear self-indulgent and self-marginalizing, a head-in-the-sand retreat into the aesthetic (or worse, the academic) and an escape from the ugliness of the Real 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.

    6. everything in their educations to that point had prepared them for interrogating and unpacking, demystifying and subverting, all of the most important critical acts of reading against the grain, but too little emphasis had been placed on the acts of paying attention, of listening, of reading with rather than reading against.

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

    7. by nudging us away from the notion that critical thinking and generous thinking are somehow opposed categories, in tension with one another, pulling us in different directions and requiring us to walk the tightrope between.

      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.

    8. to discover what we might learn if we are allowed to let go, just a tiny bit, of our investment in being right.

      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.

    9. our anxieties (and very real anxieties) about deprofessionalization, about association with the amateur,

      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.

    10. mutual goals

      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.

    11. genuinely hearing and processing what is being said to me, underwritten by the conviction that in any given exchange I likely have less to teach than I have to learn.

      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.

    12. what is to be gained from supporting a field that seems intent on self-dismantling.

      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.

    13. we hear one another’s interpretations (of texts, of performances, of historical events) and we push back against them. We advance the work in our field through disagreement and revision. And this agonistic approach, I want to argue today, is both the greatest strength of the humanities—and of the university in general—and its Achilles’ heel.

      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.

    14. humanities fields can thrive as fields, with their own majors, their own research problems, and their own values and goals.

      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.

    15. many of our fields are facing crises that we cannot solve on our own.

      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.

    16. Those of us whose work focuses on During’s “core humanities” are often understandably queasy about our fields’ development out of the projects of nationalism and cultural dominance,

      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.

    17. The purposes of basic research in the humanities, however, often feel a bit more hidden from view, as do the purposes of learning in those fields.

      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).

    18. the jobs crisis for humanities PhDs worsens;

      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.

    19. parents strongly encourage their students to turn toward fields that seem more pragmatic in such economically uncertain times, fields that seem somehow to describe a job; administrators note a decline in humanities majors and cut budgets and positions; the jobs crisis for humanities PhDs worsens;

      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.

    20. the jobs crisis for humanities PhDs worsens

      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.

    21. “core humanities,” which I take to mean the study of the canon within the long-established fields of English, history, philosophy, and the like — as intimately implicated in maintaining rather than disrupting social hierarchies.

      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.

    22. This marginalization is related, if not directly attributable, to the degree to which students, parents, administrators, trustees, politicians, the media, and the public at large have been led in a self-reinforcing cycle to believe that the skills our fields provide are a luxury in the current economic environment:

      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.

    23. I hope, by the end of this project, to have made a case for why this is not so — why, in fact, the humanistic fields studied within our institutions of higher education have the potential to help us navigate the present crises, if not to solve them

      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.

    24. cultivate a greater disposition toward listening, toward patience, toward engaging with what is actually in front of us rather than continually pressing forward to where we want to go.

      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.

    25. and it is important to understand that this disagreement does not necessarily mean that my definition is wrong.

      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.

    1. But still, we can learn quite a bit – shifting occupations of elected and defeated candidates, how party candidates may have changed over time, what occupations are overrepresented amongst the overall, the defeated, and the victorious – and I believe there’s a fantastic MA paper in this data.

      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!

    2. First, we can generate a list of the top twenty overrepresented names and the degree to which they were so:

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

    3. We’re relying on the data as it was submitted, so it’s not going to be perfect.

      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.

    4. people of a country should be able to access, read, and even manipulate the data that a country generates.

      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.

    5. when you hear ‘open data,’ the first thing that springs to mind probably isn’t a historian

      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.

    6. If moved over, however, it would be an incredible resource!

      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.

    7. Open government is, in a nutshell, the idea that the people of a country should be able to access, read, and even manipulate the data that a country generates.

      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.

    8. This is going to be a bit less developed, as one of the major CSV files is currently not working (I have a ticket in with the Open Data Ontario people). But check out what we have on births:

      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.

    9. people of a country should be able to access, read, and even manipulate the data that a country generates

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

    1. Rather than dozens of us all flying to Library and Archives Canada, taking our own photographic record of RCMP/CSIS records, say, wouldn’t it better if we cooperated more?

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

    2. it’s our data, we collected it, and if somebody else wants the data, they should collect it themselves.

      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

    3. as well as support the expansion of inter-disciplinary research

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

    4. Rather than dozens of us all flying to Library and Archives Canada, taking our own photographic record of RCMP/CSIS records, say, wouldn’t it better if we cooperated more?

      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.

    5. it’s our data, we collected it, and if somebody else wants the data, they should collect it themselves.

      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.

    6. The value of our work is too wrapped up in the scarcity of sources themselves, rather than just the narratives that we weave with them.

      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.

    7. Whenever I even think about archival trips, my back pre-emptively aches. It involves sitting or standing near documents, taking digital photographs.

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

    8. Digital History, Web Archives, and Contemporary history

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

    9. Rather than dozens of us all flying to Library and Archives Canada, taking our own photographic record of RCMP/CSIS records, say, wouldn’t it better if we cooperated more?

      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.

    10. it’s our data, we collected it, and if somebody else wants the data, they should collect it themselves.

      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.

    11. The value of our work is too wrapped up in the scarcity of sources themselves, rather than just the narratives that we weave with them.

      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.

    12. Rather than dozens of us all flying to Library and Archives Canada, taking our own photographic record of RCMP/CSIS records, say, wouldn’t it better if we cooperated more?

      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.

    13. were surprised that historians would even hesitate if they could share their research data.

      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.

    14. They’re flexible, in that ethics are respected (i.e. TCPS 2), but has a laudable goal: to enhance progress within fields of research, avoid duplication of primary collection of data (emphasis mine), as well as support the expansion of inter-disciplinary research.

      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.


    15. it’s our data, we collected it, and if somebody else wants the data, they should collect it themselves.

      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".

    16. avoid duplication of primary collection of data

      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.

    1. Australian Feminist Studies

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

    2.  I try to publish open access as frequently as possible and share that work online. Much of my paywalled work was written in public so drafts of it are available.

      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."

    3.  I try to publish open access as frequently as possible and share that work online. Much of my paywalled work was written in public so drafts of it are available.

      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.

  2. www.trevorowens.org www.trevorowens.org
    1. “ability to think outside the professional norm.”

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

    2.  The Theory and Craft of Digital Preservation (forthcoming) and Designing Online Communities

      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.

    3.  The Theory and Craft of Digital Preservation (forthcoming)

      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.

    4. “ability to think outside the professional norm.”

      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.

    1. My primary research focus is on how historians can use web archives.

      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.

    2. co-written collaborative textbook

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

    1. Highlights can be created by clicking the button. Try it on this sentence.


    1. Nevertheless, most journals still insist on submissions in .docx format.

      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.

    1. Virtual St Paul's Cross, which allows you to ‘hear’ John Donne’s sermons from the 1620s

      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.

    2. We know that she was a little uncertain about her age, and we know who lived up one flight of stairs, and down another. Almost randomly, we can now know an awful lot about most nineteenth century Londoners, allowing us to undertake a new kind of 'close reading'.

      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.

    3. but a working class female speaker in her 60s.

      What an amazing insight into her world.

    4. maudlin leavings of rich dead white men

      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.

    5. tell us what we already know.

      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.

    6. ‘normal’ word, for the date? or more challenging, for the genre

      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.

    1. Yet there is a kernel of truth to this (still, as of 2014), in that the teaching of digital history perspectives and method are not yet in the mainstream of the profession

      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).

    2. Tackling a dataset of this size, however, requires specialized tools. Once digitized, it was made available to the public through keyword searches. Big data methodologies, however, offered new opportunities to make sense of this very old historical material

      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.

    1. Digitisation projects in a world dominated by anglophone conversations and nationalist archives raise issues of the representation of subalterns and developing nations, of minority languages and digital deficits

      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.

    2. ‘DO NOT READ’, to become curious about what the official mind has masked

      Ineresting note.

    3. The historian working today can work with maps that layer atop each other decades if not centuries of international trade routes, population growth, average income, rainfall, and weather

      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.

    4. quantifiable data which is rarely put side by side.

      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.

    5. the time necessary to sort through it

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

    6. a range of tools are within the grasp of anyone

      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.

    7. index, the encyclopaedia, and the bibliography – came from the first era of information overload, when societies were feeling overwhelmed about their abilities to synthesise the past and peer into the future.1

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

    8. Information overload is not a new story in and of itself

      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.

    1. Doing digital history creates the conditions in which this abstraction from and modelling of primary sources bubbles to the surface.

      Good defintiion/explanation

    2. but it was useful to see that pattern playing out

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

    3. Gephi, made some Force Atlas

      Never heard of these...

    4. I made a spreadsheet. On that spreadsheet I recorded the title, date of publication, and publisher of every Isaac Cruikshank print I could get my hands on. I then recorded the places depicted in each print.

      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.

    5. ‘corpus level’ work

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

    6. appeal to the anticipated audiences

      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.

    7. At a early stage in the research into this chapter I grappled with how to think about why satirical artist-engravers produced different content for different London-based publishers

      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.

    8. Six Degrees of Francis Bacon

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

    9. The point is, I didn’t leave this digital stuff out because it was digital

      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.

    10. History writing is concise, precise, and selective

      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!

    11. not everything made it to the surface of the final product

      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.

    12. making and selling of satirical prints in Britain during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries

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

    1. Adding them just didn’t feel right because I don’t make an argument within them

      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.

    2. normalising those abstractions in preparation for analysis

      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.

    1. You push yourself until you get to the point where you are stumped.

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

    2. the productive fail’

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

    1. .csv and .tsv

      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.

    1. But most importantly, change is coming whether historians like it or not.

      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.