- Nov 2017
-
dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu
-
maintaining DH as a commons
which currently exists
-
It allows us to shift the debate from charged hermeneutics (“Are DHers inclusive?”) to practical heuristics (“Which features of DH as a system enhance or undermine access and participation?”)
This is such an important shift. So many DH conversations get bogged down by who's in and who's out or even just bound by the "popular" groups ideals. My particular focus in graduate school was on par with the second question. Digital humanities work is at its best when it can be shared with others, when accessibility questions are asked.
-
- Oct 2017
-
-
ower costs, great accessibility, and better prospects
I think this article (because librarians are awesome) gets to the benefits best. We know that "free" is loaded in regards to open scholarship b/c it often entails money at some point, human labor, etc...
-
-
opendatahandbook.org opendatahandbook.org
-
When things go wrong, you will be expected to incur the costs of fixing them.
I think this begs some thought. Maybe a social shift that requires others using the platform (I'm thinking of free software in particular) to assume responsibility at some point. If initial documentation is provided, then it should be up to others to maintain whatever they are using.
-
for free
?? Does not seem to be free...
-
machine-readable format
there seems to be a synonymous use of available and machine-readable. These days machine readable is the easiest way to make something re-usable and available
-
not every dataset will be useful
this is a bigger risk than I feel they are allowing it to be. As a student I liked this mentality. As a faculty or staff member with perhaps more pressure to produce useful content and/or less time, it is kind of a big deal if a dataset fails
-