This is a comment on the whole concept really, but the best thing I ever did for myself in terms of gaining a better understanding of data and how to interpret it was to take a research and methods design class, and of course statistics as well. It helped me understand why researchers choose certain ways to represent data, and understand that to the untrained eye, data can be manipulated to seemingly prove almost any point. It is our responsibility to be clear and honest in our presentation of data. Kind of a "with great power comes great responsibility" moment. Because unfortunately, if you throw some statistics around people assume you must know what you are talking about, and often take it at face value without doing their own research, so it is incredibly easy to mislead and misinform the masses in this way.

This would be ideal, and classes like this are a step in the right direction, as are the guest lectures often provided by university librarians in entry level courses. Sadly though it is simply not a realistic goal, at least not at present, with so many other hurdles to overcome. But, maybe something like the tutorials that new programs and apps take you through, there could be a sort of introduction to search engines whenever one is used/set up on a new device? Although if it is not in the company's best interest to have the public understand how they are being lead by the nose...it is not likely they will make that change.

Cue me going on a side search about how a decimal system we all probably grew up using could be a vehicle of racism and misrepresentation my little book-nerd mind is not ready

Okay this sort of metadata seems inherently useful to me in ways that other types don't. If someone who is trying to get into photography and is just learning or self taught could see the settings and cameras used to create images that they admire by other photographers it could give them a starting point to gaining a better understanding, if they don't just have that innate sense that some photographers seem to be gifted with.

Even though it is saying the same thing, this is way less daunting than opening some of the files for Dublin Core and trying to make sense of the tables and tables of info. Even though it is put as plainly as possible in most cases it still seemed like it could easily become overwhelming

This post is an incredible resource in and of itself for folks who are just taking their first cautious steps into creating DH projects. I have it bookmarked now and fully intend to spend a lot of time following all of these links, not to mention checking out the specific projects used as examples. It really does seem great for an accessible, easy "how to" and "what you need" type of thing. I think after reading this one myself and many of my classmates will feel as though a veil has been lifted in terms of understanding the goals of the course.

I got really excited about a project idea that ties in historical sites, people, and events with a mapping system and a time-lapse so that you could see how a given city/country etc changes through history but if 3D modelling is as painful as it sounds I am going to have to set my sites a heck of a lot lower, as there is no way I could learn enough to pull that all together in under 2 weeks. But maybe one day I will do it anyhow.

Not usually one for this type of visual web, but I love this one for how it can be used, in addition to simply being interesting to see. Could be a great way to discover confirmation bias at play, if for instance people with opposing views are never referenced together. It could also simply serve as a way to find "other authors you might like," who write on similar topics to those you already have a founded interest in.

I would argue that the computer itself is a tool rather than an environment, while the internet is the environment of the digital age. If I have a computer but no internet, sure I can type out my thoughts or read something I have downloaded, but I cannot contribute to or connect with community or peers. To my mind, an environment facilitates real-time exchange of ideas, while tools simply allow us to better access information and/or environments.

It makes sense that this is possible, but I had truly never considered it and I wish they said more about it. I am definitely going to do a deep-dive on this, as I find it intriguing. I am imagining whether it is note-matching only, or if these programs source instrumental sound bytes? Also, the fact that it doesn't just convert it for listening, but makes it editable too!

I had never really wondered about the origins of tags and hashtags, even though I knew they were a somewhat recent phenomenon in terms of use by the general population. But this made me wonder if it happened as a result of the already common practice of tagging in code, or if it developed on its own. Turns out, we owe it all to programmers and wildfires!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we should always be doing this. Every class I have taken at UNBC emphasizes that you should write all your papers as though the person reading them has no prior knowledge of the field, and your intro or abstract should have the hook and explain the importance of the research, no?

I feel like this is the ideal that we strive for when we talk about "engaging critically with the material." When you are actively contributing to the work that you are studying.

This is extremely relatable even still, and one of the main things I think is cool about programs like hypothes.is. I know we have 2 English Profs auditing this class, but as much as I love literature, one of the main reasons I switched out of the English program was because I felt like unless I became an author of original content myself, I would just be wasting time re-hashing the same theories that hundreds of others have had before me about the same handful of classic works that everybody had studied and that I would thus never create or contribute anything to the world. This stuff seems like the path away from that inevitability.

I love seeing an old method, program, or way of doing things stand the test of time and remain unbeaten through years of innovation. It's just really cool to see something make such a lasting mark, as well as often seeing people decades or centuries later (though not in computer context) go back to traditional/basic methods because they just work better.

I mean I have always known that the authorship of many influential works, both fictional and otherwise are/were hotly contested, and that many took it upon themselves to discover once and for all the given authors identity, but I did not realize that even that far back, it was done so scientifically! With computers and statistical analysis, when I would have pictured the earliest debates on these topics to be mainly "who is most likely?" "who stands to gain/lose the most?" "who shares these opinions?"

If you are interested in tracking the origins of scientific concepts, and aren't completely sick of hearing about covid-19, I highly recommend giving this article a read, it details the origin of a major mistake that we based a LOT of the early covid-19 safety protocols off of!

This idea is really cool to me, both for the increased understanding it can offer us into battles of the past, as well as for the implications it could have on the future. This is not to say that I hope we utilize these programs to give ourselves the best advantage in war, because ideally, we shouldn't be in any. Moreso (and i imagine it is already in use) it can aid us with city planning, running algorithms and 'what-if' scenarios regarding natural disasters for instance, in order to better prepare before we begin a project. What comes to mind first is development of earthquake-resistant foundations for buildings. I think digital mapping allows us to make changes and walk through such physical scenarios with much greater ease than any previous method.