what kinds of writing should humanities scholars who design software and make things in code be doing?
That's a question worth thinking about. What exactly should digital humanist be writing about? Should they write a book about there code and it secrets? or should they write about there life and how they got to that point in coding? Its weird when you really sit and thing about it.
many projects are the result of grant-funded work.
People start things just for fun and games and them just give up on it because they got bored of it. Take a DH Project for example. You start it thinking it fun and games but when you get tired and bored or irritated you just give up only to see that somebody else picks it up, does it and it goes big.
Many students tell me that in order to get started with digital humanities, they’d like to have some idea of what they might do and what technical skills they might need in order to do it.
At times I don't care what I need or what things are about before I get into it. Once something about it catches my eye I push myself to it no matter how hard things may get.
data is not a given, but is always manufactured and created. Moreover, he shows, we can approach data from different perspectives and treat it as an artifact (something actively and purposefully created by people), as text (subject to interpretation, for example by scholars), and as computer-processable information (to be analysed with quantitative methods). According to Owens, this means that data is not a given and not some unquestionable evidence; rather, it is “a multifaceted object which can be mobilized as evidence in support of an argument.
Firstly, data is processed information and information is raw so data is not given it is manufactured. Data is the key fact need to produce a lot of digital items out there so it can be used to basically anything.
However. Things are changing, in ways both obvious and not. All of our stuff is on our computers now — all of it, from books to movies to archival documents. This is why, more than anything else, I think digital humanities is here to stay.
Everything in this world is changing. From going to traditional (hand writing) to digital (typing). Even though digital humanities is a research program threes still research in both traditional and digital areas.
This is not a perfect analogy, but imagine that someone called your family photograph album a dataset. It’s not inaccurate per se, but it suggests that this person just fundamentally doesn’t understand why you value this artifact.
Practically it is a dataset because it stores the image type of data but at the same time its not a data set because its not processed information on a computer.
This is not because we’re stupid or naïve; it’s that humanists have a very different way of engaging with evidence than most scientists or even social scientists
Does this mean that humanists think more outside the box than scientists?
How might we understand other boring things — our subway systems, tax codes, mortgage rules — as sedimentations of power and privilege, and what must we do to change them?
I agree, without google we might not undertsand a lot of things going on in this world. But i guess in some cases some things cant be changed and dome things are suposed to be changed. If you dould change the world would you?
The problem is not just that racist search results are retrieved by Google, but that the people who make Google don’t anticipate that such results will appear at all, and therefore don’t account for them in advance.
The biggest question here is "Why do white people always go against black people even when they have done nothing wrong?" to me the answer to that question is because white people feel there self lesss superior under black people so they try to take advantage of there life by bringing them down with false rumours. White people wont code google to help back people so they wont anticipate such results to appear.
Having turned the “boring thing” of algorithmic code into a site of political and cultural analysis, Noble turns to potential prescriptions. How might Google respond to the concerns raised by Noble and others about the racism and misogyny embedded in its networks? Google has acted in several cases. As she notes, the algorithm has been changed to remove pornography from the first set of results when users Google “black girls.” Google also removes anti-Semitic content from the web in response to hate speech laws in Germany, and complies with Right to Be Forgotten laws in Europe more broadly. The internet as it is retrieved by Google could be different. As a former urban marketing executive whose job was in part to insulate companies against potential racist missteps, Noble is keen to the ways that Google responds to accusations of racism in its algorithm. And yet, racist content persists.
From my understanding of this it goes to show that people coded google to be racist. Its like all the things that google was programed to do and the way it was to respond to searches it would aim at black people being bad.