Hello readers,

 

This post is my last post of the digital humanities (DH) series and the VLP Consulting Project. Additionally, the last one but not the least in these courses.

 

 

Chapter three of Burdick’s book has been my favorite since the author has illustrated as to how social media changed the way, the digital humanities portray the information.

The first aspect that helps them to reshape the knowledge in DH scholarly and practice economic matters. The writer has mentioned how the Industrial Revolution has rustled the methods used by modern huminites’ learner. He points out that his technology transformation norms had changed society to be a better model named as “Open-source cultural.” (p.77). He explained the history of the information systems that established this social revelation. The argument in this chapter is concerning as to how open source steel works opposite to cutler value and what kind of breaking into authorship rights is interesting.

 

I would ask how we could protect the open source ideas and innovations?

 

The author gives some of the reasons that build this notion or in some ways help to break the other ship privacy. For example, he calmed the technology systems in the public libraries that shared the networks into enhancing the information digitally, allowing the users to share the data free and without the author’s citations. This implication has a profound impact on the economy and society.

 

Secondly, he negotiated as to how social media platforms help to increase the industrial economy. How these applications work with all kinds of devices is vague. Any user can share, send or upload any information any time helping to break the boundaries between scholars and extensive dissection in most disciplines.

 

My question, in this case, is the social economy is an honor transition in DH worlds?

 

After that, the author opens a new discussion about what is the author and how the concept of another has been reframed with the unique social aspects. He also pointed out how publishing reshaped in these days.

 

In the next chapter, the author flips the page to the concept of humanities ’work and new norms. He asked a question, which makes me think for a long time “Are we all digital humanists? No! Are we carrying out the work of humanities digitally?” (p.102).

 

It is difficult to determine this since the author explained that digital tools are being natural in our daily routines. (p.103)

 

In this chapter, the writer argues that humanities’ experts are using programming and coding languages to explain the digital theory. However, what stood out to me was that he suggested that DH must have a new programming language that is suitable for cutler and human data. I like this contribution. Last semester, when I worked in a theory class using JavaScript and HTML to present the theory in dynamic and technology tools, it was hard. How coding works need a technical person to understand. Since I am a student who comes from a media background, it is not an easy task to normalize the text with the coding structure.

 

Accordingly, these two chapters are arguing on how social networks and new technology can change the social perspective and the writer's rights in positive and negative aspects. I am reading this book, but I still read the print version. The design, fonts and the pages’ structure are much better in the paper book. However, my question is, will the publishing industry change who the publishing author is? Does the publisher only produce a virtual copy? Can social media be a digital archive? Many quotations are coming to my mind when I am reading this week’s chapters.

​

In the end, the book was very beneficial in supporting the new revolution in the digital humanities industry.