Group items tagged

Tim Hitchcock begins this article by stating that books are dead. He goes on to explain his statement, qualifying that the process of creating a 'book' is lengthy and redundant, especially in the digital age. In our current state, we still think of data in reference to standard book form (book, chapter, page, line). He also criticizes modern humanists' approach/integration of scholarship and technology. Hitchcock believes that many utilize technical shortcuts (such as Google Books), but refuse to recognize it. Or they reference an article that they found online, but cite the paper version. His greatest criticism is the path that he believes digital humanities is going. He beleves that it is following the progress of the book too closely and that in an attempt to make things accessible, they have not utilized the versatility of digital publishing. He notes that how we currently view books depends on how digital humanities progresses. At the end of the article, Hitchcock describes his original tone and intention of the article. He also describes the editing and peer-review process.

At the Digital Studio for Public Humanities, Kyle Moody attempted to define digital humanities in one sentence: "open and accessible research and content creation, distribution, and evaluation by persons able to use or utilize technology." In his definition, all people are included whether they are coders or not, a notable difference from many other digital humanists' definitions. Moody discusses how the digital humanities and technology are helping to blur the line between those accessing and consuming content and those creating content. This active reaction to what is being consumed helps developers to see what is wanted and needed and adjust their content based on public reaction. He left his audience with the open question of whether or not the academy has the responsibility to give the public more control over what scholars produce as well as if the academy should be the benevolent curator of cultural content.

In this Digital Humanities field, collaboration is seen often. The basic idea that two heads are better than one even in projects where there is one official reseracher rings true in this. However, there seems to be an issue to where credit will be given. The MLA "task force" encourages this and states that suspicion should never occur.