Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: Dealing with Multiple Narratives of “Truth” and Creating Meaningful Play

A certain amount of knowledge is required for players to navigate video games, whether this means remembering the weak points of the different splicers in BioShock, or remembering the buttons to press to play Epona’s song in Ocarina of Time. This knowledge is gained throughout play, rather than presented to the individual to quiz them, […]

Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: More Heavy-Handed Culturomics

A few days ago, Gao, Hu, Mao, and Perc posted a preprint of their forthcoming article comparing social and natural phenomena. The authors, apparently all engineers and physicists, use the google ngrams data to come to the conclusion that “social and natural phenomena are governed by fundamentally different processes.” The take-home message is that words describing […]

Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: The Differentiation of Literary and Nonliterary Diction, 1700-1900

When we compare groups of texts, we’re often interested in characterizing the contrast between them. But instead of characterizing the contrast, you could also just measure the distance between categories. For instance, you could generate a list of word frequencies for two genres, and then run a Spearman’s correlation test, to measure the rank-order similarity […]

Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: DH Process as Product

from platform as presentation to platform as research workshop (as presentation). I’ve been thinking a lot about and tinkering with the emerging platforms for digital humanities publication such as Omeka and Scalar. They are marvelous and promising platforms for presentation, but what worries me is that they are imagining digital humanities projects as, in the end, simply new […]

Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: Found: Data, Textuality, and the Digital Humanities

Computational processes generate lists: lists of numbers, lists of words, lists of coordinates, lists of properties. We transform these lists into more exalted forms — visualizations, maps, information systems, software tools — but the list remains the fundamental data structure of computing, from which most other structures are derived. Whenever we treat the world as […]

Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: Thick Mapping in the Digital Humanities

Todd Presner (Duke ’94), gave the following presentation at Duke on January 24 entitled “Thick Mapping in the Digital Humanities: From Berlin to Los Angeles and Beyond.” Presner, Professor of Germanic Languages and Comparative Literature at UCLA, where he is the Director of UCLA’s Center for Jewish Studies and Chair of the Digital Humanities Program, […]

Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: DH, Interdisciplinarity, and Curricular Incursion

In last December’s NITLE Digital Scholarship Seminar, Teaching DH 101, I presented my experience designing and proposing a new digital humanities course at St. Norbert College. In that talk, I found myself arguing, somewhat to my surprise, for interdisciplinarity—by which I mean clear association with one of the humanities disciplines that converge under the digital […]

Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: Content and Context: Visualizations for the Public?

In the very useful survey of the “history web” in their 2005 book Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web , Dan Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig identify the range of genres that encompassed the historical content on the web: archival sites, exhibits and scholarly essays, teaching and learning sites, and discussion forums […]

Editors' Choice

Editors’ Choice: The Networked Structure of Scientific Growth

By Scott Weingart

“The Scientific Revolution” is as apt a name as any for a period which set the world in motion. Something feels fundamentally different on this side of its amorphous borders than what came before, and this difference is felt most keenly in the sciences. This is not a paper about the scientific revolution; it will not reveal the steady stream of precedents before the great publications of Copernicus and Vesalius.