reaction to reading 31 August 2013

The four works that I have previously read all spoke of digital history in terms of expansion.  Digital history is in needs of expansion in that it is, as stated in Kenneth M. Price's "What's In a Name?" ''on the periphery...of literary scholarship.''  The first work I found rather helpful and usable, probably the most usable of the four works being discussed here today.  The second work, on Roger Launius's blog, mentions points already covered in the other, more extensive works and so makes itself slightly superfluous, yet informative all the same in that Mr. Launius condenses a 40 page document into 10 points.  The third and fourth works serve as a manual for how to work together with digital history and how to make digital history work.  They were both helpful, sans the techno-babble and inane jargon that sometimes plagues other digital history websites.  Overall, the four readings were helpful and user-friendly.

The first work, ''Taking a Byte Out of the Archives,'' puts forth the list of equipment that needs to be amassed by any self-respecting digital historian and how to use it properly.  Steps are shown on how to duplicate images and store them using the two main kinds of equipment: the digital camera and the hand-held scanner.  The article is descriptive, but not over-the-head of the novice user; more, it functions as a Digital History for Dummies guide that even includes a link to another, sister site that introduces a list of products selected for best use in this particular field and even more procedures on how to perform image copying.  A first rate, informative article all round.

The second work, on a blog by Roger Launius, seems to me to be superfluous after reading the other two works.  Mr. Launius is still helpful, though, by providing the original PDF text for use or simply for curious reading, and then summarising and condensing the work into the 10 most relevant points.  These points are well chosen in that each point tells of how digital historical practices have changed how historians spin their craft.  For example, one point states that ''The full text search capabilities that Google Books presents historians seems to have had a profound effect on their research practice'' (Launius, Rutner and Schonfeld).  So, even though this work seems superfluous now, it still is useful in that it has the original document to back up the 10 points.

The third work, Kenneth M. Price's ''What's In a Name?'' explains the differences in terms in the digital history world, using the Walt Whitman Archive as an example.  I found this to be quite informative and interesting in that I knew little on how each term was used and what each actually stood for in digital history.  Mr. Price makes very good use of the Archive as an example of how it is an edition, yet not in that it comprises all of Whitman's works, even business cards (Price).  Then, the article explains the fluidity and flux of the term in itself and how it changed with the digital age and continues to change.  The other terms, Project, Database, Archive and Thematic Research Collection (Termed ''Arsenal'' by Mr. Price) are treated and explained in the same way.  I found this article to be especially useful in seeing that digital history as a whole needs to be expanded and put into its own set of terms.

The fourth work was Sam Ford's article on big data, or, the ''global nervous system'' (Smolan and Ford).  The article, which I found to be drab with some useful tidbits in the swill, explains that ''big data'' cannot be used or interpreted properly without human beings putting some meaning behind the numbers.  Mr. Ford's title completely sums his article up: ''Without Human Insight, Big Data is Just a Bunch of Numbers.''  This is true and even though Mr. Ford uses no examples, he makes an interesting metaphor.  Humans need to work with technology in this field as ''cyborgs'' (Ford).

Reaction to reading 26 aug, 2013

The three works which I read on the Saturday have left an impression upon me that digital history seeks to become a tool of the historian and not a replacement for the historian him/herself.  The textbook, Digital History by Cohen and Rosenzweig, gave quite a decent background of digital history in terms of the relationship between history and technology.  The introduction deals with dispelling rumours of past doomsayers and optimists and lists the 7 qualities of using this technology with history.  The introduction also lists 5 shortcomings of this new medium.  The first chapter works as part self-help book and part history of technology in history.  Different mediums are described as well as past points in the digital history timeline.  The book is well written and I felt as if the common reader could understand the message put forth, sans the jargon.  The self-help part comes from the advice given by Cohen and Rosenzweig on how to build an historical site one's own.  Again, the book is well written but descends into doom-saying at times as if enough space to incorporate the world's information was a major life threatening problem.  A pinch of drama seems to have been added, but I still find myself able to take the book seriously.

The discussion work from the September 2008 issue of Journal of American History is rather long and tedious, but filled with a cache of information on the burgeoning digital history trend and how new ideas can resolve some problems.  The article functions as a think-tank with 8 well respected historians sitting down with a Journal representative to answer and discuss questions about the path and future of digital history and its uses.  Each person uses, or, attempts to use examples from their own teaching careers and everyday lives as well as the lives of others.  The article is well structured and actually, this particular article made me a firm believer in digital history as an important part of the history profession.

Professor Vernon Burton's work, published in Social Science Computer Review in summer of 2005 lists some of the points made about digital history re-listed in the discussion article only with Professor Burton's own personal examples used.  Passion is present and palpable in this article and it proves that Professor Burton has got to be one of digital history's leading proponents.  Examples of sites are used so that the reader can have an example and this is something that I found helpful not just in this article, but in the others as well.  Just as with the discussion article, this article of Professor Burton's has made me a convert to the world of digital history as an important aspect of the history profession.