This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amilcontentanalysis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There are two links that are no longer supported. One is the 53rd citation of Howard, Jennifer (2009-12-31). "The MLA Convention in Translation". The other is a bibliographic entry by Classen, Christoph, Kinnebrock, Susanne, & Löblich, Maria, eds. (2012). Towards Web History: Sources, Methods, and Challenges in the Digital Age. Historical Social Research. Altown40 ( talk) 06:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I figured I should start this, since no one has. Elijahmeeks 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There are many basic tennants of Humanities Computing that were in the old article that were not carried over in the merge. I actually feel Huco should be kept as a separate article. Rendar 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The reference material in that article referred to both Digital Humanities and Humanities Computing. It seems the relevant research treats these two terms as referring to the same concept, and so I'd disagree. Perhaps if the tenets you're referring to were added to this article that would fix things? Elijahmeeks 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
At a THATcamp at the National Library of Australia on 2nd November 2014 a session devoted to exploring collaborative editing spent an hour editing the digital humanities page. (I've added this note to explain the flurry of edits appearing right now by unregistered users.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 ( talk) 00:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend organizing the subjects in order to make a more cohesive "narrative" regarding Digital Humanities. I would suggest bumping the "History" subject right after "Definition." Also within the first paragraph of "Definition" I would suggest linking terms such as "hashtag activism" and "alternate reality games" to their respective wiki entries. Hectorlopez17 ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
In the digital archives subsection of the projects, I would recommend adding collaborative digital archives that are collaborative in nature. For a field built on collaboration, this section should highlight projects that encourage non-professional users to add their own content to the project. Mbhankins ( talk) 05:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest adding links to NEH and NSF, as I did not see an explanation of what these abbreviations represent. People with no background information on this subject may find it confusing. Meaghanjarnecke ( talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think perhaps some section reorganization is in order now that the article is fairly well established. For instance, in most articles, "History" is either the very first section, or at least immediately follows the "Definition"/"Etymology" section. Also, given the shortness of the "Tools" section, might it be merged with the discussion on "Methods"? Apjames93 ( talk) 15:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I would dearly love if somebody would be so kind as to answer the following questions for me which I'm still left wondering about having read this article:
86.42.71.111 ( talk) 10:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The presentation of the Negative publicity section has some issues with neutrality. The author is channeling some ideas directly from the sources (new wine in old bottles) without some necessary context, while other positions are presented as statement, rather than opinion (If it were not burdened...) Kaxsalla ( talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The criticisms section should include a reference to the often-stated criticism that Digital Humanities is a very temporary field that will only exist for the few years between when digital methods have started to infiltrate the humanities and when (presumably very shortly) everyone in the humanities will be using them. This comes up a lot at digital humanities conferences, but I haven't had a chance to find a good reference of a discussion of it in writing yet. 192.102.239.195 ( talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
In the subsection "Difficulty of evaluation," it might be useful to reference guidelines to evaluate digital scholarship developed by various organizations, such as the American Historical Association or the Modern Language Association, to demonstrate the academic world is trying to educate various departments in the humanities on how to properly assess digital scholarship as it related to promotion, tenure etc. This information seems lacking in the article Tealover7711 ( talk) 04:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
While issues of access are addressed, they focus primarily on issues of access for those with disabilities. I would suggest exploring other potential access issues that may stem from race or socioeconomic class, and perhaps a lack of internationalization in the field and what problems these pose. [1] is one source that explains how many digital humanities centers are typically East-West based and usually reside in higher economic areas. JonnieFox ( talk) 21:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Since this page has been flagged for having too many links (incl. one I just added myself), I suggest the following:
Ebellempire ( talk) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody put some visual samples of a good Digital Humanities website? This article badly needs some visuals. 86.41.8.16 ( talk) 13:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources; but this quote is nice. I moved it here from the category where next to nobody would ever see it. If this appears in a more reliable outlet, I'd support inclusion. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
"Those definitions of DH must be personal, and must vary – but how many of us, when asked to explain DH, go 'well, its kinda the intersection of....' – and you lost them at kinda." - Melissa Terras, " Present, Not Voting: Digital Humanities in the Panopticon"
Southern Spaces is no doubt an interesting and innovative journal. However, it does not seem to be in any way specifically related to Digital Humanities. This is their self-definition: "An interdisciplinary journal about regions, places, and cultures of the US South and their global connections." ( http://www.southernspaces.org/). In my opinion, this journal should be removed from the list.
At the same time, the "Journal of Digital Humanities" is missing. Here is their self-definition: "The Journal of Digital Humanities is a comprehensive, peer-reviewed, open access journal that features the best scholarship, tools, and conversations produced by the digital humanities community in the previous trimester." ( http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/). This one should probably be added. I'm willing to make those changes myself but will wait for reactions first. -- Christof-Schoech ( talk) 12:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice idea to add a "methods" section, should we merge it with the "tools" one? However, it will be necessary not to focus only on textual analysis. Please also note that this content has be added by an user ( Thinkbig-project) who dropped the same content on other pages: see his contributions (the cited papers are all from the same group of authors). Self-promotion of scientific publications appears to be frequent on Wikipedia (and is of course sometimes necessary to improve articles). What should we do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinius ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC) (oh yes, sorry for forgetting the signature, SineBot ;) Calvinius ( talk) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
With the increasing visibility of Digital Humanities and the fact that Wikipedia embodies several DH values (iterative, collaborative, distributive, multimodal, open and accessible), I would like to see this article improved so it can become one of the Featured articles and provide a solid coverage of the topic. Join with me! -- Catsandthings ( talk) 04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Digital humanities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.neh.gov/ODH/Grant{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gesis.org/en/hsr/aktuelle-ausgaben/aktuelle-hefte-2010-2012/373-digital-humanities/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It may be helpful to add a brief statement explaining each of the values in the bulleted-list. Users can read more about them if the follow the link to Josh Honn's article, but I think it's still useful to add something to the wiki article...as it stands, it sounds a bit vague. Krrlee ( talk) 14:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Drawing on an academic talk that Dr. Tara McPherson gave last summer, I have added a small paragraph to reflect the non-canonical but significant contributions to the history of the digital humanities made by groups such as SIGGRAPH and artists such as the E.A.T. group and Charles and Ray Eames. Sadwingsofdestiny ( talk) 15:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am curious if anyone believes it may be productive to add more material to the Further Reading section of this page? There is one subheading only, and I think this large topic should merit more further readings and subheadings since it encompasses such a large amount of material. If this were a possibility, I could provide a series of scholarly articles to point toward for readers. Thenewpulp ( talk) 21:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I would propose to add the following lines of information to better support the topic with secondary sources. The information I wish to edit in will appear in italics.
Digital humanities projects are more likely than traditional humanities work to involve a team or a lab, which may be composed of faculty, staff, graduate or undergraduate students, information technology specialists, and partners in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. Credit and authorship are often given to multiple people to reflect this collaborative nature, which is different from the sole authorship model in the traditional humanities (and more like the natural sciences). This leads to the decentering of authority, challenging peer review, solitary writing, and authority as well as the channels utilized to disseminate information.
According to Geoffrey Rockwell, due to the need of diverse skills in order to complete digital projects as well as the availability of technologies that facilitates collaborations for digital projects, digital humanities are characterized by collaborative effort towards project completion. The convergence between theses two factors results in a particular characteristic of digital humanities which Rockwell refers to as “collaborative weeds of interactivity and participation.” [2]
Hectorlopez17 ( talk) 21:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Digital humanities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
-- Oa01 ( talk) 14:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel as though the criticism section has an unusually high amount of [undue] WP:WEIGHT, and seemingly some original research. It's dense and some of it seems beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia should touch on.
I think we should try to concisely present the main points with simpler language. I'm not an expert on the subject and just thought I would point this out. I might make some edits if I find the time... -- Pythagimedes ( talk) 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The edit made to the second paragraph of the article on 4 August 2021 at 6:02 inserts information about a particular research project. This information seems quite specific for the lead section. I wonder what others think. Heilprin ( talk) 01:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amilcontentanalysis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There are two links that are no longer supported. One is the 53rd citation of Howard, Jennifer (2009-12-31). "The MLA Convention in Translation". The other is a bibliographic entry by Classen, Christoph, Kinnebrock, Susanne, & Löblich, Maria, eds. (2012). Towards Web History: Sources, Methods, and Challenges in the Digital Age. Historical Social Research. Altown40 ( talk) 06:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I figured I should start this, since no one has. Elijahmeeks 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There are many basic tennants of Humanities Computing that were in the old article that were not carried over in the merge. I actually feel Huco should be kept as a separate article. Rendar 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The reference material in that article referred to both Digital Humanities and Humanities Computing. It seems the relevant research treats these two terms as referring to the same concept, and so I'd disagree. Perhaps if the tenets you're referring to were added to this article that would fix things? Elijahmeeks 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
At a THATcamp at the National Library of Australia on 2nd November 2014 a session devoted to exploring collaborative editing spent an hour editing the digital humanities page. (I've added this note to explain the flurry of edits appearing right now by unregistered users.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.102.239.195 ( talk) 00:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I would recommend organizing the subjects in order to make a more cohesive "narrative" regarding Digital Humanities. I would suggest bumping the "History" subject right after "Definition." Also within the first paragraph of "Definition" I would suggest linking terms such as "hashtag activism" and "alternate reality games" to their respective wiki entries. Hectorlopez17 ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
In the digital archives subsection of the projects, I would recommend adding collaborative digital archives that are collaborative in nature. For a field built on collaboration, this section should highlight projects that encourage non-professional users to add their own content to the project. Mbhankins ( talk) 05:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest adding links to NEH and NSF, as I did not see an explanation of what these abbreviations represent. People with no background information on this subject may find it confusing. Meaghanjarnecke ( talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think perhaps some section reorganization is in order now that the article is fairly well established. For instance, in most articles, "History" is either the very first section, or at least immediately follows the "Definition"/"Etymology" section. Also, given the shortness of the "Tools" section, might it be merged with the discussion on "Methods"? Apjames93 ( talk) 15:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I would dearly love if somebody would be so kind as to answer the following questions for me which I'm still left wondering about having read this article:
86.42.71.111 ( talk) 10:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The presentation of the Negative publicity section has some issues with neutrality. The author is channeling some ideas directly from the sources (new wine in old bottles) without some necessary context, while other positions are presented as statement, rather than opinion (If it were not burdened...) Kaxsalla ( talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The criticisms section should include a reference to the often-stated criticism that Digital Humanities is a very temporary field that will only exist for the few years between when digital methods have started to infiltrate the humanities and when (presumably very shortly) everyone in the humanities will be using them. This comes up a lot at digital humanities conferences, but I haven't had a chance to find a good reference of a discussion of it in writing yet. 192.102.239.195 ( talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
In the subsection "Difficulty of evaluation," it might be useful to reference guidelines to evaluate digital scholarship developed by various organizations, such as the American Historical Association or the Modern Language Association, to demonstrate the academic world is trying to educate various departments in the humanities on how to properly assess digital scholarship as it related to promotion, tenure etc. This information seems lacking in the article Tealover7711 ( talk) 04:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
While issues of access are addressed, they focus primarily on issues of access for those with disabilities. I would suggest exploring other potential access issues that may stem from race or socioeconomic class, and perhaps a lack of internationalization in the field and what problems these pose. [1] is one source that explains how many digital humanities centers are typically East-West based and usually reside in higher economic areas. JonnieFox ( talk) 21:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Since this page has been flagged for having too many links (incl. one I just added myself), I suggest the following:
Ebellempire ( talk) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody put some visual samples of a good Digital Humanities website? This article badly needs some visuals. 86.41.8.16 ( talk) 13:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources; but this quote is nice. I moved it here from the category where next to nobody would ever see it. If this appears in a more reliable outlet, I'd support inclusion. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
"Those definitions of DH must be personal, and must vary – but how many of us, when asked to explain DH, go 'well, its kinda the intersection of....' – and you lost them at kinda." - Melissa Terras, " Present, Not Voting: Digital Humanities in the Panopticon"
Southern Spaces is no doubt an interesting and innovative journal. However, it does not seem to be in any way specifically related to Digital Humanities. This is their self-definition: "An interdisciplinary journal about regions, places, and cultures of the US South and their global connections." ( http://www.southernspaces.org/). In my opinion, this journal should be removed from the list.
At the same time, the "Journal of Digital Humanities" is missing. Here is their self-definition: "The Journal of Digital Humanities is a comprehensive, peer-reviewed, open access journal that features the best scholarship, tools, and conversations produced by the digital humanities community in the previous trimester." ( http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/). This one should probably be added. I'm willing to make those changes myself but will wait for reactions first. -- Christof-Schoech ( talk) 12:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice idea to add a "methods" section, should we merge it with the "tools" one? However, it will be necessary not to focus only on textual analysis. Please also note that this content has be added by an user ( Thinkbig-project) who dropped the same content on other pages: see his contributions (the cited papers are all from the same group of authors). Self-promotion of scientific publications appears to be frequent on Wikipedia (and is of course sometimes necessary to improve articles). What should we do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinius ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC) (oh yes, sorry for forgetting the signature, SineBot ;) Calvinius ( talk) 15:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
With the increasing visibility of Digital Humanities and the fact that Wikipedia embodies several DH values (iterative, collaborative, distributive, multimodal, open and accessible), I would like to see this article improved so it can become one of the Featured articles and provide a solid coverage of the topic. Join with me! -- Catsandthings ( talk) 04:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Digital humanities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.neh.gov/ODH/Grant{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gesis.org/en/hsr/aktuelle-ausgaben/aktuelle-hefte-2010-2012/373-digital-humanities/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It may be helpful to add a brief statement explaining each of the values in the bulleted-list. Users can read more about them if the follow the link to Josh Honn's article, but I think it's still useful to add something to the wiki article...as it stands, it sounds a bit vague. Krrlee ( talk) 14:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Drawing on an academic talk that Dr. Tara McPherson gave last summer, I have added a small paragraph to reflect the non-canonical but significant contributions to the history of the digital humanities made by groups such as SIGGRAPH and artists such as the E.A.T. group and Charles and Ray Eames. Sadwingsofdestiny ( talk) 15:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am curious if anyone believes it may be productive to add more material to the Further Reading section of this page? There is one subheading only, and I think this large topic should merit more further readings and subheadings since it encompasses such a large amount of material. If this were a possibility, I could provide a series of scholarly articles to point toward for readers. Thenewpulp ( talk) 21:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I would propose to add the following lines of information to better support the topic with secondary sources. The information I wish to edit in will appear in italics.
Digital humanities projects are more likely than traditional humanities work to involve a team or a lab, which may be composed of faculty, staff, graduate or undergraduate students, information technology specialists, and partners in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. Credit and authorship are often given to multiple people to reflect this collaborative nature, which is different from the sole authorship model in the traditional humanities (and more like the natural sciences). This leads to the decentering of authority, challenging peer review, solitary writing, and authority as well as the channels utilized to disseminate information.
According to Geoffrey Rockwell, due to the need of diverse skills in order to complete digital projects as well as the availability of technologies that facilitates collaborations for digital projects, digital humanities are characterized by collaborative effort towards project completion. The convergence between theses two factors results in a particular characteristic of digital humanities which Rockwell refers to as “collaborative weeds of interactivity and participation.” [2]
Hectorlopez17 ( talk) 21:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Digital humanities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
-- Oa01 ( talk) 14:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel as though the criticism section has an unusually high amount of [undue] WP:WEIGHT, and seemingly some original research. It's dense and some of it seems beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia should touch on.
I think we should try to concisely present the main points with simpler language. I'm not an expert on the subject and just thought I would point this out. I might make some edits if I find the time... -- Pythagimedes ( talk) 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The edit made to the second paragraph of the article on 4 August 2021 at 6:02 inserts information about a particular research project. This information seems quite specific for the lead section. I wonder what others think. Heilprin ( talk) 01:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)