(this is one of my “other format” responses)

Data should be more like recycling.  Recycling is FAIR!

This article posted by the Force 11 Group, outlines the rules, regulations, and goals of data that is shared. I think that it is really great that a group like this stepped up to the task, and made it possible for everyone, humans AND machines, be able to use data that is published out into the world. I agree with my classmate initialed RF, (post is here: http://courses.shroutdocs.org/dcs104-fall2018/2018/11/28/e-universe/), who said that these bylaws allow the data universe to be equal, and equal=good so yay!

Should it be expected that all data objects have all their metadata explicitly and thoroughly stated? Or even recommended? I found myself asking these questions reading through “The FAIR Data Principles,” which outlines an ideal of data availability.

I agree with much of the idea of the article. It seems like generally a good idea to ensure that information published on the internet could be used by others. The ideas for making the information accessible all seem sound. The one thing that I think could have used some more discussion was the idea of metadata subjectivity. For things that are objective such as author and character count, other metadata could be less objective. For instance, an automatic image tagger based on image processing (such as on Facebook: e.g. “happy people, dog running”) could vary based on how they are interpreted.

It seems the advantages of making data more apparent is the ease of use. However, the caveat is that metadata that is presented as a buffer to actually accessing the data could present problems if used haphazardly. As interpretations of data can differ, should we not seek to evaluate the primary source. Again, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make data easily accessible, as RF stated, accessible data leads to fewer people being “left out of the data creation process thus creating implicit bias within our data,” which is a positive. However we should be careful about the metadata that is presented as objective.

The “Guiding Principles for FAIR Data Publishing” lays out a comprehensive set of rules by which we should consider when interacting with data.  I think this is extremely important today because data is more ubiquitous than ever. Sometimes, it feels like data is so abundant that it has created a lawless e-universe.  As a college student that tinkers with code and data science, the ways in which I am supposed to interact with data is not taught in a classroom. Other than machine-jargon protocols that can sometimes be found on an API, I have been forced to fend for myself in this growing e-universe.  As a result, gaining access to data has proved difficult along with using online data all together. By making data more findable and accessible as laid out in the FAIR guidelines, the e-universe will have a readable map for navigating it. This will hopefully make interacting with data less intimidating and in turn create a more robust data environment.  

The FAIR guidelines are also critical when considering data equity.  Historically speaking, data has been controlled by a very specific group of people.  As a result, many people have been left out of the data creation process thus creating implicit bias within our data.  This can be seen for example within Thomas Jefferson’s diaries. By shifting the paradigm in which data exists to be more accessible and usable I think that we will see a more equitable e-universe.  Instead of having to having wide gaps in data, I think that data as a whole will become more equitable.

In Developing Things by Ramsey and Rockwell, the authors discuss the topic of scholarship around digital humanities. The article looks at dispelling a lot of the biases against digital work and online publishing.  While I never doubted the usefulness or validity of technological approaches and digital work, I still viewed written material as more scholarly and defensible. To show that digital work holds the same validity, they looked to expand our understanding of theory. If we believe digital work as being based in theory or offering new theory then it becomes easy to accept it as scholarly work. The authors explain that theory doesn’t necessarily have to predict but rather allow for a deeper understanding of something. Their framework for defining digital work seems more convenient than convincing but their article still offers new ideas and pushes for more recognition for digital work. While new ideas in digital humanities and software should definitely be qualified as scholarly work, I agree with the sentiments expressed by MG. MG expressed in their blog post that we still should be careful when examining digital work as there is a plethora of information and sources on the internet with very few being checked for validity. This requires more effort for the reader/examiner and one needs to be careful when trusting that online work is indeed scholarly.

The article goes in depth about the case of humanities academics who have turned to coding in order to build their credibility but have been questioned in the idea of how scholarly their work is. Digital humanities have been working to build onto theories for years in order to explain phenomena in the humanities subject. These theories are built  “as hermeneutical instruments through which we can interpret other phenomena. Digital artifacts like tools could then be considered as “telescopes for the mind” that show us something in a new light.” In essence these digital artifacts and theories are not concrete items but are floating ideas can than cut to the core of the biggest questions in the humanities. Rather than dismissing these theories as lacking credibility there needs to be an equal amount of credibility on the reader to analyze the source. The internet is fair game and people will use it to their advantage as classmate MG says “we should assume credibility with a certain amount of doubt that allows us to critically examine the work before assuming its validity.”

The emergence of the digital age has most definitely created a division in what people think about scholarship. For example, as a young adult who has been brought up where technology has been heavily be apart of my education. I find online data, statistics, graphs, and articles that have published online to be very useful and much needed for me to grew as a student and to understand topics. However an argument  that someone who has not had the same experience as me could say that the digital age does not respect articles and publishers online because it is “nonprofessional”  I don’t agree with this because in order as a society to continue to grow and develop, we have to continue to be progressive. I agree with the post of “What is scholarship” because it reiterates the point that the new digital is apart of what is making scholarship to evolve. 

The article for today, “Developing Things: Notes toward an Epistemology of Building in the Digital Humanities”, was extremely interesting to me. It is discussed whether or not digital humanities is considered “scholarship” or not which I went back and forth on myself throughout reading. At first, I thought it should of course be considered scholarship because of the level of skill and complication that goes into digital work, but the middle of the article changed my mind a bit, saying “Repairing cars requires a high level of technical skill; the intellectual nature of chess is beyond dispute; mining coal is backbreaking work. No one confuses these activities with scholarship.” This is very true, and sets up a possible thought in my head that the digital work should not at all be discredited for its difficulty or impressiveness, but it may just not fall under the category of “scholarship”. However, the internet defines the word scholarship with “academic study or achievement; learning of a high level”, which makes me think it should be able to fall under that category. I went back and forth a few times, and still am unsure what my opinion is, but I would like to read more on arguments about this question.

I thought it was interesting that fellow classmate “TB” noted that “it just seems that whatever point they are arguing has little effect on what the results of any research would be”. I agree with this and lack the knowledge of why this question is so relevant, if it does not affect any of the data or analysis in these works.

At the beginning of the article, David asked if people who were posting online weren’t being counted as credible sources. His question made me think of the issue of fake news, and what online sources we trust and assume to be credible. As we have discussed in the past few weeks, one danger of data analyzation is the misrepresentation of data in graphs. It is no surprise that the misuse of technology and data analytics can result in misleading or false conclusions (as shown in Civilian Casualties and Searching for Black Girls). This is not meant to discredit all digital humanities studies, but to acknowledge the danger when used irresponsibly, and to understand the questioning credibility of digital humanities scholars. In an age where information is readily accessible at all times, and where there is a plethora of online articles, it is the readers job to analyze the source and determine its credibility. I think, that in response to David’s question, we should assume credibility with a certain amount of doubt that allows us to critically examine the work before assuming its validity.

Today’s article, Debates in the Digital Humanities, is a very interesting and insightful one. The article initially points out the strong biases that develop against more technological approaches to some things and makes use of printed media received as more reliable sources of information than those published online, because it is the most conventional form, to some, when faced with an ‘easier’ alternative it became the ‘true’ form. This ideology is also seen in the acceptance of Digital Humanities as a true form of expressing scholarly intelligence. The article is well written with in text citations that help with references but a lot of the claims made are open to questioning even though the reasoning is logical and can be followed.