I like this comparison!

It sounds similar to Github fork and pull request functionality. It's a good way to protect originality. However, I think Wikipedia has a different purpose. Wikipedia is designed so that everyone can freely utter something they want. I've heard that "never trust Wikipedia for serious academic problems," and I think scholars would not cit Wikipedia anyway. It's only a platform for the public to speak something.

True. But I think emphasizing potential incorrectness of Wikipedia in class would help.

Actually I'm in doubt with this statement. I found it super clear when I just came to the US and started using Google 4 years ago.

I think this is a beautiful goal. Editors should work towards this goal, but it's true that it's never possible.

I think it's a very good ending. There are still many other things to do to promote digital history, and it sounds a super good start. In this case, I do agree that storing information digitally is super helpful for analysis.

It sounds right to me. With the limitation of technology, it's hard for us to fully study something happened in the history. However, I don't think it's ever possible to record all aspects of any events. So it's a big question but really hard to answer.

It is a big problem. I recall that I did a research work using ns-3, whose version constantly updates and creates a lot of problems for users with different versions but want to merge the codes. Updating is a good thing, but at least there should be a thorough documentation writing down what's being changed, so that later people could keep track of what's going on.

I think this part explains the domino effect. A small proposition might lead to such a big change. There must be a lot of works to do.

Quite understandable! When I was doing research I wanted someone to supervise me and to tell me whether I'm correct or not.

I agree that people need to be cautious with those fancy tools. When developing, we also need to think about privacy of real people being recorded. Do they really want to be the subject being studied?

I actually don't think it is a very good sign. I believe experts should visit the places they're working on instead of looking at the pre-existing photographs. In my opinion, digitized technology should just be here to help, and perhaps enhance the efficiency, but not everything.

I think this sentence refers back to the joke above.

This question is interesting! Being a CS major, I know that many recommendation system algorithms make "recommendations", in this case, related results, based on other people's preference or priorities. It seems to be a paradox in this context though. We want this algorithm to save our time, but it instead gives us what other people care about, which wastes our time to decide whether this is what I want or not.

I love this joke! I've actually heard this joke on philosophers, politicians, etc., before. This joke on historians seems to fit in the author's intention.

For some reason I'm just thinking about "transnational turn". It's amazing that places around the globe now get connected. It must have been unimaginable not long ago.

It seems much possible with the development of the internet.

I really like this sentence. There are some "revolutionary" (though felt smooth) changes brought by digital technologies, but there are also many blind spots that we aren't even aware of.

Agree. The amount of information is exploding. It's hard to find the piece we really want to find.

There is some progress at least. Even though it takes years to forward even a simple step, I think there are some meanings.

I also recall that space analysis is relative hard to do, one reason is that it's hard to distinguish the "blocks". The difference in people from Southern Seattle and from Northern California would not be bigger than people from Northern Cal and from Southern Cal. It's hard to draw a specific borderline between blocks.

I remember learning to use Python to generate world/local maps last quarter. The understanding of the language does not matter that much; what's important is the understanding of those packages.

During my history classes in middle school, I was only required to memorize important dates and events, and probably people involved in the events. I didn't understand the relationships between shows events and why they happened, and I felt quite detached about the current society and the past history. Besides, history classes were also very often being "occupied" by Chinese literature, Math, or English teachers, and I didn't really understand history, and do not even know some common knowledge in history. I hope I would have participated in some projects like this one when I was at that young age.

I've seen some examples! I remember there's a video about the GDP growth in all the countries in the world. It's so impressive! I remember that the each country is represented by a bubble, while the bubble size represents the population. Many bubbles appear and disappear, and there must be many stories behind those bubbles. It's super amazing to represent the change in that little video.

It's two sided. On one side, more people are able to use the internet to preserve stories, and later historians will be able to look into those stories. It is valuable. Coming from China, I know that there are always many excavation sites, and there are always many things we do not know about our ancestors. Had they had internet to keep logs, we would have better understandings. On the other side, currently many people do have access to the internet. Fake news spread everywhere. Besides, history is different in different people's eyes. It would not be easy for historians to distinguish what to believe, what is the true history in the future.

Haha agree! I didn't know much about CAPS until the end of my first year. There're always so many resources and people ready to help.

Recently I watched a documentary film called "The Social Dilemma", and I've found out many interesting thoughts regarding how technology has impacted our life.

The ability to navigate through the internet and to find what's helpful, what's fake, is critical.

I'm a CS major. I'm really amazed by this idea. It's interesting to apply knowledge from major field to other disciplinary.

I totally agree with this sentence. We have different ambitions and dreams. I don't like to be confined to be someone else.

I really love this idea. Last quarter I took a class which appeared to allow us to tailor our own projects, but I got lots of points off because of not generating a "correct" output. I still don't understand why I had to get the same idea as the instructor team did in a project with no right or wrong answer. I would really appreciate truly allowing us to do the project with our own design and thought process.

I really like this idea. It's always interesting to look at other peers' thoughts towards the same subjects. Looking at my peers' annotation makes me think more and deeper about the original text.

I think it's always necessary for the teaching staff to assess how well the students are learning, and how well they're teaching, though I agree that it's not necessary to put the result into numbers. Writing an essay, preparing for a presentation, could all serve for the purpose. Or creating a "test"with free responses and seeing if the students really understand the concepts would also work. I'm not sure why "measure those things" is equivalent to "put them into numbers", I think it's necessary to measure.

I agree with this. The overemphasis over grades leads students to split their attention into caring about achieving some goals instead of enjoying the learning profess. Though I think taking tests is an important step when learning.

Well, I partially agree with the sentence. Though I'm not a best test-taker neither, I believe in the necessity of tests in many circumstances. For example, being a stem major myself, especially for math classes, without the test, the instructor would never be able to know how the class performs and if the students have gained the knowledge. I agree that in higher-level social science classes, the un-graded policy is helpful because at this time, students have formed autonomy and self-regulation needed. But I think "students would be a lot better off" is somehow absolute. The problem is with the test designers, not the test itself.