This would be interesting to visualize using Palladio.

This is true. People can shape visual representations to encourage readers to interpret them a certain way, which can introduce bias.

If I remember correctly, there seemed to be something similar to this in voyant, in the "Document Terms" tool.

So very true. Afterall, there is a quote, "a picture is worth a thousand words." I personally find visual data to be more engaging. Including charts, graphs, maps, etc. may attract new readers, and make it easier for all readers to sustain their attention (by breaking up long explanations/blocks of text)

I'm curious to know what kinds of physical documents they used to estimate or establish these patterns. This is something I'm going to read into.

Wow. I had to see it for myself, because somehow I never noticed this. This is really cool that they included a simple data-analysis feature into mainstream browsing.

This is why I see the importance in doing a bit of research on a tool you plan to use: one can develop a better appreciation for what goes into creating it, and what comes out of it.

This is a good point; I experienced this firsthand when I ran the Shawville Equity through the topic modelling tool in exercise 2. I expected to see a theme about crime, but was surprised by topics that seemed to have a war theme, or a political theme.

I think this is a broken link as well, I'm getting a consistent 404 error.

This is very true -- both are valid approaches that can reach the legitimate conclusions; the difference is the amount of time and effort spent. Would we rather spend less time digitizing in order to have a large archive, even though documents may be riddled by OCR errors? Or would it be better to have a smaller archive, but with complete and human-verified documents?

There has to be a human component to the digitization process. If this were to be left to computers, the result could drastically differ from the original. Historians are sort of the "quality control agents" in a way.

Another example denoting how history can sometimes be proprietary. Just like in Module 1, this shows how people aren't inclined to share information if it will adversely affect oneself and/or benefit others.

I know that artificial intelligence has tremendous capabilities, but I feel as though data and its meaning could potentially be lost or misinterpreted, since computers don't have the same type or extent of judgement as a human being.

This is why digital tools have become increasingly useful. They may not be able to research for you, but they can drastically help with tackling tasks of this scale.

I would argue that we don't make space, but instead make better use of the space that we do have.

This isn't clear to me, and I think I may have interpreted it wrong. Say we have "Sam Houston to J. Pinckney Henderson, December 31, 1836 51" -- are we supposed to just remove 51, and do the same for each subsequent entry?

Crowdfunded projects face these challenges that projects run by corporations likely wouldn't run into as easily.

A good solution to my last question.

This sort of defeats the intention of open collaboration projects. How could participants engage with each other more? Peer revision?

This also strikes me as odd. I would have thought that collaboration is especially important for deciphering Bentham's handwriting -- some people may be more familiar with it than others.

Hypothetically, what if someone tried to sabotage the project?

Again, this is wonderful that people don't pride themselves on their work, but instead seek to make a contribution to the larger picture. This shows that they are truly participating because it is meaningful to them.

I think it's great that volunteers found intrinsic meaning within the project, and simply didn't treat the process as a means to an end.

This surprises me. I would have thought that this is an effective way to spread the word and recruit participants.

Why is this so? Would this be the result of accidentally clicking on an advert?

This answers my previous question regarding whether other projects try to create this online sense of community.

This illustrates the notion of trying to create a community. I wonder if most or all open source/crowd funded projects do this.

I wonder what the turnover rate is for some of these projects. Maybe some participants would want to contribute, say, a single fact, whereas others would want to oversee a larger aspect of the project.

I wonder if nowadays, crowdfunded/open projects will make use of social media to spread the word and recruit historians. This is a free alternative to spending money advertising in academic journals.

I'm sure that different subjects would attract different numbers of people. Could a project with crowd support be of the same quality as one with community support?

Is there a particular reason why some works were omitted, or was it just poor workmanship?

I wonder how long this process will take...

This sounds so neat! I will definitely be checking this out on my spare time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure what this means?

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

I 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.

History is in a way static, but the ways that we interpret it are dynamic.

That's such a neat medium in which to experience history. I think that presenting it in this way would captivate so many people. Those who may not otherwise be inclined to sit down and read about it may be drawn in to learn about it by other sensory means.

This is a great example of looking at historical trends through a macroscope, while still being able to access microhistory. I think that one of the problems with using a macro approach is that in a way, it diminishes individual narratives which are relative to the individual and cannot always be generalized. I think it's great how this study takes both into consideration.

I think that as technology advances, it may possibly address the notion of identifying new objects of study. It currently helps by providing new methodologies to study the same material, but perhaps artificial intelligence will eventually be capable of finding these "new objects of study" that are mentioned.

As history becomes increasingly digitized, I wonder if this will pose challenges for data retrieval, say 500 years from now. I agree with this because even though we may be able to access such a vast pool of knowledge, it may not necessarily be easy to sift out what is relevant or needed.

Wow, this is a surprising statistic.

Can this process be biased by the personal attitudes/ideas/convictions of scholars and archivists, or does the document usually maintain its integrity?

In a world that contains a myriad of data, it can be overwhelming and challenging to narrow it down by relevance. This is why I think open history and collaboration are so important, because scholars can work together and break down the task into more manageable parts. I believe that this will become more of a norm as technology and access to digital history content develops.

This makes me wonder what we could attain in terms of examining big data, without modern technology. What trends would we see, and which ones would we miss? It really has impacted how we can interpret history, and how we can use these insights to look forward and predict other trends -- as the renown quote goes, "history repeats itself."

Annotation complete!

An interesting read -- It's important for people to see the value in failure. Mistakes are instrumental for learning and personal growth.

I like this interpretation; it really demonstrates the past and the present coming together, and how different disciplines can be combined to create a whole that is able to enhance the two parts.

http://ablastintothepast.ca/ https://github.com/ktamg/Kayleigh-Gagne

I have read and I agree to abide by the Code of Conduct.