This is an interesting perspective of the digital humanities field. Is this not true with all field though? Before biology was a field, people still investigated evolution, and biological concepts. I would argue that just because there is a name for a field of study, it does not devalue the work of people who were already doing it or do not classify as being in that field.

This is such a powerful way of advertising. This really incorporates the "Digital Creativity as Critical Material Thinking" point that creativity is essential to digital humanities. Incorporating creativity with digital techniques has the possibility to have such a strong impact on the audience.

This shows how digital methods can bring to light new evidence. The fact that these are the most commonly searched phrases when typing about women really exposes how many issues there still are with women's rights. I was curious after reading this so I typed "women should not" into the google search engine and the first autosuggestion was "a women should not teach men" and "a women should not be in combat roles." I was shocked after seeing that these are what people are actually searching into the engine.

I think this is a great way of learning material. It is an incorporation of both gnosis and poiesis where you learn conceptual information but actually do/make things to give you a better understanding. I learn best through this method too. I like to get a general understanding and then to help solidify this knowledge, practice and create things.

Although the ability to have so much online is in fact revolutionary, some things can "get lost in translation." In making texts into online documents, the actual value of the document, not the data, may be lost. The purpose of the texts in the first place need to be accounted for after being translated, and if they are not, we need to reassess the method we have for developing digital texts.

I like this elaboration about the slow down of critiquing. In general, critiquing does take time, and it does slow down the process, however, the end result (if done correctly) is better and worth the wait.

I think this a really neat quote. What I gather from it is that you cannot critique something if you are too involved with it. It is difficult to get an unbiased critique but that is what they strive for in digital humanities. Critiquing is an essential part of digital humanities but it is also one of the most difficult things to do.

Here is an interesting post that critiques the critique of digital humanities. [(https://www.thenewatlantis.com/text-patterns/critiquing-critique-of-digital)]

This really summarizes what I think the goal of our exercises throughout the semester have been about. We have been trying to find different ways to use code and softwares in order to illustrate ideas and stories. We are not only focusing on the content, but how to display it effectively to our audience and find the best possible ways to present these ideas. In this course it has showed me that there is such a variety of ways information can be presented and that some methods work better than others depending on what we are trying to present.

I think this is a really neat use of maps that is not utilized enough. Maps do not only have to be tools for directions, they can be used in many meaningful ways. These maps presented here goes to show how substantial the meaning and purpose behind them can be. It is also an opportunity to be creative in the method of delivering the message.

This is such a shockingly large amount. At this time and age I would think it would have declined more. I attached a link to a piece that discusses segregation in the South. [(https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/segregation-invented/517158/)]

I think this really shows how maps are a great way to visualize trends. It is awful that these historic trends in redlining neighborhoods existed in the first place. Mapping these trends allows people to see how these communities are still being affected by prejudice and that there is still major issues with segregation. Being able to see that there is a problem is the first step in trying to resolve it.

This is such a neat idea. This would provide an additional level of safety to those in that area. It would be interesting to investigate how big of a difference these types of maps would make for security. They could do this by measuring the amount of incidents reported in an area before the maps were implemented and then afterwards and compare them.

I really prefer this map. I think especially for students, showing where all the parking lots, picnic tables, recycling bins, and what the names of the buildings are would be super helpful for navigating campus. This would be particularly helpful with very large campuses like ASU. I have tried navigating the ASU campus and it is so large that it is difficult to find anything, and google maps really does not help with navigating at that level. I find that google maps is better for general directions at large distances away from each other. If you want to drive from one side of town to the other, google maps is good for directions, but it is not the best once you are in the complex. I attached the link for a map of the ASU tempe campus but it is not nearly as detailed for studentlife as the openstreetmap example is. [(http://www.mappery.com/Arizona-State-University-Tempe-Camous-Map)]

This makes sense since, when I picture using spiral timelines, they are more complicated to read. The linear and circular timelines are much more straightforward. It would be interesting to extend on this experiment where they presented all three timelines with the same things on each one (instead of different things on each timeline) and asked them to find a certain year or event. You see which timeline is the easiest to work with but noting the actual time difference it takes to use between each of them would be useful to know. This would be cool to know since we are aware that some are more difficult to interpret and work with but we do not know how much more difficult it is relative to the exact time it takes to use each timeline.

I did not expect these to be the results of the experiment. I really did think that there would be a clear, specific shape that was more impactful for recurrent vs. non-recurrent vs. mixed datasets.

Sometimes coming up with ways to present your data and get your point across in the right way to the audience is very difficult. It may seem obvious once you have come up with the idea, but actually getting there is a lot more difficult than it sounds. The way that they decided to present their events by government attitude is a really good idea and gets their point across very well. It is a good example of the thought process to coming up with a good timeline. The first idea you come up with may not be your best, but the trick is to keep trying to come up with ideas until you find one that clicks and you know it is the best way to represent your ideas.

This is another example of a meaningful timeline. It would not be "mere sequences" as discussed in ch 1. of Cartographies of Time, but used as a method to help emphasize a point. Timelines should not be the main objective, they are a tool to help you show or emphasize your main objective.

This is a great example of how meaning can be added to timelines. Good timelines should aim to provide perspectives and different ways of visualizing things. It is not enough to just list dates and events. It is most impactful when timelines incorporate a middle ground between fact and interpretation to allow the audience to take away something they had not considered in the past.

This is something that I had not really considered. Whenever I was making a timeline, I usually just listed out things that happened in the order they happened, however, I see how much more substantial timelines can be if they have meaning. Instead of just listing facts, express a story of events. I was looking at examples of how to make meaningful timelines but most of the search had results like the one I linked. This one specifically says, "it's as simple as showing a sequence of events," which leads me to believe that a large proportion of the population is missing the part that makes timelines meaningful.

[https://www.apptio.com/blog/42-timelines-is-the-answer/]

I think it is great that they made it so accessible to the public. People are able to participate and learn the program fairly easily which allows a great amount of people to participate as well as enabling a large target audience.

It is really fascinating how complex technology really is. Social media has changed so much, even in the last decade. Social media allows communication between the whole world. It allows communication even when language barriers are present. For example, people are still able to communicate through pictures and videos through instagram. The ability to embed media also contributes to the complexity of digital networks.

I originally hadn't considered video gaming when I thought about digital storytelling but it would be a great example of it. Gaming is following a storyline and interacting with it, which makes it a very impactful source of storytelling. Having the community get so absorbed in the story would indicate more reaction from the audience and greater engagement.

I think whether something digital is classified as a story or not really depends on how the information is utilized. It makes sense that people think data is not a story, it just looks like a bunch of random numbers. If the person who has the data is interested in sharing it with the rest of the digital community, they have the ability to make it into a story. Interpret the data, explain the patterns or lack of patterns. If there is no pattern to the data, they could try to explain why. My point is that I think anything can be a story if it is explained and interpreted well.

Here is an example I found of digital storytelling: [(https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/index.html#/?part=tunnel-creek)] It is a story released in 2012 about the avalanche that occurred in Tunnel Creek. I think the event is really well described and they created a very good digital story from it.

This is an interesting point that reminded me of occam's razor. It is normal to overcomplicate things when sometimes it is the simplest answer or method that is correct/best. Just because something is simple does not mean it is not a good method to use.

I think this is an important point that is often overlooked. There are many things that are observed without actually looking at the background or history of it. It is normal to judge based on what you know, but oftentimes we do not know the full background on what we are judging. Everything has a backstory but often considering "how it came to be" is neglected.

This could also be a way in which artists could strategize the use of specific words in songs to attract a larger audience. They could look at the similarities between top hits and find certain words that were used in all of them and then include it when advertising the music. For example, they could use it as a tag when posting on instagram or twitter and it may attract more attention.

Looking at the frequency in which words were used may be a good indicator of how history shaped literature. Certain words that were used more frequently may show what most of the population was feeling at that time or even what was going on. Words that fell out of use could also represent the end of certain period.

I think it would be difficult to decide the best way for sharing history of Indigenous peoples. The memory institutions are interesting since they would provide insight for those that are not well informed on their past. It is important to know what Indigenous peoples would be okay with sharing this information though with proper credit to where or whom they got the items/information they are sharing. Ultimately it should be their decision on what, or if at all, to display to the public.

I actually hadn't thought about this. It is interesting that so many references now have "broken links." I wonder for some references, would providing the name of the article and the authors be a more effective way to source than providing a link? Since providing actual URLs may not work.

Digitization has many advantages, however, it creates a more mechanical exchange. When you're sending emails or taking pictures on the phone, it is a completely different experience than receiving physical letters or pictures. So although it is more efficient, it can take away from the meaningfulness of the act and make it less personal.

All social media uses meta data in one way or another. Instagram for example uses location tags, hashtags, and many other types of features to organize the app. There are so many ways in which these apps gather information to sort posts into groups and target specific audiences. Metadata is used everywhere I just did not understand the extent of it until recently.

There is so much information in metadata that is not easily accessible if you are not aware of it. It is interesting to note how much more information we can find if we know what to look for and how to look for it.

This distinction is not one that I had considered. It is interesting how many different ways archives can be used. I like the example they used with archivists and and historians showing how archives are interpreted and used in a variety of ways based on the field of research.

Archiving is an interesting term, in this sense I think the paper is saying that archiving is when something is being stored permanently for a historical purpose. It does not encompass, for example, storing data on a memory drive that will one day be wiped or overwritten. It is important in this topic to use the term appropriately.

I agree with this statement, I think it is always important to consider the context behind evidence. It is necessary to know the full picture before making assumptions.

I knew that each file held this information but I did not know that these are actually examples of metadata.

Is there a way for us to see the last three metadata examples in an email? It is interesting to understand how many fields I did not know about because they're not actively shown on every email.

I really like how they designed the map, it is not only visually appealing but functional as well. It is very interesting to see some different ways technology can be used for projects.

I think this is a really neat way to organize the platform. Enabling the reader to view the information in different ways is a great way to allow accessibility to more people (providing alternative styles for absorbing information, i.e., not just reading about it).

This relates to the point earlier in the document that humans are still needed to continue the evolution of tools that are being created.

I think the community annotations are a really useful tool. It allows readers to see different perspectives and dive deeper when analyzing the readings.

I agree with this statement because it shows how humans are still essential to innovation, research, communication and analysis. The tools we use are extremely important but they would not be existing if it weren't for people creating them. The ways in which we utilize "tools" are what leads to discoveries.

This is where they wanted to make using the technology easier. The idea of analysis tools and techniques are still important to continue developing, however, having information that is easier to navigate makes it more accessible to the public.

This is what I was mentioning before in which learning how to use the technologies would an exponential change. At this stage they were frustrated with trying to figure out softwares but overtime it would be become a major part of society.

It sounds like these are the years where the internet and technology became more accessible to the public. Having personal computers would be a massive step towards global access to research. It would allow anyone (although during this time I would assume substantially less people had personal computers) to access research and allow collaboration to become more common.

I would be curious to find out what the relative costs were in the 70s/80s in order to use technology like this.

This brings up how creating new technology can be an exponential improvement. When learning how to use new softwares and programs, it may end up taking longer than it had originally, but as time progresses, the opportunities get much greater and using the technology can become second nature.

The advances in technology have created such an expansion in the field of humanities. There are more opportunities, as said in this statement, for collaboration. This allows much more of the population to share, contribute, and compare research.

Social media, websites, and online information have advanced so much in the last century (as can be demonstrated in Susan Hockey's "The History of Humanities Computing"). I think this would make it challenging to constantly keep up and redefine what digital humanities encompasses.

There is a fine line between access to internet and gossip versus performing research and introducing well thought-out ideas and questions to the digital humanist field.

This statement expands on a statement in Gold's article that "If you are not making anything, you are not . . . a digital humanist." The idea of making and interpreting sounds to be very controversial and brought up in multiple texts I have read. There is a large gray area when considering who is a digital humanist and who is not.

I like this statement because it explains that technology is necessary to digital humanities, however, it is a tool that assists the thoughts and questions that go along with the concept of humanities. Being able to apply the technology to the humanities is the most important part of this field.

With the online platform so large, many opportunities for reform present themselves. It is a very important field and learning about all the different ways to communicate and share knowledge is very interesting.

Digital humanities allows for debates like this to occur. These debates can lead to spreading awareness and could possibly lead to movements. Many issues with systems can be brought up and discussed which not only shows different points of view but allows people who do not know about the situation, to learn about it and decide their stance for themselves.

I can see how this statement could relate to the previous reading (Ch. Introduction The Digital Humanities Moment) about there being too many people practicing the digital humanities. When hashtags get used and everyone starts contributing information, misinformation can spread just as easily as facts. Maybe this is an example of the kind of situation Gold implied when he said people can ask "disruptive questions"?

From what I've been learning so far, the concept of digital humanities, as well as the name, is complicated. Trying to generalize all of the aspects that are performed in the field is challenging because there is such a variety of functions.

Although i still think a blind review would have better outcomes. I can see this motivating people to comment less superficially.

I find this interesting. It is a definite benefit that there is an opportunity to connect with others and create a community through this peer review process. I would be a little concerned that reviewers criticisms would be lessened or dampened due to the fact that they do not want to lose professional relationships with the writers. Would they voice their true opinions in a nonblind environment?

I would think that having more people involved in the humanities would be a positive change. This could contribute to a larger voice and a greater chance of being heard.

Is it better or worse to have more people contributing? What would be considered a disruptive question?

I agree that being a digital humanist should involve making a difference and building things, however, I think that by using a voice, be that a digital one, in any manner, you can contribute to making a change happen.