The New York Times may be objective, but journalism is not free of emotions - regardless of whether there is visualization or not. The consumerist nature of the news requires emotional marketing to make people want to read the data. As such, they are going to include context and details that force readers to view the material with emotions. Look at the article: Las Vegas father of five dies from COVID - 'I should have gotten the damn vaccine. https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-covid-vaccine-dad-dies-20210731-f2jblbmtwzfhjoplxxzf6rmgje-story.html. Yes there are facts, but there is also an appeal to create an emotional response in the reader.

I would certainly agree that search engines provide us with a sorting tool, I rarely look beyond the first or second pages of my search results. While many may place a lot of faith in google search results, I believe that education - even before the post-secondary level - has instilled a sense of responsibility in individuals to try and locate reliable sources.

I found myself wondering previously if the concept of co-citation networks could be used to instead display research questions and patterns and I believe that text-mining would be a tool to use for such a project. How exactly one would undertake such a project remains a mystery to me at this point.

Perhaps one day, when I am prepared to share my experiences with domestic violence and substance use disorder within my family, I will create such a resource

I wonder if rather than creating a co-citation network, one could create something that analyzes the information in the articles, then create a network that visualizes the current discussions on the topic. The article does say co-citation networks are a way to learn about the discussion surrounding a topic, I would be interested to see a visualization that explores something like the state of knowledge surrounding epigenetics and addictions.

This looks like an invaluable resource to have access to. Imagine starting a research project and being able to reach 300 relevant primary sources, introductory essays, and interviews from one consolidated website. It will be interesting to see if this type of source becomes more popular for scholarly activities in the future. Though again, the question remains, if such a resource were used in a field that is not historical- who will update and maintain these sites?

Though these fields may be at the forefront of computerized projects, I believe many fields will benefit from the technologies and practices that are developing and that digital humanities projects may serve as an important resource to individuals throughout their educational lives. Do you remember being 13 and learning about war and other events from work-sheets and textbooks? How much of that do you remember? How much more meaningful could that experience have been if it consisted of an interactive timeline and map?

Isn't that the truth? With a $50 investment one can run their own website and publish whatever information they please, free of constraints associated with physical texts and the associated editing processes. While I can appreciate the benefits of the online format of information, it certainly does put more of an onus on consumers (both academic and lay-people alike) to find reputable sources of information.

I think this is an interesting point. The increased ability to collaborate on projects is a benefit of going digital, however, where such projects allow commentary from the public, how are these comments managed? Who will ensure that a project does not become full of irrelevant or even false information?

What an interesting use of technology. Authentication of works by quantification. Clearly there is overlap between digital humanities and scientific fields such as chemistry where quantifiable data is a substantial part of research.