I think this is super important to the understanding and analysis of data. Looking at a single group of information can skew your perspective on the scope of that data-sets impact. Being able to collect multiple sets of data and then use that information to essentially gather all new data is the heart of data analysis. To look at datasets in singular vacuums would depreciate the value of the data as a whole,

This is a very poetic way to look at data, I like how the writer points out that data not only tells a story, but that story/perspective can change based on who is analyzing the data. I think that sort of opens up data to a realm of understanding for the humanities, as data is often looked at as a specific set of information with a singular point to be made. This opens data to a realm of analysis that I feel is often overlooked

I find this is where a lot of the disconnect happens in the digital world. It is hard to think of the digital community as a part of 'reality'. But more and more it is becoming the case that the digital space is becoming more 'real' than the physical, as people get most of their interactions through a screen these days. for some reason though we spend our lives in a digital space we still find it hard to relate to digital information, like data.

I found these results particularly interesting, as there is a scientific standard for beauty and recognizing beauty that can be seen across, race, gender, ethnicity, etc. ( you can find some articles related to that here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15085778/). Considering that you might think the algorithm or 'science' of the search engine would reflect that phenomenon.

This portion here reminds me of a show on Netflix , Coded Bias, where in one particular episode a black developer is working on creating a facial recognition A.I. and was struggling to make it work, until she realized the program could only accurately identify white faces, due to the database for facial recognition for most part uses mostly white faces. She discovered that wearing a white mask would make her program work, but it would not recognize her own face. This I think helps support the idea presented in this article that programs themselves can be made racist with racial bias, regardless of the users interacting and creating with them.

Black fetishization is often toted as black acceptance, and is a big part of what makes me fear this new wave of acceptance is temporary and conditional to a certain type of black. African Americans with the correct combination of 'blackisms' are genuinely trending across many internet platforms, and I would like to hope that its a doorway to true acceptance, but its still a controversial space to exsist in

This line particularly hit me, as a 'black girl' I have been googling this most of my life. At least anecdotally, I have seen a relative evolution of this search and have felt some of its impact. My family and I were often the only black people in the towns we grew up in, and I used the internet a lot to try and find out what people thought of me. I saw a lot of really negative opinions and did everything I could to reject the 'black stereotype' people always expected of me because I didn't want to be hated or thought of as 'that kind of black'. Now I know the internet, and google in particular, brings up a lot more positivity when it comes to black women, but it feels like whiplash. The kind of content that comes up, though more positive makes me fear the change is due to a marketing trend and not a true social change

This reminds me of the front and back of house concept. Where data makes up the front of house, and metadata the back. So depending on which end you work, dictates the data you see or work with first. for example say the data is a photo, a viewer would access the data first (most likely) and could then move towards metadata if they so chose. The photographer however would be most familiar with the files, editing, location etc, that is all related to the meta data first. This idea sort of helps me structure the two in my mind better. Maybe the idea might help a few others to wrap their brains around the idea of data/metadata

This actually shocked me a bit. When I think spread sheeets I think excel, and Excel has always been one of my biggest struggles with the Microsoft Office Suite programs. I sort of subconsciously assumed a program set up to organize and create raw data, would have a decent amount of meta data attached to it as well. That being the opposite of the truth makes me think I need to restructure my perspective on the relationship between data and meta data.

I feel like I always thought of this type of information listing as a standard practice to fill out a screen, I never really looked at information as basic as this as data. I think some of my classmates would agree as well, based on some of there previous annotations on this article. I think that highlights how closed minded peoples perspective of what qualifies as data, and what data can be, really is. Data can be super complex, but its nice to see it presented in a simple form like this, to sort of concretize what data and metadata really means without having to analyze code

It's nice to see an example of this through our other reading, to get an idea of exactly how a mapping tool can be implemented to further the study of humanities. I also think seeing the 'how-to' break down of this really opens up my understanding of this section by melding the concept and the application together, expanding my overall grasp of the topic.

I find this part interesting as annotating is often seen as an individual or personal practice, and opening the format up to a more communal perspective and allowing for others opinions to inform your own thoughts, really evolves the practice of annotating. This evolution could expose some interesting developments in our own reflective process. I know reading my fellow classmates annotations on these readings has definitely informed some of my opinions, as well as allowed me some insight into how my impressions of the article compare to my classmates.

I think technology, especially in reference to the computer itself, has moved beyond the realm of being simply a tool. Tools tend to have a singular purpose or function, and while computers do perform some basic functions, they go beyond to allow the user to access more than what the physical tech can provide itself. I think the concept of access and creation outside of physical boundaries will change how we approach and process the humanities in unimaginable ways. Its really exciting to genuinely be in the shallows of a pool of potential so vast. But

I would love to try and emulate something like this for my final project, but I don't know if it's a reasonable goal with the time constraints. Do you think pulling off something like this (smaller scale, but similar layout style) is possible in the time frame we have?

Something like this seems so ambitious, I am surprised it seems to use fairly minimal programming (maybe it's deceptively simple?). I find this layout of information so engaging, especially for a younger audience, I think it could be and probably is very successful.

This definitely applies to me. In working with omeka I felt I had to decide what I was going to do with my subdomain before I was able to create it, and without knowing what I was really going into, I felt I had to make decisions just to change them later, because I didn't know what I was working with yet.

I would agree that this definition is much to narrow for digital humanities. This definition focuses too heavily on the method or the 'what' of DH as opposed to the engagement or the 'why' of DH. Humanities has never been solely about the creation of things, it has been about the interaction with the creation within the communities surrounding it, and how that develops new and interesting thoughts, ideas etc.

Is this a good way to look at our blogs that we are creating for this course?

Humanities ( the study, and the race) tendency to remain 'meta' and tear itself a part for study has always been on of my favorite aspects of the arts. I love how a tool with the intention of preserving and documenting the humanities has evolved into an area of study within the humanities, with both sides, the tool and the topic, continuing to develop around each other

The focus on a community sharing information going back to before the internet really shows how crucial community is to the humanities. Other studies can have an individual break through, where one person is for the most part responsible. But with Humanities, the discussion is so important to its development, that there can't really be progress without collaboration within the community.

I find it fascinating that so many new ideas within the humanities, seem to be directly connected to the church

This here presents how DH can push discussion and really open up new realms of study. Before the use of DH we could only study the enlightenment through its representation and documentation through text and history. With the additional data provided, that contradicts the representation of the enlightenments beginnings, scholars could now look at the previous documentation and representation with a new lens, contemplating why the seeming discrepancy is there, was it intentional, and so on. As the article stated earlier, DH is "the means not the ends" and to get the most out of these new ideas and discoveries, collaboration between the two classes of humanities is really needed to embrace these new avenues to there full potential

I love how Digital humanities allows for a non-linear study of history. Traditionally, history is very much looked at in terms of narrative, timeline, sequential actions. This example of the works of Abraham Lincoln, shows how DH can fragment history in interesting ways to pull historical significance out of very small fragments, as opposed to analyzing the whole.

This perspective on the use of DH concerns me somewhat, as it suggests that the study of the tapestry can be done solely through the digitized version, with more success than an individual could get from studying the large tapestry in person. This idea represents a concern I am developing (while reading this article) of the combative relationship between traditional and digital humanities. Separating the two approaches to humanities into there own boxes to individually develop, could damage the study of humanities all together. I see extreme potential in DH, and obviously there must be something to it or we wouldn't be studying it academically. But the idea of jumping into one boat (DH) to leave behind the 'old way of thinking' could close off a lot of avenues of study and discovery, for the sake of being progressive.