Talk:Digital humanities

message: * The foregrounding of the digital humanities praxis at CUNY in the very first paragraph seems incorrect. Not only does this give the wrong impression about the composition of the field to readers, it also implies that the CUNY program is an antecedent to DH, which is false. If the purpose of the sentence is to quickly gesture toward the ancestors of the field, it would be best to stick to "humanities computing" only, as this was the field that actually changed names to DH. All information about the origins and sources of that field, and of DH post name change, should be put in another paragraph.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontoligent (talk • contribs) 11:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Along those same lines, the link for the Fitzpatrick article in the Bibliography is also dead (Fitzpatrick, Kathleen (2011). Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy. New York; NYU Press.). Krrlee (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: I figured I should start this, since no one has.Elijahmeeks 00:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: 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: 
*1. What is the difference between creating a really cool website focusing on your scholarly research, and what is known as the digital humanities? 
*2. Could somebody be more precise about the technical skills one would need to engage in the digital humanities? What computer programming knowledge and skills would one need to attain to make a career out of this? 
*3. I want to know, I suppose, are digital humanities' professionals (??) simply web designers with an advanced knowledge of a humanities discipline? If not, in what ways are they different? 
*4. What are the future prospects for this field of study? 
*5. It seems like a brilliant idea to take scholarly work away from esoteric journals and open it to the world (including the taxpayers who fund so much scholarly activity), why is every university not embracing this without reservation; what are the criticisms of the digital humanities? 
86.42.71.111 (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a recent article in the American Historical Review (2016) 121 (1): 143-155, entitled Harlem Crime, Soapbox Speeches, and Beauty Parlors:  Digital Historical Context and the Challenge of Preserving Source Integrity. Joshua Sternfeld reviews digitalharlem.org and is critical of the way race and gender are approached.  This might be a good addition to the subheading Diversity under Criticisms. Altown40 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology, criticisms, & future

message: Since this page has been flagged for having too many links (incl. one I just added myself), I suggest the following:
*1.  Someone with DMOZ editor status re-compile this list on that site under Arts>Humanities>Scholarship and Technology>[new category:]Digital Humanities Centers.  Migrate only "Digital Humanities Centers" since they make up the bulk of the current list.
*2.  Link to that page from the External Links section using a title like "Directory of Digital Humanities Centers [DMOZ]."
*3.  Add note for Wikipedia editors that, for the sake of usability and organization, such links belong on DMOZ.
*4.  Review remaining external links.
Ebellempire (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
thread_title: Sample websites?

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, it's not just a blog post: Melissa said it in front of some 240 delegates as part of her closing keynote at the Digital Humanities 2010 conference. There's video footage of her saying it hosted on an academic non-blog site (linked here), although I'm not sure if the footage has been removed or if the server just happens to be down right now. ARK (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs can be reliable sources. When they have professional editorial staff or written by qualified professionals in their field. Melissa Terras is a professional digital humanist, with tenure at a recognised university and no known history of promoting WP:FRINGE theories, this makes her blog a reliable source as far as wikipedia is concerned (but only about the digital humanities, which is where the qualifications are). Stuartyeates (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice quote but needs a better source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of DH journals 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that the tools section still seems biased toward digital tools related to textual analysis. I think it would be helpful to expand this section to include other digital tools to provide some balance.Tealover7711 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Methods" section & self-promotion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nice initiative. However, IMHO even more important than improving coverage is at the moment to straighten the text: Move definitional controversies to a subsection of controversies, remove them from the introductory texts (these are absolutely not helpful for people looking for a *first* orientation on DH), break paragraphs into smaller segments, possibly introduce sub-headings. However, I know colleagues who would appreciate the current elaborate style of writing (even though it's not very {d/w}ictionary-like), so I'm suggesting this rather than just to apply it. -- Chiarcos (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goal of making this a Featured Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added  tag to http://www.neh.gov/ODH/Grant
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120517011354/http://www.diggingintodata.org:80/Home/AwardRecipients2009/tabid/175/Default.aspx to http://www.diggingintodata.org/Home/AwardRecipients2009/tabid/175/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113233503/http://plp.uottawa.ca/ to http://plp.uottawa.ca%20
*Added  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I thought the same thing as I was reading through the list—but I'm wondering if trying to describe them without paraphrasing or outright quoting the source proved to be more work than was really necessary, when a link could be provided far more easily. Apjames93 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values and Methods 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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.” 
Hectorlopez17 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hectorlopez17. I'm afraid I will have to decline this edit request as well. Because I can only check portions of the book you cited (the only access I have is a Google Books preview), and due to licensing issues with your other edit requests, I'm not comfortable granting this request. Altamel (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203021953/http://dhpoco.org/blog/2013/05/10/open-thread-the-digital-humanities-as-a-historical-refuge-from-raceclassgendersexualitydisability/ to http://dhpoco.org/blog/2013/05/10/open-thread-the-digital-humanities-as-a-historical-refuge-from-raceclassgendersexualitydisability/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606061117/http://www.gesis.org/hsr/aktuelle-ausgaben/aktuelle-hefte-2010-2012/374-the-economie-des-conventions/ to http://www.gesis.org/hsr/aktuelle-ausgaben/aktuelle-hefte-2010-2012/374-the-economie-des-conventions/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820165207/http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=4998 to http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=4998
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609161059/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11336 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11336
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * Women's history DH projects in Wikidata: < http://w.wiki/Cqf >.
* Black DH projects in Wikidata: < https://w.wiki/CSD >.
-- Oa01 (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TALK pages are for discussing changes to the article. Could you explain what changes to the article you are proposing? Biogeographist (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just sharing material of interest to editors/readers. -- Oa01 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:TALK#SHARE is specifically about parking "material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns" or new material "to be put into the article" after preparation or discussion. Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion about the subject of the article and not a repository of links, images, or media files. How do you think the links that you shared should be used to improve the article? Biogeographist (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of DH projects in Wikidata

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section a bit excessive? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes to lead section