Figure 1-6 and 1-7 look very different, and it could be hard to see that they are documenting the same set of data. This manipulation of data and how it is viewd can be used for very specific intents. If I wanted a client to see that my business has a consistent viewer rate, I would show them them figure 1-7's monthly chart, because of how smooth it looks. To me at first glance, it seems much more "consistent" than figure 1-6, with all of its spikes.

This is also an important part of marketing. While there is a specific "thing" or "data" that is being produced, the facts are not necessarily all that you're looking for. You want to look at how this connects to the readers or buyers, what it makes them feel and think. Ultimately, the goal is to make these people buy into the thing/idea etc. being sold, .

I think the whole idea of visualizations and statistics is to create something relateable. Without providing context there would be no way for the general public to interact with the data without intense reading and critical analysis. And, let's be honest, who really wants to do that much thinking about every little thing? Creating visualizations help us all to understand complex ideas easier.

It also helps us to visualize these complex data sets to see patterns and themes that could have otherwise been overlooked. Not only do these visualizations help the general public to understand, it also helps professionals in their field analyze data within different contexts to see all of the potential.

This reminds me of this Reddit page

The page takes pictures and texts from other Reddit pages and uses it to create computer generated posts and comments. It is interesting to see the intelligence and quality of understanding grow as it gathers more and more information.

If the majority rules search engine results, the majority could also rule over the content. if the majority of the online population are sexist, then the majority of the results when searching even a simple/general term such as "cars" could be more searched by men, but also have more content created by men, especially men who are "middle class" or higher who could afford to purchase a car and own a technology capable of using a search engine.

It makes me think... What searches would come from people who were struggling financially and did not usually have access to a computer? What would they search first? And how would that impact the popular searches and content?

The majority of Canada's populace are not low income, but what would happen to results in other countries (or even ours)where low income is the majority, and they were all given access to search technologies?

• I wanted to highlight the previous sentence as well, but for some reason it wouldn't let me*

I understand why the author is troubled by the campaign's opinion of "It's not the search engines fault". It makes it seem as if there was nothing that could be done to stop promoting those ideas, and that if something is popular it will just have to be the result at the top.

This can be problematic, as people who were not initially searching that specific phrase may click through to read racist, sexist, homophobic, or biased information (to just name a few) that perpetuates inaccuracies and negative stereotypes. It provides easier access into dangerous thinking built on the foundations of racism, sexism, etc.

If the algorithms are changed or monitored to remove those negative searches, the people exposed to those ideas would decrease, which could help tear down the extreme communities that can build up from them.

While I do understand this view, I also think that system can be helpful too. All the search engine does is reflect the most popular searches, and if negative ideals are what people are searching, then we can become aware and direct their paths to more educational and unbiased sources. It could be interesting to see what would happen if someone clicked on a link that said "Women belong in the kitchen", that led them to results that spoke about equality and feminism.

It seems to me that the Digital Humanities has an ever changing broad definition that is hard to explain to cover all corners of this field. What I've understood from this site specifically, is that DH is a field concerned with the presenting of documents, artifacts, and materials (simply, the knowledge) gathered throughout history in ways that build connections and provides context using the medium of technology.

What a helpful resource! Not only is this a highly valuable record of history, it has other materials and essays to supplement that knowledge

I believe that the collaboration between subjects is necessary to understand ideas and theories in a more holistic way. To successfully write a scientific journal on a new medical accomplishment one must understand how to use language, grammar, and vocabulary. To paint a world renowned artwork masterpiece, one must understand the mathematics of symmetry, spacing, and measurements. It seems only natural to me that the humanities partner with all disciplines to convey its topics and research, and computer science is one such discipline that makes the humanities more applicable and accessible by researchers and public alike.

With the ability to work online, simultaneously, and around the world, the amount of expertise and knowledge that can be applied to research or a project is incredible. New information can be gathered in a much faster and concise way, and new perspectives provide insight into perplexing topics and ideas that were overlooked or disregarded previously.

Question... If lower-case letters were input by hand on paper tape, how could a human being not read them?

If the user could not see the results of their input until print, do they mean that when the information was printed it was unreadable? Would the text be visually distorted, or would it be processed by the computer into some kind of code to represent those letters?