On the contrary, the technology demands that it be asked only what itcan answer, changing the questions to conform to its own limitations
This is true to some extent, although as we discussed last week, things like ChatGPT and rapidly evolving AI shows that sometimes technology can go beyond.
Pannapacker sees DH as an insurgent tool to "liberatestudents from lectures and exams, and involve them in their own learning." Who needs universities?
I understand that one could find this viewpoint less than satisfactory; one could suggest that taking classes on YouTube is arguably better than going to universities, but I'd argue that both are two very different methods of learning and have a significant difference in quality. However, what I don't understand why would this particular resentment be directed solely towards DH. It seems to me that a common theme in these articles seem to be being critical of DH on certain aspects when they're equally relevant to other areas of studies.
The term "DH," then, is not about introducing digital technologieswhere there were none before, but about an institutional reframing. What people mean by "DH" is a program and,ultimately, an epistemology.
I think this may be the most grounded definition of DH in the article.
butalso how the humanities have always already been engaged with, indeedhave coevolved with, technologies of mediation throughout their history.
I don't think this would be a problem for the humanities even just a little bit. For example, those who aim to study quantum mechanics do in fact, start by learning the history of how the understanding of the science has evolved over time; even when furthering new branches of studies, learning the history of the subject matter is always part of the curriculum so I'm a bit confused in why Grusin would rhetorically pursue this idea? It feels like such an unnecessary concern to me.
While sucha joke might be funny once, its continuation throughout the entire panelserved not to welcome curious newcomers into the DH community, but torepel or exclude them.
I find this interesting because this implies that if DH is indeed the future of humanities as a whole, those who are unable to keep up with DH would eventually loose their footing in the area of study regardless of their experience and knowledge outside the digital landscape.
moocs
Massive Open Online Courses
Ethical claims are normative claims
I understand the argument Cecire is trying to make here, but I fail to understand how it's specially relevant to digital humanities. Most areas of study are like this, are they not?
flaws in the system
Kirschenbaum in his essay (the one that we read for W1) seemed to think positively of Twitter and its usage in DH. I'm a little intrigued on why Cecire on the other hand, considers using Twitter hashtags as a medium of discourse to be a flaw. Is online activity really that hard to keep track as opposed to more conventional methods?
It is undertheorized the way carpentry or computer science are
I don't understand this comparison; can anyone explain in what sense does computer science share a common ground with carpentry in terms of being a craft field or else-wise, and how digital humanities relates to that similarity?