{"id":113,"date":"2020-08-03T18:12:02","date_gmt":"2020-08-03T18:12:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/?page_id=113"},"modified":"2021-10-29T19:04:08","modified_gmt":"2021-10-29T19:04:08","slug":"revised-manuscript","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/revised-manuscript\/","title":{"rendered":"Revised Manuscript"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

History Can <\/em>Be Open Source: Democratic Dreams and the Rise of Digital History<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

In 2006, pioneering digital historian Roy Rosenzweig\npublished an article in the Journal of\nAmerican History<\/em> entitled \u201cCan History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the\nFuture of the Past.\u201d By then Wikipedia had already become, he said, \u201cperhaps\nthe largest work of online historical writing, the most widely read work of\ndigital history, and the most important free historical resource on the World\nWide Web.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a> Rosenzweig\ndeclared that historians \u201chave a responsibility to make better information\nsources available online\u201d and called the profession to \u201cemulate the great\ndemocratic triumph of Wikipedia\u2014its demonstration that people are eager for\nfree and accessible information resources.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thirteen\nyears after Rosenzweig\u2019s plea, technological innovation, institutional\nresources, professional norms, and shifting scholarly attitudes have converged\nto prove Rosenzweig right: history can <\/em>be\nopen source. And yet, while scores of digital projects have provided free,\nhigh-quality, peer-reviewed digital historical material, the historical\nprofession has rarely stopped to take critical stock of not only of open\neducation resources (OER), but the rise of digital history itself. The field of\ndigital history is most often still discussed in the future tense, in terms of\nthe scholarly promises of emerging technologies and practices, rather than\nthrough reflection upon the rewards reaped by what is now several decades of\nacademic labor.[3]<\/sup><\/a> It is the goal of this piece to historicize digital history\nand the wider digital humanities by confronting their past\nand present claims to \u201cdemocracy.\u201d Placing digital\nhistory\u2019s rise in a historical and institutional context, surveying the past\nand present landscape of digital projects, and evaluating their inconsistent,\noften problematic, and yet foundational democratic aspirations, this article moves beyond questions of\ntechnological innovation and digital access to engage more fundamental and\nintractable questions about inequality, community, and participatory historical\ninquiry.[4]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dream of \u201cdemocratization\u201d fueled much of the rise of\ndigital history and the larger digital humanities.[5]<\/a>\nEarly discussions of digital history, nearly all written by white men, lauded\nthe democratic potential of new technology.[6]<\/a>\n\u201cIn the 1990s, the animating spirit behind much of our work in the digital\nhumanities was democratization,\u201d said William G. Thomas III, a digital\nhistorian and co-founder of digital humanities centers at the University of\nVirginia and the University of Nebraska. \u201cOur ambitions then were only\nsecondarily to experiment with new forms of scholarship. They were primarily to\ndemocratize history: to transform the way history was understood by changing\nthe way it was produced and accessed.\u201d[7]<\/a>\nFounded in 1994, the Center for History and New Media (CHNM) at George Mason\nUniversity\u2014later renamed for Rosenzweig\u2014declared that it \u201cused digital media\nand computer technology to democratize history\u2014to incorporate multiple voices,\nreach diverse audiences, and encourage popular participation in presenting and\npreserving the past.\u201d[8]<\/a> Such claims borrowed from the wider digital\nhumanities. As Bridget Draxler and the Humanities, Arts, Science, and\nTechnology Alliance (HASTAC) explained, it was the fundamental mission of the\ndigital humanities \u201cto democratize knowledge to reach out to \u2018publics,\u2019 share\nacademic discoveries, and invite an array of audiences to participate in\nknowledge production.\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a>Optimistic calls for democratic digital work echoed throughout\nuniversities, museums, archives, and beyond. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As early digital humanists\ntouted the democratic potential of digital technology, Silicon Valley\u2019s prophets preached the \u201ctheory of\ndisruptive innovation\u201d to eager university administrators with the promise of\ninevitable democratic revolutions. But disruption is not a synonym for\ndemocracy. As Rosenzweig put it, \u201cneither the democratization or the\ncommodification of higher education is inherent in technology.\u201d[10]<\/a>\nIn fact, digital humanists such as Safiya Umoja Noble, Kim Gallon, Jessica\nMarie Johnson, and others, building upon the work of intersectional feminists, demonstrate\nhow persistent systematic injustices prevent participatory equality and  expose patterns of\nmarginalization lurking in supposedly value-neutral digital worlds.[11]<\/a> What,\nthen, does \u201cdemocracy\u201d mean in a world caught between evolving technology and\nintransigent structural barriers? And how have digital humanists confronted the\ninsatiable conquest of market logics in American life\u2014a rapacious neoliberalism\nthat political theorist Wendy Brown argues has \u201cinaugurate[d] democracy\u2019s\nconceptual unmooring and substantive disembowelment.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grappling with the practice of\ndigital history and analyzing its maturation, particularly in light of its\ncontemporary critics, demands a critical engagement with the long quest for\n\u201cdemocracy.\u201d \u201cDemocracy,\u201d of course, is a\nslippery term: vague, often unreflective ideas\nof \u201cdemocracy\u201d drove much of the development of the field of digital history.\nIt is not the goal of this essay to arrive at a positive, substantive\ndefinition of \u201cdemocracy\u201d\u2014centuries of writers, theorists, and activists have\nalready tried and failed to mobilize popular consensus around the term.[13]<\/a>\nNevertheless, we identify and evaluate the three major strains of\n\u201cdemocratization\u201d deployed by digital historians over the past several decades:\nthe first emphasized expanded access by championing digitization and open\nonline distribution of historical material to new users; the second hoped for\ndemocratization at the level of production, inviting greater participation and collaboration\nin the conception and construction of digital projects; and the third, inspired especially by the scholarship of intersectional\nfeminists and critical race theorists, sought to identify longstanding\ninequalities and level perceived structural injustices within the digital\nhumanities and academia more broadly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To evaluate these democratic dreams, this essay first\nroots digital history and the digital humanities in a postwar university\nlandscape torn between New Left idealism and neoliberal transformation. It then\ntracks the digital history boom of the 1990s and early 2000s, evaluating a\ngeneration of digital humanists, lured by the promises of the\nearly internet, who extended access to information and fostered collaboration\nto widen participation in producing knowledge. Believing that digitization\ncould tear down barriers to the world\u2019s knowledge, they increasingly introduced\nthe open access movement to academics. But \u201cdemocratization\u201d is not so simple,\nand this essay grapples with the contradictions and complexities of an\nhistorical moment when not only digital historians but public historians,\narchivists, and publishers all struggled to balance self-professed democratic\ncommitments against powerful neoliberal impulses inside and outside of\nacademia. Then, this essay explores a more recent generation of digital\nhumanists, who, frustrated especially with the political economy of academia,\nare especially cognizant of stubborn structural barriers\u2014the neoliberal\nuniversity and deep-seated divides along the lines of race, class, gender,\nsexuality, and colonialism. Like Alexis Lothian and Amanda Phillips, they \u201cwonder how digital\npractices and projects might participate in more radical processes of\ntransformation\u2013\u2013might rattle the poles of the big tent rather than slip\nseamlessly into it.\u201d[14]<\/a> Finally, surveying recent\ndigital history projects, especially in light of contemporary criticism, this\nessay considers the myopia of much \u201cdemocratic\u201d rhetoric in digital history,\narguing that while much of history can indeed be open source, democracy itself\nremains elusive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the sake of clarity, definitional precision demands\noutlining terms such as digital history, digital humanities, open access, and\nopen educational resources. We consider, for the purposes of this essay, digital\nhistory as the component of the digital humanities rooted in the methods and discipline\nof history. While digital history has a genealogy distinct from the\nbroader digital humanities, and even as many practitioners are invested in\ndrawing its disciplinary boundaries\u2014some, notably, by emphasizing history\u2019s\nparticular capacity for public engagement\u2014digital history nevertheless overlaps\ndeeply with the institutions, technology, and debates occurring within the\nbroader digital humanities.[15]<\/sup><\/a> While digital history is the focus of this\nessay, we also consider the larger landscape of digital humanities as essential\ncontext for our evaluation of democratization. Of course, definitions of digital\nhumanities abound: \u201cWhat is DH?\u201d has long been a punchline.[16]<\/a>\nNevertheless, we draw on Kathleen Fitzpatrick\u2019s capacious definition of the\ndigital humanities as \u201ca nexus of fields\u201d both employing digital tools to\nconduct humanities scholarship and using humanities methods to make sense of\nthe digital world.[17]<\/a>\nLikewise, when we discuss open access (OA) and open education resources (OER),\nwe borrow from established definitions, such as that resulting from the 2001 Budapest\nOpen Access Initiative. We therefore use open access to refer to materials not\nonly freely accessible online but also licensed in such a way as to permit\nusers to freely retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute them. OER are\nsimply OA materials used primarily for educational purposes.[18]<\/a>\nAnd yet, before these terms could mean anything at all, democracy-seeking\nacademics were busy building their foundations on college campuses across the\ncountry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democratic dreams inspired many of the\nearliest digital humanities initiatives. While\nhistorically-minded computing in the 1960s and 1970s was often confined to a\ncore of \u201ccliometric\u201d historians, the participatory democracy of the New Left\nwould shape an emerging digital history. \u201cWe seek the establishment of a\ndemocracy of individual participation, governed by two central aims,\u201d Tom\nHayden and members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) wrote in\ntheir iconic 1962 Port Huron Statement, \u201cthat the individual share in those\nsocial decisions determining the quality and direction of his life [and] that\nsociety be organized to encourage independence in men and provide the media for\ntheir common participation.\u201d[19]<\/a> Roy\nRosenzweig\u2019s pioneering work would grow directly out of such ideals. As a\nformer student and colleague, Elena Razlogova, explained, \u201cRoy applied his\nunreconstructed \u2018new left\u2019 radicalism to new digital realities.\u201d[20]<\/a> As\nprotests rocked campuses across the West, computer programmers, software\nengineers, and \u201chackers\u201d embraced\u2014often in parallel to the competitive\ncorporatization surrounding new hardware developments\u2014<\/a>the\nnotion of shared knowledge and pioneered the principles that would later\nundergird digital history\u2019s push for \u201cdemocratization.\u201d[21]<\/a> Richard\nStallman, for instance, a freshman at Harvard University in 1970, became active\nin the nearby hacker community at MIT and, believing \u201cfree software\u201d to be a\nsocial and ethical imperative, later founded the GNU project and launched the\nGNU General Public License (GPL) to allow for the free use, modification, and\ndistribution of software.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tech utopians of the New Left, however, worked in\nuniversities increasingly captive to the political economy of Cold War America.[23]<\/a>\nWhat is often cited as the first digital humanities project, Roberto Busa\u2019s Index\nThomisticus, <\/em>depended upon the financial support of IBM, for instance.[24]<\/a>\nCorporate funds tentacled themselves into every corner of academia. Neoliberal\nlogics, as historian Johann Neem and others have demonstrated,[25]<\/a>\nfurther eroded higher education\u2019s capacity to foster democracy through\neducation by slashing public funding, replicating corporate administration, and\nincentivizing profit-seeking research.[26]<\/a>\nThe neoliberal university was born.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the following decades, the scramble to adopt new\ntechnologies only further blurred the academic pursuit of \u201cdemocratization.\u201d At\nthe same time that academics championed digital tools as a means to bring\neducation to the masses, notions of world-flattening technology offered moral\ncover for the decidedly anti-democratic ends of business inside and outside of\nacademia. The Digital Humanities emerged alongside relentless cost-cutting, the\nadjunctification of instruction, and diminished public support for humanities\neducation. Digital history would rely more heavily upon librarians and support\nstaff, not tenured professors; would be housed in centers, not departments; and\nwould depend upon outside grants, not institutional funding.[27]<\/a>\nThe field\u2019s democratic potential was constricted before it had even begun,\nlimiting its capacity to fulfill the promises of the New Left. A survey of\nearly digital projects therefore reveals both the accomplishments and limits of\nearly work in digital history and the broader digital humanities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 1990s,\nthe digital revolution\u2014particularly the advent of widespread personal computing\nand the \u201cworld wide web\u201d\u2014inspired numerous historians and other humanists,\neager to make knowledge more accessible, to embrace digital technology. In 1995,\nthe American Studies Crossroads Project<\/em>, one of the earliest\nwebsites of any humanities organization, led English scholar Randy Bass to\npartner with historian Brett Eynon to lead the Visible Knowledge Project<\/em>. Bass and his\ncollaborators privileged pedagogical innovation and student participation.[28]<\/a> Other would-be democratizers equated\ndemocratization with expanded accessibility. While discussing the Text Encoding\nInitiative (TEI)\u2014an effort to establish digital standards of textual\npresentation\u2014at the 1994 meeting of the Modern Language Association, C. M.\nSperberg-McQueen identified three fundamental requirements for scholarly\neditions of electronic text: \u201caccessibility without needless technical barriers\nto use; longevity; and intellectual integrity.\u201d[29]<\/a>\nEarly digital humanities projects followed suit. In 1995, two scholars launched The Walt\nWhitman Hypertext Archive<\/em>, <\/em>a\ncollection of digital manuscript facsimiles and hypertext editions of Whitman\u2019s\npoems that aimed to make all of\nWhitman\u2019s public and private work \navailable to all.[30]<\/a>\nThe William Blake Archive<\/em> similarly\nlaunched free and online in 1996 to \u201cprovide unified access to major works of\nvisual and literary art.\u201d[31]<\/a>\nThe Women\u2019s Writers Project<\/em>, launched\nin 1999, used TEI standards \u201cto overcome the problems of inaccessibility and\nscarcity which had rendered women’s writing invisible for so long.\u201d[32]<\/a>\nThe \u201cdigital humanities\u201d\u2014a phrase not yet\nwidely used\u2014was busy being born.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

American historians likewise strove to\nexpand access to scholarly work through digital technology. In 1993, Edward Ayers and a large, rotating team at\nthe University of Virginia launched The Valley of the Shadow<\/em> as \u201can\napplied experiment in digital scholarship.\u201d The project was a digital archive:\nit allowed users to freely compare letters, newspapers, maps, official records,\nand a wealth of other digitized sources from two counties, Franklin County,\nPennsylvania, and Augusta County, Virginia (one Union and one Confederate)\nbefore, during, and after the Civil War. It was also, wrote Michael O\u2019Malley\nand Roy Rosenzweig, \u201cprobably the most sophisticated historical site on the\nWeb.\u201d[33]<\/sup><\/a>\nGary Kornblith wrote in The Journal of American Histor<\/em>y <\/em>that the project \u201crepresents the\nlogical outcome of major trends in late-twentieth-century American academic\nlife: computerization, interdisciplinary collaboration, the postmodern\ncomplication of traditional narrative, and the democratic search for ways to\nrecognize, even celebrate, the role of ordinary people in making history and\nculture.\u201d[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1994, Roy Rosenzweig, then a pioneering social historian at George Mason University, founded the Center for History and New Media (CHNM) to \u201cincorporate multiple voices, reach diverse audiences and encourage popular presentation in presenting and preserving the past\u201d[35]<\/sup><\/a> Rosenzweig worked with the American Social History Project to produce pedagogical CD-ROMs.[36]<\/sup><\/a> In 1998, Edward Ayers and William Thomas formed the Virginia Center for Digital History at the University of Virginia.[37]<\/a><\/sup> At the University of Houston, Steven Mintz and Sara McNeil pioneered a free (though not yet \u201copen\u201d) digital history text, Digital History: Using New Technologies to Enhance Teaching and Research<\/em>, providing an enduring example of a practical, student-centered project that also explored\u2014in its case, through \u201chyperlink history\u201d\u2014the new possibilities afforded by its digital platform. [38]<\/a> In 1998, the CHNM launched History Matters: The U.S. Survey Course on the Web<\/em>, a vast collection of primary sources, pedagogical essays, syllabi, reference material, and other teaching tools that that brought academic historians and high school teachers and students into collaboration .[39]<\/a> Such projects demonstrated that expanding access and participation both motivated emerging digital scholarship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lisa Spiro,\nin her essay \u201cDefining the Values of the Digital Humanities,\u201d argued that a set\nof core values, rather than traditional disciplinary boundaries, demarcated\n\u201cdigital humanities.\u201d Surveying Digital Humanities manifestoes and combing the\nrhetoric of the young field,[40]<\/sup><\/a>\nshe proposed \u201copenness\u201d as the first of five values governing the field. \u201cMany\nscholars hope and anticipate that open practices,\u201d two digital humanists,\nGeorge Veletsianos and Royce Kimmons, wrote, \u201cwill broaden access to education\nand knowledge, reduce costs, enhance the impact and reach of scholarship and\neducation, and foster the development of more equitable, effective, efficient,\nand transparent scholarly and educational processes.\u201d[41]<\/sup><\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proponents of\ndigital technology also embraced a participatory ethos. In addition to\nopenness, Spiro, for instance, also touted \u201ccollaboration,\u201d \u201ccollegiality and connectedness,\u201d\nand \u201cdiversity\u201d as foundational values.[42]<\/a> Democratization\ninterpreted as both the expansion of access and participation, was integral to\nthe digital humanities from the very beginning. Andrea Hunter, writing in the Canadian\nJournal of Communication<\/em>in 2015,\nargued that such a democratization was the best answer to the chronic\ndefinitional question: \u201cWhat is the digital humanities?\u201d Hunter reframed the\nquestion away from technology by emphasizing gains in \u201caccess and\nparticipation.\u201d Only through such a democratization, she argued, could the\ndigital humanities realize its disciplinary promise.[43]<\/a> To\nillustrate her argument, Hunter specifically cited two projects: The Orlando Project<\/em>, a self-described\n\u201cnew kind of electronic textbase for research and discovery\u201d produced by the\nUniversity of Alberta and the University of Guelph that revolves around\n\u201cWomen\u2019s Writing in the British Isles from the Beginnings to the Present\u201d; and\nCHNM\u2019s Omeka, a digital platform designed to allow users to curate and share\ntheir own historical archives.[44]<\/a> The\nfirst project was designed to bring obscure sources online and out of the\narchive; the second to allow users to become historians themselves. Both aimed\nto make the humanities accessible to a wider audience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such projects\nillustrate the common desires of digital historians and digital humanists to\ndisseminate knowledge beyond the walls of particular colleges and universities.\n\u201cThe notion of the university as ivory tower no longer makes sense, if it ever\ndid,\u201d argued the five authors of the 2012 book Digital Humanities<\/em>.\n\u201cSince the Digital Humanities studies and explicates what it means to be human\nin the networked information age, it expands the reach and relevance of the\nhumanities far beyond small groups of specialists locked in hermetically sealed\nconversation.\u201d By connecting specialists across fields, they argued, the digital\nhumanities will \u201copen up the prospect of a conversation extending far beyond\nthe walls of the ivory tower that connects universities to cultural\ninstitutions, libraries, museums, and community organizations\u201d[45]<\/sup><\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The open\naccess movement grew alongside the digital humanities. As Martin Paul Eve put\nit in his recent survey of open access in the humanities, \u201cthe overwhelming\nassumption from the literature on open scholarship is that it has co-evolved\nwith broader technological developments.[46]<\/sup><\/a> The\ndigital revolution brought open licensing into the mainstream with the\nestablishment of Creative Commons in 2001.[47]<\/a> The\nfollowing year, a UNESCO forum championed what they called \u201ca universal\neducational resource available for the whole of humanity, to be referred to\nhenceforth as Open Educational Resources [OER].\u201d[48]<\/a>\nOER\u2014resources that are not simply freely available online but released into the\npubic domain or with an open license that allows users to copy, reuse, revise,\nremix, and redistribute them\u2014had been born. When the Public Library of Science\n(PLOS) began publishing open access journals in science and medicine, open\naccess established a foothold in the academy.[49]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOpen access,\u201d\nhowever, remains a relatively new idea for many historians outside of the\ndigital humanities.[50]<\/sup><\/a>\nIn a notice appended to their 2014 open monograph, The History Manifesto<\/em>,\nhistorians Jo Guldi and David Armitage wrote, \u201cEven two or three years ago,\nmost academics in the humanities, and certainly most members of the\nnon-academic public, had not heard much if anything about the Open Access\nmovement.\u201d[51]<\/sup><\/a>\nBut already, as advocate Martin Weller put it, \u201copenness is now such a part of\neveryday life that it seems unworthy of comment.\u201d[52]<\/sup><\/a>\nCreative Commons\u2019 open licenses are now ubiquitous parts not only of academics\u2019\ngeneral internet browsing but increasingly of their scholarship as well: a\nnumber of pioneering publications in the humanities are now following the\nsciences into open access publishing and grant money is appearing for such\nprojects. In fact, according to Eve, \u201cIt is now more often the practicalities\nof achieving such a goal that are the focus of disagreement.\u201d[53]<\/sup><\/a>\nAnd this is where many projects have stalled\u2014until recently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In just a few\nshort years, barriers to participation in digital humanities have fallen and\ninstitutional supports have risen. New publishing venues for open-source\nscholarship and pedagogy; streamlined digital platforms and lowered\ntechnological barriers; injections of public and private grant money; the\ninstitutionalization of digital humanities in research universities, the\ndevelopment of scholarly guidelines and best practices; and the growing\nacceptance of open-source scholarship and pedagogy among the academic community\nhave all created the conditions for a digitized history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Funding seeded\nthe digital humanities across American universities. The National Endowment for\nthe Humanities (NEH) and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation planted many\ninstitutional bedrocks and continue to fund initiatives reshaping the DH\nlandscape, digital public history projects in particular.[54]<\/a> The\nNEH, for instance, whose charter declares that \u201cthe humanities belong to the\npeople of the United States,\u201d spun off a new Office of Digital Humanities in\n2008. In 2015, citing an \u201curgent and compelling\u201d need to pioneer digital\npublishing, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation awarded several million-dollar\ngrants to university presses for the exploration of digital publishing models.[55]<\/sup><\/a>\nOther wealthy foundations have focused on digital publication. Yale University\nLibrary, for instance, received a $3 million grant in 2014 from The Goizueta\nFoundation to launch a Digital Humanities Laboratory.[56]<\/sup><\/a> It\nis just one of many new ventures that have smashed barriers to online\n\u201cpublication\u201d with appeals for expanded access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historian Daniel\nCohen, in the same year that Rosenzweig penned his plea for open source\nhistory, said \u201cResources that are free to use in any way, even if they are\nimperfect, are more valuable than those that are gated or use-restricted, even\nif those resources are qualitatively better.\u201d[57]<\/sup><\/a> Recent\npolls have shown that academics are not fundamentally opposed to open projects,\nprovided they can be reassured that they are using a rigorous product.[58]<\/sup><\/a>\nBut without the guarantee of peer review, how can digital humanities projects\nwin over hesitant academics? As Martin Paul Eve writes, \u201cany transition to open\naccess must necessarily interact with the value systems of the academy and its\npublishing mechanisms.\u201d[59]<\/sup><\/a>\nThose very publishing mechanisms have begun to embrace open access, harkening a\nshift in academia\u2019s prestige economy: scholars can now remain within existing\nacademic structures even as they push the boundaries of access and audience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

University\npresses, libraries, and academics have spent more than a decade experimenting\nwith and innovating new publishing platforms for open scholarship. University\npresses have been particularly vigorous in their experiments with open-access\nand open-source publications. The University of Michigan Library and the\nUniversity of Michigan Press launched the digitalculturebooks imprint in 2006\nwith the goal of \u201cdeveloping open platforms that make openness part of the\nscholarly peer review process\u201d and publishes work under an\nAttribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Creative Commons (CC)\nLicense.[60]<\/sup><\/a>\nUnder Mark Saunders, the University of Virginia Press received substantial\ninstitutional and Mellon grant funding in 2006 and 2007 to seed the publication\nof online texts under its Rotunda Imprint, bringing The Papers of Thomas\nJefferson<\/em> and The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution <\/em>online.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if open licensing and digital publishing\nplatforms are relatively straightforward, a financial model to sustain the\ninfrastructure of academic publishing is not.[61]<\/a> \u201cIf there ever was a time for a university press to go into open\naccess,\u201d Neil B. Christensen, the director of digital business development for\nthe University of California Press, said in 2015, \u201cthis is the time.\u201d That\nyear, the Press launched dual platforms for publishing open-access journals and\nmonographs, Collabra <\/em>and Luminos.[62]<\/sup><\/a>\nStriving for long-term sustainability, the press\u2019s open-access business model revolved\naround authors\u2019 fees and paid reviewers. Collabra, <\/em>for instance,charges\nauthors a $825 publication fee. Such a model borrows from the sciences, where\nfee-based publication undergirds open-access standbys such as PLOS ONE<\/em>\n(which charges $1,700 to publish a research article) and Elsevier\u2019s suite of\nscience journals (which typically change between $1,500 to $4000 to publish a\nresearch article.) A pay-to-publish open access model, foreign to academic\nhistorians, would democratize access at the expense of participation: by\nopening up research, it would close off routes to publication\u2014the currency of\nacademia\u2014for all but a few. Under such a model, open access risks\nbecoming, in the words of information scientist Ulrich Herb, \u201can instrument\nthat creates exclusivity, exclusion, distinction and prestige.”[63]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much of the financial\ndilemma confronting the institutionalization of open access owes to larger\nchanges in the financing of higher education. While the postwar university\nmaintained an awkward relationship with the corporate world, the mania for\nderegulation in the 1980s accelerated the neoliberalization of higher education.[64]<\/a> As\npublic funding stalled and then slowly collapsed, universities began to see\nresearch and grant-funding as profit centers.[65]<\/a> The\nongoing adjunctification of teaching labor further accelerated as increasingly\nbloated administrative regimes imposed new managerial methods designed to recover\ncosts and improve efficiency.[66]<\/a>\nLacking public funding but unwilling to pass costs onto practicing historians\nand other academic humanists, humanities\npublishers have largely relied upon public and private grants. In 2012, for\ninstance, the University of Minnesota, through the William and Flora Hewlett\nFoundation, launched The Open Textbook Initiative, a catalog of online,\nopen-license textbooks. In 2018, The Graduate Center\u2019s Digital Scholarship Lab\nat the City University of New York received a nearly one-million-dollar grant\nfrom the Mellon Foundation to develop Manifold, an open-source web-based\npublishing platform.[67]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Advocates of\nOER have continued to experiment with alternative models of sustainable, open-access\npublishing. \u201cAccess to the work we produce must be opened up as a site of\nconversation not just among scholars but also between scholars and the broader\nculture,\u201d wrote  Kathleen Fitzpatrick in Planned\nObsolescence<\/em>, her exploration into the future of technology and academic\npublishing.[68]<\/sup><\/a>\nIn 2015, Caroline Edwards and Martin Paul Eve launched the Open Library of\nHumanities (OLH), with grant money from the Mellon Foundation and partnerships\nwith university libraries, to provide a new, sustainable, open-access\npublishing platform for the humanities.[69]<\/sup><\/a>\nUniversity libraries, meanwhile, continue to experiment with publishing models.\n\u201cIf making scholarly research publicly accessible on the Web could go some way\ntoward enlightening the general public about the importance and the skill of\nscholarly work,\u201d Brown University\u2019s faculty dean, Kevin McLaughlin, said, \u201cthat\nwould be fantastic.\u201d[70]<\/sup><\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The gold\nstandard of academic scholarship remains the university press, and, over the\npast years many have incorporated open publishing into their regular imprints.\nIn 2006, The Orlando Project<\/em> turned\nto a traditional press, Cambridge, to \u201cpublish\u201d the project. Cambridge\u2019s\nagreement marked a turning point in academic legitimation of open source\npublishing. \u201cThey are the name,\u201d a producer of the project said, \u201cthey have\nstandards.\u201d[71]<\/sup><\/a>\nCambridge in particular has continued to experiment with open access. Their\n2014 publication of The History Manifesto<\/em>, a book-length essay by historians\nJo Guldi and David Armitage, marked a new highpoint of academic respectability\nfor open access publication in the history profession.[72]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cambridge is\nnot alone. The University of Virginia Press has long published projects online,\nif not necessarily with formal open access. The Massachusetts Institute of\nTechnology Press has published multiple influential books online through both\nan open review and open licensing. The University of Michigan, from 2011 to\n2013, oversaw the open peer review and eventual dual publishing of Writing\nHistory in the Digital Age<\/em> at the same time the University of Minnesota\nsimilarly published Debates in the\nDigital Humanities<\/em>. Beginning in 2019, the Public Library of Science began\nto allow authors to participate in their version of an open review, where\nreaders\u2019 reports, editorial decisions, and author responses are all made\npublicly available.[73]<\/a>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These developments\noffered prototypes for how open access platforms can extend traditional notions\nof \u201cpublication.\u201d And such efforts continue to multiply. The boundaries of\n\u201cpublication\u201d are expanding. Stanford University Press, for instance, recently\nreceived a large Mellon Grant to bring peer review to digital-native projects.\nWith such efforts proliferating across the university press landscape, academic\ncredibility can hardly be considered any longer an obstacle to democratized\naccess. And yet academic credibility is not the only remaining obstacle to the\nflourishing of a democratized digital humanities. In fact, the very mechanisms\nthat triggered its expansion\u2014grant-funding, institutional backing, easy traffic\nin earnest rhetoric rooted in \u201cdemocratization\u201d\u2014have raised legitimate alarms. \u201cAccess,\u201d\nit seems, is not the only barrier to a more democratic humanities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Digitization by itself did not guarantee the broad-based notion of\n\u201cdemocracy\u201d so ardently touted by early champions of the digital\nhumanities.  Robert Darnton, historian\nand librarian at Harvard University, examined Google\u2019s massive book\ndigitization project in a 2006 issue of The New York Review of Books<\/em>and argued that,\u201cYes we must digitize. But more important, we must democratize. We\nmust open access to our cultural heritage. How? By rewriting the rules of the\ngame, by subordinating private interests to the public good, and by taking\ninspiration from the early republic in order to create a Digital Republic of\nLearning.\u201d[74]<\/a>\nSuch language has done important work, and great\nstrides have been made in expanding access under the banner of democratization.\nAt its worst, the digital humanities can seem an esoteric world, one more\nconcerned with the code that goes into projects than the utility of the\nprojects themselves. New endeavors can seem designed to win grants, but not\nusers.[75]<\/sup><\/a>\nThe digital humanities have expanded rapidly over the intervening decades, and\nyet, William Thomas lamented in 2012, \u201cWe are in danger of losing that\nanimating spirit, and we need to recover the democratization at the heart of\nthe Digital Humanities movement.\u201d[76]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The collision of technology and the humanities incites hyperbole: utopians dream of technological revolutions in research and a democratized world of free learning; skeptics warn of a predatory neoliberalism and privatized, profit-driven scholarship and pedagogy that privilege shallow instruction from de-skilled educators. As early as 1999, Rosenzweig himself, writing in a review essay for the American Quarterly<\/em>, lamented the \u201cbifurcated tendency toward visions of utopia and dystopia\u201d in discussions surrounding digital humanities.[77]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For decades, the disruption-minded, messianic\nrhetoric of Silicon Valley overlaid digital history with the moral appeal of\ndemocratized scholarship and pedagogy. In 2006, Siva\nVaidhyanathan encouraged digital humanists to challenge techno-fundamentalism,\n\u201cthe misguided faith in technology and progress.\u201d[78]<\/a> Critics note\nthat the self-important utopian rhetoric surrounding the digital humanities\noften mirrors the language and reflects the libertarian social values of\nSilicon Valley.[79]<\/a> The rhetorical similarities\nbetween digital humanities and Silicon Valley are stark. A typical claim made by a\ncommentator in 2010 is indicative: \u201cThe digital humanities should not be about\nthe digital at all. It\u2019s all about innovation and disruption. The digital\nhumanities is really an insurgent humanities.\u201d[80]<\/sup><\/a> It is a necessary criticism that much of the\nrhetoric justifying academic and educational \u201cdisruptions\u201d can conceal ulterior\nmotives.[81]<\/sup><\/a>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Market logics\u2014corporate restructuring, adjunctification, and relentless financialization\u2014have infected American higher education. While student radicals dreamed of democratizing the production and dissemination of knowledge, policy makers and administrators increasingly embraced corporate models of governance, reimagining the mission of the postwar university and what scholars of higher education have called an \u201cacademic capitalism.\u201d[82] Since at least the 1970s, policy makers have slashed funding to universities and administrators have not only decimated the ranks of tenure-track faculty, they have incentivized profit-seeking research, consistently raised tuition, and embraced corporate bloat. Surrendering to the imperatives of the market, universities emphasize the production of marketable skills over the inculcation of democratic values or informed citizenship. STEM programs reign, humanities programs decline. This is the academic context in which the digital humanities came of age.[83]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The potential de-skilling of\neducation\u2014manifested most obviously in the shrinking of the ranks of full-time academic\nfaculty\u2014and the relentless chasing of patronage from\nbillionaire-philanthropists and endowment-bureaucracies\u2014while\ntouting \u201cinnovation,\u201d \u201cdisruption,\u201d and \u201cdemocratization\u201d \u2014haunts the Digital\nHumanities. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Richard Grusin, Patrick Jagoda, and\nRita Raley warned in 2016 of the \u201cThe Dark Side of the Digital Humanities,\u201d\narguing that the \u201csame neoliberal logic that informs the ongoing destruction of\nthe mainstream humanities has encouraged\u201d the growth of digital humanities as\nan institution in higher education.[84]<\/sup><\/a> That same summer, three academics writing in\nthe Los Angeles Review of Books <\/em> <\/em>blamed digital humanities for abetting the\nneoliberalization of the American university. \u201cDespite the aggressive promotion of Digital Humanities as a\nradical insurgency,\u201d they wrote, \u201cits institutional success has for the most\npart involved the displacement of politically progressive humanities\nscholarship and activism in favor of the manufacture of digital tools and\narchives.\u201d[85]<\/sup><\/a> Singling\nout the digital humanities turn in English\u2014they did not engage the field of\ndigital history\u2014they characterized digital humanists\u2019 utopian rhetoric as a\nself-serving veil concealing the move toward computation over interpretation,\nexternal funding over institutional support, and general\nadministration-supported corporatism over traditional academic labor. The\nauthors placed much of the impetus for the Digital Humanities on the labor of what\nthey saw as a conservative core of literary scholars who operated at University\nof Virginia between 1999 and 2002.[86]<\/a>\nThe Trojan Horse of \u201cdisruption\u201d can certainly overshadow the promise of\na democratized history. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The specter of\nexploited labor, for instance, can and should haunt open-access projects. In\nthe neoliberal academy, scholars are expected to offer more of their labor\nwithout due compensation or recognition. few beyond a small circle of prominently\nsituated scholars receive significant compensation for writing traditional articles,\nbooks, or textbooks. Despite a lack of remuneration, as Stevan Harnard pointed\nout in his groundbreaking 1994 \u201csubversive proposal,\u201d open access is possible\nbecause academics\u2014whose salaries are already paid by universities\u2014produce what\nhe calls \u201cesoteric\u201d work: work grounded in an internal economy driven by\nreadership and impact, not profits.[87]<\/sup><\/a> A\ncopyright designed to protect an author\u2019s personal profits hardly makes sense\nfor the bulk of academics who receive no profits to protect. As Martin Paul Eve\nput it, \u201cwhy should academics retain the economic protections of copyright if\nthey are not dependent upon the system of remuneration that this is supposed to\nuphold?\u201d[88]<\/sup><\/a>\nIn a digital world in which the marginal cost of reproduction is nil, open\naccess advocates such as John Willinsky and Creative Commons\u2019 Cable Green argue\nthat academics have an ethical obligation as humanists to share our work and\nour knowledge with the public and with our students.[89]<\/sup><\/a>\nAnd, given the gravity of the current cost crisis in higher education, such\nwork seems increasingly imperative. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Academic\nwriting is, of course, only one component in a larger publishing ecosystem.\nWhile digital platforms may eliminate the cost of physical publication, what\nabout the work of peer review, editing, copy editing, and the other\nintellectual labor that goes into publishing academic work? Who, for instance,\nwill pay for the labor it took to publish this piece in The American\nHistorical Review<\/em>? This article received a traditional solicited peer\nreview as well as a separate open review in which seventeen separate academics\noffered feedback in eighty-eight individual comments that ranged from full\nreaders\u2019 reports to discreet points of fact. \u201cSince my job is to summarize the\nreports and incorporate them into a letter offering some direction for\nrevisions,\u201d the Review\u2019s <\/em>editor, Alex Lichtenstein, wrote in his open\nresponse letter to the authors, \u201cI find this far too labor intensive to be a\nregular editorial practice. I simply would not have the time to manage this\nwith every single article. I suppose that if the AHA could hire multiple\neditors to do this kind of work on open peer review, it might be possible. In\nan open access world, I must say, that would take very hefty author processing\nfees!\u201d[90]<\/a> Without\nwider public investment in the production of knowledge, and a reconfiguration\nof what qualifies as academic labor under tenure and promotion guidelines\u2014an\nalready tenuous proposition for the masses of contingent faculty\u2014open access\nmay only be able to meet the needs of consumers by exploiting producers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the\nproliferation of digital history and positive shifts in professional norms, was\nWilliam Thomas right to argue in 2012 that \u201cwe are in danger of losing that\nanimating spirit\u201d of democratization?[91]<\/sup><\/a>\nCertainly grants and conspicuous institutional backing should be for naught if\nthe digital humanities drifted further from its democratic promise. Digital history\nbetrays its core principles if it fails to engage users by privileging\nprofessional advancement, grant-winning, and innovation-for-innovation\u2019s-sake\nover the pursuit of readership, ease of use, public participation, pedagogical\nutility, and the pursuit of a multi-faceted \u201cdemocratization.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Digitization does not mean \u201cdemocracy.\u201d But in the pursuit of new\nprojects and new grants, for instance, scholars have long been content to dump\ninformation online and call it \u201cdemocracy.\u201d[92]<\/a> Instead,\nas historian Patricia Limerick noted in 1997, \u201cwe are in much greater\nneed of methods and strategies for filtering, sorting, managing, synthesizing\u201d\nthan simply finding new ways to access information that will never really be consumed.[93]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Archivists\nhave recognized this challenge. \u201cThe digital world challenges our notion\nof preservation,\u201d the Society of American Archivists (SAA) declared in 1997. It\nclaimed that \u201cIn the digital world access is the central distinguishing quality\nof preservation.\u201d Archivists have digitized untold amounts of archival\nmaterials over the past two decades. The work of regular archivists, interns,\noutsourced labor, and crowd-sourced labor\u2014over 20,000 volunteers participated\nin The Smithsonian Digital Volunteer program, for instance\u2014have opened up\narchives to the world. Copyright has limited more recent materials\u2014\u201cThe\nmanagement of intellectual property is potentially the greatest challenge to\nthe development of digital collections,\u201d according to archival scientist Lorna\nHughes\u2014but even innovations such as the \u201cdigital reading room\u201d at the Special\nCollections and Archives at the University of California, Irvine, offer\nworkarounds.[94]<\/a>\nArchivists have, meanwhile, emphasized the importance of metadata schemes for\nachieving interoperability, although a proliferation of competing schemes–Dublin\nCore, MARC, MODS, METS, EAD, and more\u2014have rendered \u201cthe dream of integrated\naccess to diverse information resources,\u201d as Murtha Baca put it, \u201cstill just\nthat \u2013 a dream.\u201d[95]<\/a> Still, as Limerick argued, \u201caccess\u201d cannot be achieved\nsimply through digitization. It is therefore the work of digital humanists to\ncurate such raw materials and render them into usable forms.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Textbooks stand\nat the intersection of curation, access, and pedagogy. The\nlack of sophisticated, professionally curated textbooks, in fact, partly\ninspired Rosenzweig’s call for open source history. Traditional rather than\ndisruptive, pedagogical rather than research-based, eye-glazing rather than\ngrant-winning, textbooks are nevertheless the most widely used tool in\nhumanities classrooms. Mintz and McNeil recognized this as early as the 1990s\nwith their Digital History <\/em>survey\ntext, but few academics followed them.[96]<\/a>\nTextbooks should have been ripe targets for the open access movement.[97]<\/sup><\/a>\nNowhere else are current costs and potential savings quite so clear and many\noutside of academia have long recognized the democratic and cost-annihilating\npotential of open texts. A closer look at textbooks in history and literature\nis revealing. For decades, scholars have allowed responsibility for textbook\ncreation to fall upon for-profit education companies, unwieldy non-profit\nbureaucracies, under-resourced lone wolves, and unregulated open wikis. Perhaps\nWikipedia, despite Rosenzweig’s plea, poisoned historians\u2019 attitudes toward\nopen texts. A 2014 \u201cTextbooks and Teaching\u201d roundtable in the Journal of\nAmerican History<\/em> cited only the unreliability of open texts, rather than\ntheir promise.[98]<\/a>\nFor years, the construction of an open-licensed, collaborative textbook fell to\nthe educational industrial complex and its network of funder-disrupters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2014, we\nproposed a new model for history textbooks. After a year-long collaboration, over\n350 historians produced the first edition of The American Yawp<\/em>, an open American\nhistory textbook project. We launched the project as a radical experiment in\nmass collaboration and institution-free pedagogy\u2014an experiment that hundreds of\nthousands of users now benefit from each year.[99]<\/a> But The\nAmerican <\/em>Yawp<\/em> was only a logical\nextension of the democratic promise inherent not just in the rise of digital history,\nbut in a moment when technological innovation, institutional resources,\nprofessional norms, and shifting scholarly attitudes have converged to prove\nRosenzweig right: history can <\/em>be open\nsource. But can\nit be democratic?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ours is not\nthe only project to explore the possibilities of massive collaboration.\nAccording to Roy Rosenzweig\u2019s 2006 plea for open source history in the Journal of American History,<\/em> Wikipedia\nis democratic in two senses: it is a free, widely accessible resource, and it\nis a massively participatory project.[100]<\/sup><\/a> Applying the\nprinciples of democracy to classrooms increasingly means involving students in\nthe production of knowledge. With the support of a five-year, $50 million\ndigital media and learning initiative, Henry Jenkins explored the impacts of\nparticipatory culture, specifically the opportunity for digital technology to\nenable the popular production rather than simply the consumption of culture.\nJenkins and his fellow travelers work to transform education around\ntechnological opportunities to develop cultural competencies and encourage\nstudent involvement in not just consuming, but also producing and disseminating\nknowledge. The democratizing tactics of these educators have included student\nblogging, video-making, podcasting, and even gaming or social networking.\nAccording to Jenkins, academics, educators, and policy makers need to \u201cshift the focus of the conversation about the\ndigital divide from questions of technological access to those of opportunities\nto participate and to develop the cultural competencies and social skills.\u201d[101]<\/a> For some, the\nexpansions in participatory culture promise to shatter nearly all hierarchies\nand replace them with egalitarian, collaborative relationships.[102]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, even a\nbroad emphasis on participation can elide structural inequalities. Issues of\ngender, racial, and sexual representation, for instance, dominate humanistic\ninquiry but continue to plague the practice and production of the digital\nhumanities. Miriam Posner argued in 2016 that we must confront these questions,\nbut \u201cto truly engage in this kind of critical work .\u2026 would require dismantling\nand rebuilding much of the organizing logic that underlies our work.\u201d[103]<\/a> Similar\nessays by Tara McPherson\u2014\u201cWhy Are the Digital Humanities So White?\u201d\u2014Bethany\nNowviskie\u2014\u201cWhat Do Girls Dig?\u201d\u2014and host of other critics hint at problems that\nare foundational and cannot be solved through modest organizational statements\nor more equitable faculty appointments and grant disbursements.[104]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Sharon Leon, the very act of historicizing\ndigital history has often reinforced inequality. Leon, for instance, argues\nthat women, particularly women of color, have been especially eager to connect\ndigital work to community needs but that the emphasis on published research in digital\nhistory has obscured their contributions.[105]<\/a>\nCritics therefore argue that digital humanists, far from ushering in democratic\ntriumphs, have often only further marginalized already marginalized voices.[106]<\/a>\nAs digital humanists institutionalize themselves further into the landscape of\nhigher education, they must recognize that they are often no longer insurgent\nunderdogs, but, increasingly, the very gatekeepers they have so successfully\npositioned themselves against.[107]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The digital humanities, of course, do not have a monopoly on democratic\nyearnings. In fact, some of the most active engagement in democratic discourse\ncomes from outside of the digital humanities. The Democratizing Knowledge\nProject<\/em>at Syracuse University,\nfor example, draws from an impressively interdisciplinary core faculty and\neschews digital practice in favor of analog forms of scholarship and activism.\nThrough an annual summer institute, campus forums, creative pedagogy, and\nconnections beyond the walls of the academy, the project pursues its goal of\n\u201cconfronting white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and\ncolonial heritages.\u201d[108]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Digital history is not the only subdiscipline of history that has\nstruggled to realize democratic commitments in an increasingly digital world.<\/a> Public history, for instance, has\nlong emphasized public engagement and civic participation as core tenets.[109]<\/a>\nSuzanne Fischer defines the field\u2019s mission as \u201ccracking open history as a\ndemocratic project, and doing it transparently, in public.\u201d[110]<\/a>\nAndrew Hurley likewise argues that \u201cThe attempt to leverage historical\nknowledge on behalf of social change has absorbed a significant segment of the\nfield since the 1970s,\u201d Over the past decades, public historians have therefore\nalso championed, as Hurley puts it, the \u201cuncensored, open-access realm of\ncyberspace\u2026 as an exemplary venue for democratic civic engagement.\u201d[111]<\/sup><\/a> But what\ndoes a democratic, digital public history look like? Sheila Brennan rightly\nwarns that \u201cprojects and research may be available online, but that status does\nnot inherently make the work digital public humanities or public digital\nhumanities.\u201d[112]<\/a>\nDigital tools can, in fact, prove decidedly undemocratic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technological sophistication and community needs to do not\nalways align. Hurley, who created the Virtual City Project, an initiative to\ncreate 3d-models of historic landscapes, worried that the innovative technology\nthat would win him funding would lose him his audience: \u201cTechnology that was\nsupposed to democratize knowledge and bring people together was having the\nopposite effect.\u201d[113]<\/a>\nLara Kelland\u2019s Parkland History digital project, built to capture the\nneighborhood\u2019s importance to Black life in Louisville, similarly struggled to\nwin community engagement. While laboring to incorporate local voices, \u201cour\nhopes for engaged and sustained dialogue about the neighborhood\u2019s past,\npresent, and future have yet to materialize,\u201d she wrote. Suspecting that \u201cthe\ndigital divide in its many forms has contributed to this silence,\u201d Kelland redoubled\nher face-to-face work in the community and created new, local, in-person\nprogramming.[114]<\/a>  Like Laurenellen McCann, she\nargues that digital projects must work with\n<\/em>communities, not for<\/em> them.[115]<\/a>\nSharon Leon, for instance, in her presentation of \u201cdigital public history\u201d\nwork, has emphasized the idea of a digital \u201cuser-centered history.\u201d[116]<\/a> These are lessons that digital humanists have had to learn. Only by annihilating\nthe distance between the production and consumption of knowledge, the authors\nof Digital_Humanities <\/em>argue, are digital\nhumanists \u201cable to revitalize the cultural record in ways that involve citizens\nin the academic enterprise and bring the academy into the expanded public\nsphere.\u201d[117]<\/sup><\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A digital history that views users as passive consumers overlooks\nthe democratizing possibilities of participatory practices. And if we further define\ndemocracy as necessitating challenges to inequalities, then even participatory\nprojects may fail to measure up. Over the past several years, digital humanists\nhave offered examples of participatory projects that do.  The Anti-Eviction Mapping Project,\nthe Colored Conventions Project, and the Refusing to Forget Project, for\nexample, all capture a democracy of access, collaboration, and activism. After\nproviding maps and other material on \u201cthe dispossession and resistance by San\nFrancisco Bay area residents,\u201d the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project allowed users\nto \u201cHelp Stop Evictions\u201d by donating to the \u201cnot-for-profit collective,\u201d\nreporting illegal vacation rentals, supporting local unions, avoiding calling\npolice on neighbors, and pledging to abstain from renting from anyone who has\nunscrupulous landlords. Similarly, the Colored Conventions\nProject, an exploration of nineteenth-century\nBlack organizing, offers educational tools\u2014exhibits and lesson plans\u2014and\narchival materials to encourage both learning and research. But it also encourages\nvisitors to \u201cMobilize NOW for a Future Where Black Lives Matter\u201d through voter\nregistrations and census participation. The project\u2019s dozens of teaching\npartners assented to a \u201cmemo of understanding\u201d that includes a promise to\n\u201ccommit to confronting the under-representation of women\u201d by incorporating the\nvoices of women alongside formal male delegates in teaching assignments to\ncapture those \u201clargely written out of the minutes\u201d of formal conventions. The Refusing to Forget\nproject, a digital collaboration dedicated to raising awareness of the spate of\nstate-sanctioned, anti-Mexican violence in the early-twentieth-century\nTexas-Mexico borderlands, similarly combines collaborative scholarship,\neducational tools, and public engagement. In addition to sharing primary\ndocuments and lesson plans, the project organizes historical marker campaigns, sponsors\nmuseum exhibits, and holds teaching workshops.[118]<\/a> Like the Anti-Eviction\nMapping Project and the Colored Conventions Project, the project shows that\ndigital work, scholarship, and real-world issues are not so easily\ndisentangled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most immediately, projects like these show that\ntechnology cannot be the only defining feature of digital history or of the\nbroader digital humanities. Critical race and gender studies  have offered the most pointed criticisms of the\ndigital humanities and remind practitioners that democratization demands a\nreckoning with deeper, structural inequalities.[119]<\/sup><\/a> The\nwork of Audre Lorde and others reminds us that broken systems won\u2019t fix themselves.[120]<\/a>\nLisa Nakamura argues that race and racism suffuse our digital lives.[121]<\/sup><\/a>\nWhiteness, critics argue, dominates the institutions and logics of digital\nspace.[122]<\/sup><\/a> Even coding\u2014once\na feminine activity\u2014has been thoroughly gendered as masculine.[123]<\/sup><\/a> Scholars\nsuch as Safiya\nUmoja Noble\u2014who urges the digital humanities to \u201cconsider the degree to which\nour very reliance on digital tools \u2026 exacerbates existing patterns of\nexploitation and at times even creates new ones\u201d\u2014argue that, as Noble puts it, \u201cthe political, social and\neconomic dimensions of technologies\u201d are all \u201cco-constituted in racialized and\ngendered ways that involve power and often foster and maintain systematic\ndiscrimination and oppression.\u201d[124]<\/sup><\/a> Miriam\nPosner, for instance, has warned against the fetishization of code among\ndigital humanists, arguing that passive calls encouraging women and persons of\ncolor to learn to code fail to confront longstanding structural inequalities\nand therefore actively perpetuates structural racial and gender inequalities.[125]<\/sup><\/a> And even\ncode, some critics argue, is not valueless. \u201cThere is no such thing as a\n\u2018merely technical\u2019 design decision,\u201d wrote Julia Flanders. \u201cOur technical\nsystems are meaning systems and ideological systems.\u201d[126]<\/sup><\/a>\nFiona Barnett, Zach Blas, micha c\u00e1rdenas, Jacob Gaboury, Jessica Marie Johnson,\nand Margaret Rhee, drawing on the work of queer theorist Kara Keeling, even created\nQueerOS to confront what they argue are foundational inequalities embedded in\nour digital tools.[127]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

History-minded digital humanists have likewise proposed alternative\npractices. Kim Gallon calls for \u201ca technology of recovery, characterized\nby efforts to bring forth the full humanity of marginalized peoples through the\nuse of digital platforms and tools.\u201d She specifically champions the \u201cblack\ndigital humanities\u201d\u2014the intellectual space created by the collision of Black\nstudies and the digital humanities\u2014which,  she argues, \u201ctroubles the very core of what we\nhave come to know as the humanities by recovering alternate constructions of\nhumanity that have been historically excluded from that concept.\u201d[128]<\/sup><\/a> Jessica\nMarie Johnson, a scholar of transatlantic slavery, has criticized digital\nhistorians for replicating the very dehumanization they so demonize. \u201cFrom blogs\nand journals built on fourth-generation hypertext markup language (HTML) guided\nby cascading style sheets (CSS) to databases using extensible markup language\n(XML) and standard query language (SQL),\u201d Johnson argues, \u201cscholars using\ndigital tools mark up the bodies and requantify the lives of people of African\ndescent.\u201d Like Gallon, she\nchampions a Black digital practice to counter the \u201cpresumed neutrality of the\ndigital.\u201d Digital historians, such work suggests, must recover not just\nlost voices but paradigms of imagination occluded by longstanding power\ninequalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pedagogically minded digital humanities projects have\nespecially taken these criticisms to heart. William Thomas and Elizabeth\nLorang, for instance, advocated \u201can alternative modality of engagement with the\ndigital on our campuses\u2014one built around reciprocity, openness, local\ncommunity, and particularity.\u201d[129]<\/sup><\/a> Amy E.\nEarhart of Texas A&M, a large public land-grant university, and Toniesha L.\nTaylor of Prairie View A&M, a nearby historically black land-grant\nuniversity, turned these ideas into practice. Their White Violence, Black Resistance Project<\/em> sought not only to \u201cbring\nto light timely historical documents\u201d but also, employing students from both\ninstitutions, to \u201cexpose power differentials in our own institutional\nsettings.\u201d[130]<\/sup><\/a> Such\nprojects remind us that, however well-funded and well-defined it becomes,\nthe digital humanities betrays its founding principles if it remains confined\nto an esoteric community of coders and tech-utopians. It must be practiced with\nfundamental ends in mind. It must be designed to be used. It must privilege\naccessibility. It must seek out readers and reach actual users. And it must\ndraw upon the insights of humanities scholarship to push the boundaries of what\ndemocracy means by exposing and confronting the inequalities that suffuse our\nobjects of study as well as our professional structures.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Digital history\nis certainly capable of refashioning professional paradigms. Its much-touted\nemphasis on collaboration, for instance, cannot be underestimated. In 2011, AHA\npresident Anthony Grafton urged historians to reject the myth of the solitary\nscholar. Arguing against Wilhelm von Humboldt\u2019s idealization of \u201cloneliness and\nfreedom\u201d as the hallmarks of academic life, Grafton wrote, \u201cthere is much to be\ngained by recognizing, and promoting, collaboration \u2026 and, with it, the\nelements of joy and creative fantasy that can too easily be lost as we go about\nour traditionally lonely craft.\u201d[131]<\/sup><\/a> If\nacademic historians typically toil under a professional paradigm designed for\nthe isolated scholar, the so-called \u201cdigital turn\u201d and the rise of digital\nhistory have generated new collaborative energy that spills across traditional\nresearch opportunities: new technologies and emerging paradigms are\nfacilitating academic collaboration. And it need not even be institutionalized.\nAndrew Torget, reflecting on his early work at the University of Virginia and\narguing that \u201cdigital projects by necessity require collaboration,\u201d\nnevertheless believed collaboration could be flexible and informal. \u201cI see,\u201d he\nsaid, \u201ca movement towards collaborative teams built around projects and\nproblems that will last for as long as the project or problem does. You may\nhave a home department, but you will also have collaborative teams that form\nand dissolve over time depending on what you\u2019re working on.\u201d[132]<\/sup><\/a>\nBut is collaboration enough? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over two\ndecades of work in digital history and digital humanities have opened access to\nnew resources. Universities and grant-giving institutions have provided homes\nfor practitioners. University presses have embraced open scholarship and\nprofessional norms are shifting accordingly. In the meantime, digital\nhumanities scholars have built proper platforms for new projects: vast worlds\nof knowledge are within reach of any average web user. A textbook project can\nbegin with a WordPress installation. Inviting mass collaboration is as easy as adding\na CommentPress plug-in. Encouraging students to communicate with a text\u2014and\nwith each other\u2014is as easy as a one-click Hypothes.is integration. A personally\ncurated exhibit is as easy as a visit to a digital humanities librarian and an\ninstallation of Omeka. But it takes work, too. Democratization doesn\u2019t happen\non its own. Democracy isn\u2019t some fortunate byproduct of technological\nadvancement. We may be able to save our students from exploitative\ntextbook companies, for instance, but the pursuit of a truly democratized\ndigital history requires more substantive change than individual academics, and\nperhaps even administrators, can achieve. History can<\/em> be open source, in\nother words, but the pursuit of democracy requires throwing off shackles more\nburdensome than copyright restrictions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The New\nLeft\u2019s radical democratic visions inspired much early work in digital history.\nContemporary practitioners\u2014buffeted not only by a popular neoliberal mania for\n\u201cdisruption\u201d and libertarian notions of techno-futurism, but also by higher\neducation\u2019s decaying public mission and intransigent structural\ninequalities\u2014still share those dreams. Spanning the rise and maturation of\ndigital history and the digital humanities, invocations of democracy have\ntranscended their original context and could become just another tool for\ndigital humanists to carve out greater and greater academic space for their\nwork and for themselves. But such invocations have allowed practitioners to\nchallenge traditional academic boundaries surrounding the production of\ndistribution of knowledge. \u201cDemocracy\u201d is, and always has been, at root a\ndiscourse about power: about agency and access and equality. \u201cDemocratization,\u201d\ntherefore, cannot rely on institutions, philanthropy, or even technology alone,\nbut must emerge consciously alongside critical self-reflection in the\nconception and execution of the work. And even then, democracy may prove\nunobtainable. An endless, hopeless, necessary dream.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> Roy Rosenzweig, \u201cCan History Be Open Source?\nWikipedia and the Future of the Past,\u201d The\nJournal of American History <\/em>(June 2006), 117-146. 119.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Ibid., 137, 145<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Digital history speaks in the \u201cfuture tense,\u201d argues\nCameron Blevins. Blevins, \u201cDigital History\u2019s Perpetual Future Tense,\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited\nby Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota\nPress, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016<\/a>]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> This paper largely restricts itself to processes in\nthe United States. Ideologies surrounding the digital humanities, and\nparticularly the rise of open access, have different contexts outside of the\nU.S. The United Kingdom, for example, now requires open access publishing for\nmany recipients of state research funding. See Margot Finn, \u201cPlan S and the\nHistory Journal Landscape: Royal Historical Society Guidance Paper,\u201d Royal\nHistorical Society<\/em> (October 23, 2019) [https:\/\/royalhistsoc.org\/royal-historical-society-publishes-guidance-paper-on-plan-s-and-history-journals\/<\/a>]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> See especially Drew VandeCreek, \u201c\u2018Webs of Significance\u2019: The Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project, New Technology, and the Democratization of History,\u201d Digital Humanities Quarterly <\/em>1.1 (2007), http:\/\/www.digitalhumanities.org\/dhq\/vol\/1\/1\/000003\/000003.html<\/a>. These ideas within the digital humanities drew on wider trends in studies on technology and communication. Philip E. Agre argued that digital technologies would enable \u201cthe intellectual lives of academics to be democratized,\u201d thereby opening the \u201cexisting scholarly and library practices [that] reflect the wisdom of centuries.\u201d Yochai Benkler rejoiced in 2006 that \u201ca radical change in the organization of information production\u201d was leading to \u201cbetter democratic participation.\u201d Agre, \u201cSupporting the Intellectual Life of a Democratic Society,\u201d Ethics and Information Technology<\/em>, 3 (2001), 289. Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom<\/em> (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Sharon Leon has traced the\ncontributions of women in the rise of digital history, noting that while women\nperformed much of the labor, men\u2019s names dominated project mastheads. The\nfounding essays on digital history were likewise nearly all written by white\nmen. Gender often divided those who performed the work from those who were\ngiven platforms to articulate its significance. Sharon M. Leon, \u201cComplicating a\n\u2018Great Man\u2019 Narrative of Digital History in the United States,\u201d in Bodies of Information: Intersectional\nFeminism and the Digital Humanities<\/em>, edited by Elizabeth Losh and\nJacqueline Wernimont. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a>\nWilliam G. Thomas, \u201cTrends\nin Digital Humanities: Remarks at the CIC Digital Humanities Summit,\u201d Keynote\nAddress, CIC Digital Humanities Summit, April 19, 2012 [http:\/\/railroads.unl.edu\/blog\/?p=794<\/a>]. Cameron Blevins similarly argues that\ndigital history began with \u201can overriding ideology: to democratize access to\nthe past.\u201d Blevins, \u201cDigital History\u2019s Perpetual Future\nTense.\u201d Writing in 1999, Ed Ayers trumpeted the historical\nprofession\u2019s recovery of forgotten voices\u2014of women, people of color, the\npoor\u2014but said, \u201cThe great democratization of history over the past few decades\nhas not been accompanied by a democratization of audience.\u201d The digital\nhumanities, it was argued, would do just that. Edward L. Ayers, \u201cThe Pasts and Futures of Digital\nHistory,\u201d Virginia Center for Digital History, 1999 [http:\/\/www.vcdh.virginia.edu\/PastsFutures.html<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Stephen Robertson, \u201cThe Future\nof RRCHNM,\u201d November 17, 2014 [http:\/\/.chnm.gmu.edu\/about-rrchnm\/the-future-of-rrchnm\/<\/a>]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Draxler, Bridget, et\nal. \u201cDemocratizing Knowledge.\u201d Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology\nAlliance and Collaboratory<\/em>. <\/em>September\n21,2009 [http:\/\/hastac.org\/forums\/hastac-scholars-discussions\/democratizing-knowledge-digital-humanities<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a>\nRosenzweig, \u201cLive Free Or Die?: Death, Life, Survival, And Sobriety On The\nInformation Superhighway,\u201d American Quarterly<\/em>51 (March 1999),\n172.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Safiya Umoja Noble, \u201cA Future\nfor Intersectional Black Feminist Technology Studies.\u201d Scholar & Feminist Online<\/em> 13, no. 3\u201314, no. 1 (2016): 1\u20138; Kim\nGallon, \u201cMaking a Case for the Black Digital Humanities,\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited\nby Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota\nPress, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016<\/a>]; Jessica Marie Johnson and\nMark Anthony Neal, \u201cIntroduction: Wild Seed in the Machine,\u201d The Black Scholar: Journal of Black Studies\nand Research<\/em> Vol 47, No 3 (2017). See also \u201cSlavery in the Machine,\u201d a\nspecial issue of sx archipelagos<\/em>, 3 (July 2019), http:\/\/archipelagosjournal.org\/issue03.html<\/a>, especially Johnson, \u201cWe Are\nDeathless (Slavery in the Machine)\u201d and \u201cXroads Praxis: Black Diasporic\nTechnologies for Remaking the New World.\u201d \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> In Brown\u2019s estimation, neoliberalism has left\ndemocracy \u201cgaunt, ghostly, its future increasingly hedged and improbable.\u201d Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth\nRevolution<\/em> (MIT 2015), 9. See also Brown, In the Ruins of\nNeoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West<\/em> (New York:\nColumbia University Press, 2019). Jodi Dean, Democracy and Other Neoliberal\nFantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics<\/em> (Durham: Duke\nUniversity Press, 2009); Henry A. Giroux, Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism\nand the Eclipse of Democracy<\/em> (Routledge: 2004); Mark Olssen, Liberalism,\nNeoliberalism, Social Democracy Thin Communitarian Perspectives on Political\nPhilosophy and Education<\/em> (Routledge: 2009); and Lisa Duggan, The\nTwilight of Democracy: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on\nDemocracy<\/em> (New York: Beacon Press, 2004).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> In his 2016 exploration of \u201cthe struggle for self-rule\u201d\nin the Atlantic world, Toward Democracy<\/em>,\nHistorian James T. Kloppenberg argued that democracy has been less a unified\nset of institutions and more an unattainable goal after which we must forever\nstrive. James T. Kloppenberg, Toward Democracy: The Struggle for Self-Rule\nin European and American Thought <\/em>(New York: Oxford University Press, 2016). As John Dewey wrote in 1926,\n\u201cDemocracy has to be born anew every generation.\u201d John Dewey, \u201cThe Need of an Industrial Education in an\nIndustrial Democracy,\u201d Manual Training and Vocational Education<\/em>(February 1916), 410. From Alexis de Tocqueville\nto Jane Addams to Alain Locke, positive definitions of \u201cdemocracy\u201d have fueled\nboth investigations and interventions into American life. For a sampling of\nadditional recent work detailing historical contests over \u201cdemocracy,\u201d see, for\ninstance, Manisha Sinha and Penny Von Eschen, editors, Contested Democracy:\nFreedom, Race, and Power in American History<\/em> (New York: Columbia University\nPress, 2012); Caleb McDaniel, The Problem of Democracy in the Age of\nSlavery: Garrisonian Abolitionists and Transatlantic Reform<\/em> (Baton Rouge:\nLouisiana State University Press, 2013); and Sean Wilentz, The Rise of\nAmerican Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln<\/em>(New York: Norton, 2005).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Alexis Lothian and Amanda\nPhillips, \u201cCan Digital Humanities Mean Transformative Critique?\u201d Journal of e-Media Studies<\/em> 3 (2013), 4.\nDOI:10.1349\/PS1.1938-6060.A.425.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Stephen Robertson, former\ndirector of the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, credits the\nrise of digital history to \u201cradical historians committed to democratizing the\ncreation of the past and to collaborating with teachers.\u201d It is this democratic\ncommitment, he argues, that distinguishes digital history from digital\nhumanities.  Stephen Robertson, \u201cThe\nDifferences between Digital Humanities and Digital History,\u201d Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited\nby Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota\nPress, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016<\/a>]. See\nalso Tom Scheinfeldt, \u201cThe Dividends of Difference: Recognizing Digital\nHumanities\u2019 Diverse Family Trees,\u201d Found History<\/em>, April 7, 2014 [https:\/\/foundhistory.org\/2014\/04\/the-dividends-of-difference-recognizing-digital-humanities-diverse-family-trees\/<\/a>]; and\nSusan Hockey, \u201cThe History of Humanities Computing,\u201d in\nSusan Scheibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth eds. Companion to Digital Humanities<\/em> (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> For a humorous representation\nof the scores of definitions, see Jason Heppler\u2019s \u201cWhat Is Digital Humanities?\u201d\n(whatisdigitalhumanities.com), a project that aggregated 817 descriptions of\ndigital humanities produced between 2009 and 2014.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Kathleen Fitzpatrick, \u201cThe\nHumanities, Done Digitally,\u201d Debates in the Digital Humanities<\/em>\n(Minnesota, 2012). For an even broader definition, see Jessica Marie Johnson\u2019s\nscheme of four digital humanities: “digital humanities as articulated by\nglobal academic institutions,” “humanistic inquiry using digital\ntools,” “digital media as material and messaging,” and\n“digital practice as using the digital to live in the world.” Jessica\nMarie Johnson, “4DH + 1 Black Code \/ Black Femme Forms of Knowledge and\nPractice,” American Quarterly<\/em> 70:3 (September 2018), 666. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Budapest Open Access Initiative, \u201cBudapest Open Access Initiative Statement\u201d [https:\/\/www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org\/read<\/a>].; Peter Suber et al, \u201cBethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing\u201d [http:\/\/dash.harvard.edu\/handle\/1\/4725199<\/a>]; David Wiley, \u201cDefining the \u2018Open\u2019 in Open Content and Open Educational Resources\u201d [http:\/\/opencontent.org\/definition\/].; Peter Suber, \u201cA Field Guide to Misunderstandings About Open Access\u201d SPARC Open Access Newsletter, April 2, 2009  [http:\/\/legacy.earlham.edu\/~peters\/fos\/newsletter\/04-02-09.htm<\/a>]; The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, \u201cOpen Education Defined\u201d [https:\/\/hewlett.org\/strategy\/open-education\/<\/a>]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a>\nSee James Miller, Democracy Is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege\nof Chicago<\/em> (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987); Maurice Isserman, If\nI Had a Hammer…: The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left<\/em>\n(New York: Basic Books, 1987); Irwin Unger, The Movement: A History of the\nAmerican New Left, 1959-1972<\/em> (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1974); Sara Evans, Personal\nPolitics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the\nNew Left<\/em> (New York: Albert Knopf, 1979); Wini\nBreines, Community Organization in the New Left, 1962\u20131968<\/em><\/a>: The\nGreat Refusal <\/em>(New York: Praeger, 1982); and Rebecca E. Klatch, A\nGeneration Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s<\/em> (Berkeley:\nUniversity of California Press, 1999). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a>\nBonnie Goodman, \u201cIn Memory of Roy Rosenzweig,\u201d History News Network<\/em>(January 8, 2008), [http:\/\/historynewsnetwork.org\/article\/43739<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a>\nSee, for instance, Steven Levy, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution<\/em>\n(New York: Doubleday, 1984).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a>\nStallman would champion \u201cfree software\u201d over \u201copen source\u201d software. Richard\nStallman, \u201cWhy Open Source misses the point of Free Software,\u201d GNU, [http:\/\/www.gnu.org\/philosophy\/open-source-misses-the-point.html].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Piya Chatterjee and Sunaina\nMaira note, for instance, that an early draft of Eisenhower\u2019s\n\u201cmilitary-industrial-complex\u201d used instead \u201cmilitary-industrial-academic\ncomplex.\u201d  <\/sup>Chatterjee and\nMaira, editors, The Imperial University Academic Repression and Scholarly\nDissent<\/em> (Minnesota: 2014), 17. See also Wendy Brown, \u201dThe End of Educated\nDemocracy\u201d Representations <\/em>116; Colleen Lye and James Vernon, \u201cThe\nHumanities and the Crisis of The Public University,\u201d Townsend Center\nNewsletter <\/em> (Fall 2011), 19-41. For how neoliberalism poisons pedagogy, see especially Enrique\nDussel, Pedagogics of Liberation: A Latin American Philosophy of Education<\/em>,\ntrans. David I. Backer and Cecilia Diego (Punctum Books, 2019); Paulo Freire, The\nPedagogy of the Oppressed<\/em>, trans. Donald Macedo (New York: Continuum,\n2005); and Linda Mart\u00edn Alcoff, \u201cEducating with a (De)Colonial Consciousness,\u201d L\u00e1piz<\/em>\n1 (2014), 78\u201392. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> Susan Hockey most prominently identifies Busa\u2019s project as the first digital humanities project. Susan Hockey, \u201cThe History of Humanities Computing,\u201d in Susan Scheibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth eds. Companion to Digital Humanities<\/em> (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004). Busa\u2019s project, notably, obscured the labor of the women who turned the project into reality and drew rebukes from humanists who feared the dehumanization of quantitative-based scholarship. Melissa Terras and Julianne Nyhan, \u201cFather Busa\u2019s Female Punch Card Operatives,\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016]; Meredith Hindley, \u201cThe Rise of the Machines,\u201d Humanities<\/em>. 34, (2013). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> According to Wendy Brown, the twentieth century was,\n\u201cfor all its ghastly episodes\u201d and \u201cthe cruel exclusions of Western humanism,\u201d\nstill \u201csomething of a golden age for public higher education.\u201d Brown, Undoing\nthe Demos<\/em>, 180. Neem likewise argues that\nAmericans have long expected higher education to serve society, but the needs\nof society have increasingly become indistinguishable from the needs of the\nmarket. Neem shows how, for instance, the evolution of the Common Core\ndemonstrates that \u201cthe importance of knowledge for personal growth or effective\ncitizenship is relegated to the sidelines.\u201d Johann, N. Neem, What\u2019s the\nPoint of College? Seeking Purpose in an Age of Reform<\/em> (Baltimoree: Johns\nHopkins University Press, 2019), 64-65.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Public funding for universities has plummeted since\nthe 1970s. From 1976-2001, appropriations, as a percent of state revenue, for\nhigher education fell nationally from 6.7% to 4.5%. Thomas J. Kane and Peter R.\nOrszag, \u201cUse of State General Revenue for Higher Education Declines,\u201d Tax\nPolicy Center and the Urban Institute (2002) [https:\/\/www.urban.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publication\/59871\/1000462-Use-of-State-General-Revenue-for-Higher-Education-Declines.PDF<\/a>]; Christopher Newfield, Unmaking the Public\nUniversity: The Forty-year Assault on the Middle Class<\/em> (Cambridge: Harvard\nUniversity Press, 2011), 1; and Colleen Lye, Newfield and James Vernon,\n\u201cHumanists and the Public University,\u201d Representations<\/em> 116, The\nHumanities and the Crisis of The Public University<\/em> (Fall 2011), 3. During\nthose same years, the number of faculty grew by 75.8%; the number of nonfaculty\nprofessionals grew by 239.2%. Jack H. Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, The\nAmerican Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers<\/em>\n(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006), 269. On the growth of\ncorporate accounting practices in higher education, see Newfield, Unmaking\nthe Public University<\/em>, 127-129. For a critical assessment of new\nadministrative methods, see the work of Charles Schwartz, a retired physicist\nat the University of California, Berkeley, who made a retirement hobby out of\nfact-checking the university\u2019s financing. Charles Schwartz, \u201cFinancing the\nUniversity\u201d [https:\/\/www.ocf.berkeley.edu\/~schwrtz\/]. Government deregulation\nincentivized many of these trends. The 1980 Bayh-Doyle Act, for instance,\nallowed universities to profit from research (even publicly funded research), reorienting\nacademic priorities around their commercial potential. According to former\npresident of Harvard, Derek Bok, researchers using corporate funds are subsequently\ntwice as likely \u201cto be influenced by commercial considerations in choosing\ntheir research topics.\u201d Derek Bok, Universities in the Marketplace: The\nCommercialization of Higher Education<\/em> (Princeton: Princeton University\nPress, 2003), 61. For more on the neoliberalization of the university, see also\nEllen Strecker, The Lost Soul of Higher Education: Corporatization, the\nAssault on Academic Freedom, and the End of the American University<\/em> (New\nYork: The New Press, 2010); and Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fall of the Faculty:\nThe Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters<\/em> (New York:\nOxford University Press, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> In a 2011 exploration of the new career trajectories\ncreated by the digital humanities, for instance, Tom Scheinfeldt, the managing director\nof the George Mason Center for History and New Media, reported that 90% of the\nCenter\u2019s budget was supported by grants and,  \u201cWith a very few exceptions, staff positions\nat CHNM are contingent on continued grant funding.\u201d Tom Scheinfeldt, \u201cCenter\nfor History and New Media, George Mason University,\u201d in Off the Tracks:\nLaying New Lines for Digital Humanities Scholars<\/em> (2011) [http:\/\/mcpress.media-commons.org\/offthetracks\/part-two-position-descriptions-at-established-and-emerging-digital-humanities-centers\/center-for-history-and-new-media-george-mason-university\/<\/a>]. The University of Virginia\u2019s Scholars\u2019 Lab was,\nadministratively, under the University of Virginia Library and staffed by\n\u201clibrary faculty\u201d and \u201cstaff.\u201d Bethany Nowviskie, \u201cThe Scholars\u2019 Lab (Digital\nResearch & Scholarship Department), University of Virginia Library\u201d in Off\nthe Tracks. <\/em>On the overall prominence of staff in DH, see especially, Leon,\n\u201cComplicating a Great Man Narrative.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a>\nRandy Bass et al, Crossroads Project<\/em>[http:\/\/crossroads.georgetown.edu\/]. For more on Crossroads<\/em> and its innovations see John Carlos Rowe, ed. A Concise Companion to American Studies<\/em>\n(Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2010), 335-336; Matthias Oppermann, American Studies in Dialogue: Radical\nReconstructions between Curriculum and Cultural Critique<\/em> (Frankfurt\/New\nYork: Campus Verlag, 2010), 167-168; and Ann Kovalchick and Kara Dawson, eds. Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia<\/em>\n(Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004),182; <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a>\nC. M. Sperberg-McQueen, \u201cTextual Criticism and the Text Encoding Initiative,\u201d\n(paper presented at the annual meeting for the Modern Language Association, San\nDiego, California, December 1994). Available online at:\nhttp:\/\/www.tei-c.org\/Vault\/XX\/mla94.html. See also Susan Hockey, \u201cThe History\nof Humanities Computing,\u201d in Susan Scheibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth\neds. Companion to Digital Humanities<\/em>\n(Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a>\nEd Folsom and Kenneth Price, The Walt Whitman Archive<\/em>[http:\/\/whitmanarchive.org\/]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a>\nMorris Eaves et al, The William Blake Archive<\/em>[http:\/\/www.blakearchive.org\/staticpage\/archiveataglance]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a>\nDespite significant support\nfrom various foundations, the project requires subscriptions that continue to\nhamper access. Only one of the two authors of this piece,\nfor instance, has access through their university to the excellent database. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/sup><\/a> Michael O\u2019Malley and\nRoy Rosenzweig, \u201cBrave New World or Blind Alley? American History on the World\nWide Web,\u201d Journal of American History<\/em>84 (June 1997), 135-155, 146. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/sup><\/a> Gary J. Kornblith,\n\u201cVenturing into the Civil War, Virtually: A Review,\u201d The Journal of American\nHistory<\/em> 88 (June, 2001), 145-151, 146.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/sup><\/a> See, for instance,\nRoy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, \u201cAbout,\u201d n.d.\n(http:\/\/chnm.gmu.edu\/about\/).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/sup><\/a> Roy Rosenzweig\nCenter for History and New Media, \u201cOur Story,\u201d n.d. (http:\/\/rrchnm.org\/our-story\/history\/).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/sup><\/a> Virginia Center for\nDigital History, \u201cAbout,\u201d n.d.,\n(http:\/\/www.vcdh.virginia.edu\/index.php?page=About).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a> Digital History: Using New Technologies to Enhance\nTeaching and Research <\/em>[digitalhistory.uh.edu].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a> History Matters: The U.S.\nSurvey Course on the Web <\/em>[http:\/\/historymatters.gmu.edu\/<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/sup><\/a> Lisa Spiro, \u201cThis Is\nWhy We Fight: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities,\u201d in Matthew K.\nGold, editor, Debates in the Digital Humanities<\/em> (Minneapolis: University\nof Minnesota Press, 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/sup><\/a> George Veletsianos\nand Royce Kimmons, \u201cAssumptions and Challenges of Open Scholarship,\u201d International\nReview of Research in Open and Distance Learning<\/em> 13 (2012), 166\u201389, 167,\ncited by Martin Paul Eve, Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts,\nControversies, and the Future<\/em>(New\nYork: Cambridge, 2014), 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a> Spiro, \u201cWhy We Fight.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/a>\nAndrea Hunter, \u201cThe Digital Humanities and Democracy,\u201d Canadian Journal of\nCommunication<\/em> 40 (2015), 407-423.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/a> The Orlando Project <\/em>[http:\/\/orlando.cambridge.org\/<\/a>];\nOmeka <\/em>[https:\/\/omeka.org\/<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/sup><\/a>  Anne Burdick et al, Digital_Humanities<\/em> (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012), 82 [https:\/\/mitpress.mit.edu\/books\/digitalhumanities]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/sup><\/a> Martin Paul Eve, Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies, and the Future<\/em>(New York: Cambridge, 2014), 16.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/a>Creative Commons licenses built\non the earlier work of David Wiley and his Open Publication License. In 2002,\nWiley dissolved his license and formally joined Creative Commons. David Wiley,\n“OpenContent is officially closed. And that’s just fine.,” Open\nContent<\/em> (June 30, 2003). Early critics however, accused Creative Commons of\nfailing \u201cto confront and look beyond the logic and power asymmetries of the\npresent.\u201d See David Berry and Giles Moss, “On the \u201cCreative Commons\u201d: a\ncritique of the commons without commonalty,” Free Software Magazine<\/em>,\nIssue 5 (July 15, 2005). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/a> UNESCO, \u201cForum on the Impact of\nOpen Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries,\u201d July 1-3, 2002, http:\/\/unesdoc.unesco.org\/images\/0012\/001285\/128515e.pdf<\/a>. See also Sally M.\nJohnstone, “Open Educational Resources\nServe the World”<\/a>. Educause\nQuarterly<\/em> 28: 3(2005), 15-18; and T.J.\nBliss and M Smith, \u201cA Brief History of Open Educational Resources\u201d in:\nJhangiani, R S and Biswas-Diener, R., eds., Open: The Philosophy and\nPractices that are Revolutionizing Education and Science<\/em>. (London: Ubiquity\nPress, 2017). 9\u201327.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/a> For a timeline of the Public Library of Science, see https:\/\/www.plos.org\/history<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe term \u2018open\naccess,\u2019\u201d according to Martin Paul Eve, refers to the removal of price and\npermission barriers to scholarly research.\u201d Martin Paul Eve, Open Access<\/em>, 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/sup><\/a> Jo Guldi and David Armitage, \u201cWhy Open Access Publication for The History Manifesto?\u201d Cambridge Open<\/em> (2014) [http:\/\/historymanifesto.cambridge.org\/blog\/2014\/09\/why-open-access-publication-history-manifesto#sthash.FYCNEiH9.dpuf]. \u201cThis is a new era for all of us,\u201d said Harriette Hemmasi, university librarian at Brown University, upon receiving funds to explore digital publishing. Carl Straumsheim, \u201cPiecing Together Publishing,\u201d Inside Higher Ed<\/em> (February 25, 2015) [https:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2015\/02\/25\/researchers-university-press-directors-emboldened-mellon-foundation-interest]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/sup><\/a> Martin Weller, The\nBattle for Open: How Openness Won and Why It Doesn\u2019t Feel Like Victory<\/em>\n(London: Ubiquity Press, 2014), 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/sup><\/a> Eve, Open Access<\/em>,\n7<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/a> Sharon Leon, surveying\nNEH-grant-winning digital history projects, found that \u201cthe Divisions of\nPreservation and Access, Public Programs, and Education Programs\u201d funded the\nmajority of projects. Leon, \u201cComplicating a Great Man Narrative.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[55]<\/sup><\/a> Straumsheim,\n\u201cPiecing Together,\u201d n.p.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[56]<\/sup><\/a> Amanda Patrick, \u201cThe\nGoizueta Foundation supports creation of a Digital Humanities Laboratory at\nYale,\u201d Yale News<\/em>(December 11,\n2014) [http:\/\/news.yale.edu\/2014\/12\/11\/goizueta-foundation-supports-creation-digital-humanities-laboratory-yale].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[57]<\/sup><\/a> Daniel J. Cohen, \u201cFrom Babel to Knowledge: Data Mining Large Digital Collections,\u201d D-Lib Magazine<\/em> 12 (March 2006) [http:\/\/www.dlib.org\/dlib\/march06\/cohen\/03cohen.html]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[58]<\/sup><\/a> Eve, Open Access<\/em>, 3; \u201cWhen presented with the\nconcept of OER, most faculty say that they are willing to give it a try,\u201d\nconcluded one report. I. Elaine Allen and Jef Seaman, Opening the\nCurriculum: Open Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education<\/em>(Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research\nGroup, 2014), 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[59]<\/sup><\/a> Eve, Open Access<\/em>, 4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[60]<\/sup><\/a> Digitalculturebooks,\n\u201cAbout Us,\u201d n.d. [http:\/\/www.digitalculture.org\/about\/].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[61]<\/a> On the question of funding and\nsustainability of open access publishing, see Martin Paul Eve, Paula Clemente\nVega, and Caroline Vega, \u201cLessons from the Open Library of the Humanities,\u201d Liber Quarterly<\/em> 30 (2020), 1\u201318.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[62]<\/sup><\/a> Carl Straumsheim, \u201c\u2018Paying It Forward\u2019 Publishing,\u201d Inside Higher Ed<\/em> (February 10, 2015) [https:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2015\/02\/10\/u-california-press-builds-open-access-publishing-model-around-paying-it-forward]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[63]<\/a> Ulrich Herb, “Open Access\nand Symbolic Gift Giving,” in Open Divide: Critical Studies on Open\nAccess<\/em>, edited by Joachim Sch\u00f6pfel and Ulrich Herb, 69\u201381 (Sacramento, CA:\nLibrary Juice Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.1206377<\/a>. See also Samuel Moore, \u201cCommon\nStruggles: Policy-Based vs. Scholar-Led Approaches to Open Access in the\nHumanities\u201d (unpublished Doctoral Thesis, King\u2019s College London, 2019) [https:\/\/hcommons.org\/deposits\/item\/hc:24135\/<\/a>] and Ryan Burns, “New\nFrontiers of Philanthro\u2010Capitalism: Digital Technologies and\nHumanitarianism,” Antipode<\/em> 51 (2019), 1101-1122.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[64]<\/a> The 1980 Bayh-Doyle Act, for\ninstance, allowed universities to profit from even publicly funded research,\nredirecting research toward commercial potential. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[65]<\/a> In the late 1990s the University of Chicago\nredesigned its core curriculum based on the advice of management consultants.\nDavid L. Kirp, Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line <\/em>(Cambridge:\nHarvard University Press, 2003), 33-51. According to the former president of\nHarvard Derek Bok, researchers using corporate funds are twice as likely \u201cto be\ninfluenced by commercial considerations in choosing their research topics.\u201d\nDerek Bok, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher\nEducation <\/em>(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 61. BB&T bank\nhas funded grants at over 60 colleges requiring courses to assign Ayn Rand’s Atlas\nShrugged<\/em>. S. Douglas Beets, “BB&T, Atlas Shrugged, and the Ethics\nof Corporation Influence on College Curricula,” 13 (2015), 311-344. See\nalso Brown, Undoing the Demos<\/em>, 270-271. For an example of corporate\ndollars creating an academic initiative designed to meet corporate needs, see\nthe relationship between J.P. Morgan Chase and the Lerner School of Business at\nthe University of Delaware. [https:\/\/www.udel.edu\/udaily\/2019\/december\/jpmorgan-chase-lerner-certificate-data-analytics\/<\/a>]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[66]<\/a> Between 1976 and 2001, the number of faculty grew by\n75.8% compared to 239.2% growth for nonfaculty professionals. Jack H. Schuster\nand Martin J. Finkelstein, The American Faculty: The Restructuring of\nAcademic Work and Careers <\/em>(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,\n2006), 269. On new accounting practices see Newfield, Unmaking the Public\nUniversity<\/em>, 127-129; and Neil Fligstein, The Transformation of Corporate\nControl<\/em> (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997). For a critical\nassessment of new administrative methods, see the work of Charles Schwartz, a\nretired physicist at UC Berkeley, who made a retirement hobby out of\nfact-checking the UC administration. [https:\/\/www.ocf.berkeley.edu\/~schwrtz\/<\/a>] See also Ellen Strecker, The Lost Soul of Higher\nEducation: Corporatization, the Assault on Academic Freedom, and the End of the\nAmerican University <\/em>(New York: The New Press, 2010); and Benjamin Ginsberg,\nThe Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and\nWhy It Matters <\/em>(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[67]<\/a> For more on Manifold see https:\/\/manifoldapp.org\/<\/a>. For examples of projects built through the platform\nsee https:\/\/cuny.manifoldapp.org\/projects\/all<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[68]<\/sup><\/a> Kathleen\nFitzpatrick, Planned Obsolescence Publishing, Technology, and the Future of\nthe Academy<\/em> (New York: NYU Press, 2011), 174.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[69]<\/sup><\/a> See, for instance,\nOpen Library of Humanities, \u201cAbout,\u201d n.d., [https:\/\/www.openlibhums.org\/site\/about\/]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[70]<\/sup><\/a> Straumsheim,\n\u201cPiecing Together,\u201d n.p.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[71]<\/sup><\/a> Hunter, \u201cDigital\nHumanities and Democracy,\u201d 418.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[72]<\/a>\nJo Guldi and David Armitage, The History Manifesto<\/em>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[73]<\/a> PLOS refers to their process as a transparent Peer\nReview History. For more see https:\/\/www.plos.org\/faq#loc-Peer-review-history<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[74]<\/a>\nRobert Darnton, \u201cGoogle and the Future of Books,\u201d The New York Review of Books<\/em>, (February 12, 2009). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[75]<\/sup><\/a> William Pannapacker,\u201cStop Calling It \u2018Digital Humanities,\u2019\u201d\nThe Chronicle of Higher Education<\/em>(February\n18, 2013; http:\/\/chronicle.com\/article\/Stop-Calling-It-Digital\/137325\/).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[76]<\/sup><\/a> Thomas, \u201cTrends,\u201d n.p.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[77]<\/a>\nRoy Rosenzweig, \u201cLive Free Or Die.\u201d 161. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[78]<\/a>\nSiva Vaidhyanathan, \u201cIntroduction: Rewiring the \u2018Nation\u2019: The Place of\nTechnology in American Studies,\u201d American Quarterly<\/em>58 (September 2006), 557.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[79]<\/a> Safiya Noble identifies digital\nutopianism as a neoliberal ideology and credits critical theorists with\ncomplicating triumphalist DH narratives. Safiya Umoja Noble, \u201cA Future for\nIntersectional Black Feminist Technology Studies.\u201d Scholar & Feminist Online<\/em> 13, no. 3\u201314, no. 1 (2016): 1\u20138.\nBrian Greenspan, however, argues that utopian ideas are necessary for radical\nends. Brian Greenspan, \u201cAre Digital Humanists Utopian?\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold\nand Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016].\nSee also Ruth Levitas, \u201cFor Utopia: The (Limits of the) Utopian Function in\nLate Capitalist Society,\u201d Critical Review\nof International Social and Political Philosophy<\/em> 3 (2000): 25\u201343; Louis\nMarin, Utopics: The Semiological Play of\nTextual Spaces<\/em> (Amherst, N.Y.: Humanities Press International, 1984); and\nFred Turner, From Counterculture to\nCyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital\nUtopianism<\/em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[80]<\/sup><\/a> Mark Sample, \u201cI\u2019m Mark, and Welcome to the Circus,\u201d HASTAC Blog, September 10, 2010 [http:\/\/hastac.org\/blogs\/cforster\/im-chris-where-am-i-wrong]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[81]<\/sup><\/a> See, for instance,\nPannapacker,\u201c\u2018Digital Humanities.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[82]<\/a> Gary Rhoades and Sheila\nSlaughter, \u201cAcademic Capitalism, Managed Professionals, and Supply-Side Higher\nEducation,\u201d Social Text<\/em> 51, Academic Labor (Summer, 1997), 9-38; Sheila\nSlaughter and Larry L. Leslie, Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and\nthe Entrepreneurial University<\/em> (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,\n1999); Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades, Academic Capitalism and the New\nEconomy: Markets, State, and Higher Education<\/em> (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins\nUniversity Press, 2009); and Robert Nisbet, The Degradation of the\nAcademic Dogma: The University in America, 1945-1970 <\/em>(New York: Basic\nBooks, 1971). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[83]<\/a> Strecker, The Lost\nSoul of Higher Education;<\/em> Neem, What\u2019s the Point of College?<\/em>;Newfield, Unmaking the Public\nUniversity; <\/em>Larry G. Gerber, The Rise and Decline of Faculty Governance:\nProfessionalization and the Modern American University <\/em>(Baltimore: Johns\nHopkins University Press, 2014); Gaye Tuchman, Wannabe U: Inside the\nCorporate University<\/em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009); Frank\nDonoghue, The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the\nHumanities <\/em>(New York: Fordham University Press, 2018); and Herb Childress, The\nAdjunct Underclass: How America\u2019s Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their\nStudents, and Their Mission<\/em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[84]<\/sup><\/a> Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Richard Grusin, Patrick Jagoda, and Rita Raley, \u201cThe Dark Side of the Digital Humanities,\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[85]<\/sup><\/a> Daniel Allington et al, \u201cNeoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities,\u201d The L.A. Review of Books<\/em>(May 1, 2016) [https:\/\/lareviewofbooks.org\/article\/neoliberal-tools-archives-political-history-digital-humanities\/]. For one of many rejoinders, see Juliana Spahr, Richard So, and Andrew Piper, “Beyond Resistance: Towards a Future History of Digital Humanities,” The L.A. Review of Books<\/em>(May 11, 2016) [https:\/\/lareviewofbooks.org\/article\/beyond-resistance-towards-future-history-digital-humanities\/]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[86]<\/a>\nWe could here also address the MOOC frenzy, but that bubble has begun to pop\nand the passion has calmed, whether or not the pernicious logic behind its\n\u201cdisruption\u201d-minded indictment of education remains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[87]<\/sup><\/a> Stevan Harnad,\n\u201cOverture: A Subversive Proposal,\u201d in Scholarly\nJournals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing<\/em>,\ned. Shumelda Okerson and James J. O\u2019Donnell (Washington, D.C.: Association of\nResearch Libraries, 1995), 11\u201312. The adjunctification of academic labor\nadmittedly complicates presuppositions of gainful compensation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[88]<\/sup><\/a> Martin Paul Eve, Open\nAccess and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies, and the Future<\/em>(New York: Cambridge University Press,\n2014), 18; see also Peter Suber, Open Access<\/em>(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012), 9-15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[89]<\/sup><\/a> John Willinsky, The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship<\/em> (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009). As Cable Green, Creative Commons\u2019 Director of Global Learning, put it, \u201cWhen the marginal cost of sharing is $0, educators have an ethical obligation to share.\u201d Cable Green, \u201cOpen Education: The Moral, Business & Policy Case for OER,\u201d Keynote Address, Affordable Learning Georgia Conference (December 11, 2014) [http:\/\/www.affordablelearninggeorgia.org\/documents\/Cable_EveningPlenaryKeynote.pdf]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[90]<\/a> \u201cEditor\u2019s Comments,\u201d AHR\nOpen Review<\/em>, https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/editors-comments\/<\/a>. See also Karin Wulf, \u201cGuest\nPost: Karin Wulf on Open Access and Historical Scholarship,” The\nScholarly Kitchen<\/em> (March 25, 2015) and Eric Slauter and Karin Wulf’s 2014\nworking paper, “Open Access for the Humanities: A View from the William\nand Mary Quarterly<\/em>” [https:\/\/oieahc.wm.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/Slauter_Wulf_OA_MCEAS.pdf<\/a>]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[91]<\/sup><\/a> Thomas, \u201cTrends,\u201d\nn.p.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[92]<\/a> Online access, of course, does not even necessarily\nguarantee greater access. See David Parry, \u201cBe Online or Be Irrelevant,\u201d AcademHack<\/em>,\nJanuary 11, 2010 [http:\/\/academhack.outsidethetext.com\/home\/2010\/be-online-or-be-irrelevant\/<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[93]<\/a>\nPatricia Nelson Limerick, \u201cInsiders and Outsiders: The Borders of the USA and\nthe Limits of the ASA: Presidential Address to the American Studies\nAssociation,\u201d American Quarterly<\/em> 49.3 (1997) 449-469, 453.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[94]<\/a> Lorna M. Hughes, Digitizing\nCollections: Strategic Issues for the Information Manager<\/em> (London: Facet\nPublishing, 2004), 286; Jean Dryden, “The Role of Copyright in Selection\nfor Digitization,” The American Archivist<\/em> 77 (Spring\/Summer 2014),\n64-95. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[95]<\/a> Murtha Baca, \u201cPractical\nIssues in Applying Metadata Schemas and Controlled Vocabularies to Cultural\nHeritage Information,\u201d Cataloging & Classification Quarterly<\/em> 36\n(October 2003), 47-55. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[96]<\/a> Mintz and McNeil, Digital\nHistory<\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[97]<\/sup><\/a> Weller, Battle<\/em>, 76. For evidence that OER\nimproves learning outcomes, see Lane Fischer, John Hilton III, T. Jared\nRobinson, and David A. Wiley, “A multi-institutional study of the impact\nof open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary\nstudents,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education<\/em> Vol 27 No 3\n(December 2015), 159-172. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[98]<\/a> Scott E. Casper ed.,\n“Textbooks Today and Tomorrow: A Conversation about History, Pedagogy, and\nEconomic,” Journal of American History<\/em> Vol. 100, No 4 (March 2014),\n1139-1169.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[99]<\/a> The American Yawp: A Free and Online, Collaboratively Built American History Textbook <\/em>[http:\/\/americanyawp.com]. For more on The American Yawp, <\/em>see Daniel Story and Alex Lichtenstein, “Ben Wright and Joseph Locke on The American Yawp,” AHR Interview<\/em>, November 19, 2019 [https:\/\/directory.libsyn.com\/episode\/index\/show\/ahrinterview\/id\/12089015<\/a>]; Joseph Locke and Ben Wright, “A Free and Open Alternative to Traditional History Textbooks,” Perspectives on History<\/em>, 53:3 (March 2015) [https:\/\/www.historians.org\/publications-and-directories\/perspectives-on-history\/march-2015\/a-free-and-open-alternative-to-traditional-history-textbooks<\/a>]; “Compiling and Open History Textbook: An Interview with American Yawp Editors Joseph Locke and Ben Wright,” Perspectives on History<\/em> (April 20, 2015) [https:\/\/www.historians.org\/publications-and-directories\/perspectives-on-history\/april-2015\/compiling-an-open-history-textbook-an-interview-with-american-yawp-editors-joseph-locke-and-ben-wright<\/a>]; and Rachel Beltzhoover and M. Omar Siddiqi, “A Conversation with Ben Wright and Joseph Locke, Editors of The American Yawp,” The American Historian<\/em> (February 2015) [https:\/\/tah.oah.org\/content\/conversation-ben-wright\/<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[100]<\/sup><\/a> Rosenzweig, \u201cCan\nHistory Be Open Source?,\u201d 117-146.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[101]<\/a>\nHenry Jenkins, \u201cConfronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media\nEducation for the 21st Century\u201d [https:\/\/www.macfound.org\/media\/article_pdfs\/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF].\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[102]<\/a>\nSee, for example, Tapscott\nand Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass\nCollaboration Changes Everything<\/em> (New York: Penguin, 2006). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[103]<\/a>\nMiriam Posner, \u201cWhat\u2019s Next: The Radical, Unrealized Potential of Digital\nHumanities,\u201d Debates in the Digital\nHumanities 2016, <\/em>edited\nby Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota\nPress, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[104]<\/a> Tara McPherson, \u201cWhy Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation\u201d <\/em>Matthew K. Gold, editor, Debates in the Digital Humanities<\/em> (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012) <\/em>[http:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/debates\/text\/29].; Bethany Nowviskie, \u201cWhat Do Girls Dig?\u201d [http:\/\/nowviskie.org\/2011\/what-do-girls-dig\/]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[105]<\/a> See especially Sharon M. Leon,\n\u201cComplicating a \u2018Great Man\u2019 Narrative of Digital History in the United States,\u201d\nin Bodies of Information: Intersectional\nFeminism and the Digital Humanities<\/em>, edited by Elizabeth Losh and\nJacqueline Wernimont (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[106]<\/a>\nSee also Henry Jenkins, \u201cBringing Critical Perspectives to the Digital\nHumanities: An Interview with Tara McPherson\u201d Confessions of an ACA-Fan <\/em>(March 20, 2015); David\nKim, \u201cArchives, Models, and Methods for Critical Approaches to Identities:\nRepresenting Race and Ethnicity in the Digital Humanities\u201d (PhD dissertation,\nUCLA, 2015.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[107]<\/a> Oral historians Julianne Nyhan and Andrew Flinn\nidentified \u201crevolutionary\u201d and \u201cunderdog\u201d as the recurring motifs with which\ndigital humanists described themselves. Julianne Nyhan and Andrew Flinn, Computation and the Humanities: Towards an Oral History of Digital\nHumanities<\/em> (London: Springer, 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[108]<\/a> Carol Fadda et al, Democratizing\nKnowledge Project<\/em>[http:\/\/democratizingknowledge.syr.edu\/index.html]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[109]<\/a> \u201cPublic\nhistory is not only history for a large audience,\u201d Thomas Cauvin explains, \u201cbut\ninvolves public participation as well.\u201d Thomas Cauvin, Public History: A Textbook of Practice<\/em> (New York: Routledge, 2016),\n179.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[110]<\/a> Suzanne Fischer, “On the Vocation of Public\nHistory,” #alt-academy (May 8, 2011) [ http:\/\/mediacommons.org\/alt-ac\/pieces\/vocation-public-history<\/a>].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[111]<\/a> Andrew Hurley,\n\u201cChasing the Frontiers of Digital Technology: Public History Meets the Digital\nDivide,\u201d The Public Historian<\/em> 38 (February 2016), 70. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[112]<\/a>  Sheila A. Brennan, \u201cPublic, First,\u201d Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016].  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[113]<\/a> Andrew Hurley, \u201cChasing the Frontiers of Digital\nTechnology: Public History Meets the Digital Divide,\u201d The Public Historian<\/em>\n38 (February 2016), 80. See also David Hochfelder, \u201cMeeting our audiences where\nthey are in the digital age,\u201d History@Work<\/em>, March 30, 2016; and Lara\nKelland, \u201cDigital Community Engagement Across the Divides,\u201d History@Work<\/em>,\nApril 20, 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[114]<\/a> Lara Kelland,\n\u201cDigital community engagement across the divides,\u201d History@Work<\/em>, April\n20, 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[115]<\/a> Laurenellen McCann, \u201cBuilding Technology With, Not For Communities: An Engagement Guide for Civic Tech,\u201d Medium.com<\/em>, March 30, 2015. https:\/\/medium.com\/@elle_mccann\/building-technology-with-not-for-communities-an-engagement-guide-for-civic-tech-b8880982e65a<\/a>. See also Wendy F. Hsu, \u201cLessons on Public Humanities from the Civic Sphere,\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[116]<\/a> See Sharon Leon, \u201cAbout,\u201d in User-Centered Digital History<\/em>, https:\/\/digitalpublichistory.org\/about<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[117]<\/sup><\/a> Anne Burdick et al, Digital_Humanities<\/em>, 93.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[118]<\/a> The\nAnti-Eviction Mapping Project<\/em> [http:\/\/www.antievictionmap.com\/]; The\nColored Conventions Project<\/em> [https:\/\/coloredconventions.org\/<\/a>];\nand Refusing to Forget <\/em>[http:\/\/refusingtoforget.org\/<\/a>]. See also Million Dollar Hoods: Mapping the\nFiscal and Human Cost of Mass Incarceration in Los Angeles<\/em>, a project\n\u201cworking to de-carcerate California\u201d [https:\/\/milliondollarhoods.pre.ss.ucla.edu\/<\/a>] and Million Dollar Blocks, <\/em>the project that\ninspired Million Dollar Hoods <\/em>[https:\/\/c4sr.columbia.edu\/projects\/million-dollar-blocks<\/a>].<\/em> Other examples of activist digital history\ninclude Torn Apart \/ Separados<\/em>, an exploration of the detention of\nimmigrant children and its financial infrastructure [http:\/\/xpmethod.columbia.edu\/torn-apart\/volume\/2\/index<\/a>]; Project Toxic Docs<\/em>, a curated archive of\npreviously classified documents related to industrial poisons [https:\/\/www.toxicdocs.org\/<\/a>]; Mapping Islamophobia<\/em>, created byfaculty,\nstaff, and students at Grinnell College\u2014and released early\u2014to combat \u201cthe\nincredible rise in Islamophobic events\u201d [https:\/\/mappingislamophobia.org\/<\/a>]; and the suite of projects from the University of\nMichigan\u2019s Carceral State Project, especially their activism around the murder\nof Cynthia Scott and collaboration with the Michigan Youth Justice Center [https:\/\/sites.lsa.umich.edu\/dcc-project\/<\/a>]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[119]<\/sup><\/a> See, for instance. Jessie Daniels, \u201cRace and Racism\nin Internet Studies: A Review and Critique,\u201d New Media and Society<\/em> 15, no. 5 (2012): 695\u2013719.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[120]<\/a> Audre\nLorde, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,”\nin Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua, eds. This Bridge Called My Back:\nWritings by Radical Women of Color<\/em> (New York: Kitchen Table Press, 1983),\n94-101.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[121]<\/sup><\/a> Lisa Nakamura, Cybertypes: Race, Ethnicity, and Identity on\nthe Internet<\/em> (New York: Routledge, 2002). Legal scholar Jerry Kang\nwas among the earliest to consider how race and representation function on the\nweb. Jerry Kang, \u201cCyber-Race,\u201d Harvard\nLaw Review<\/em> 113, no. 5 (2002): 1130\u20131208. See also Jessica Marie Johnson and\nMark Anthony Neal, \u201cIntroduction: Wild Seed in the Machine,\u201d The Black Scholar: Journal of Black Studies\nand Research<\/em> Vol 47, No 3 (2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[122]<\/sup><\/a> See, for instance, Moya Z. Bailey, \u201cAll the Digital\nHumanists Are White, All the Nerds Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave,\u201d Journal Of Digital Humanities<\/em> (Winter\n2011); and Tara McPherson, \u201cWhy Are the Digital Humanities So White? or\nThinking the Histories of Race and Computation,\u201d in Matthew K. Gold, editor, Debates in the Digital\nHumanities<\/em> (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[123]<\/sup><\/a> Janet Abbate chronicled how the representation of coding\nevolved from a feminine activity in the mid-twentieth century to a masculine\none at the dawn of the twenty-first. Janet\nAbbate, Recoding Gender: Women\u2019s Changing\nParticipation in Computing<\/em> (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012). For gender and DH,\nsee also Donna Haraway, \u201cA Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist\nFeminism in the Late Twentieth Century,\u201d in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature<\/em> (New York; Routledge,\n1991); Deb Verhoeven, \u201cHas Anyone Seen a Woman?\u201d Alliance of Digital Humanities\nOrganizations Speech, (2015), debverhoeven.com\/anyone-seen-a-woman. On\nintersectionality, see especially Roopika Risam, \u201cBeyond the Margins:\nIntersectionality and the Digital Humanities,\u201d Digital Humanities Quarterly <\/em>9 (2015); and Safiya Umoja Noble and Brendesha M. Tynes, editors,\nThe Intersectional Internet: Race, Sex, Class, and Culture Online<\/em> (New York: Peter Lang, 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[124]<\/sup><\/a> Safiya Umoja Noble, \u201cA Future for Intersectional\nBlack Feminist Technology Studies,\u201d Scholar\n& Feminist Online<\/em> 13, (2016), 1\u20138; Noble, \u201cToward a Critical Black\nDigital Humanities,\u201d in in Matthew\nK. Gold and Lauren F. Klein, editor, Debates in the Digital Humanities<\/em> 2019\n<\/em>(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2019). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[125]<\/sup><\/a> Miriam Posner, \u201cSome things to think about before you\nexhort everyone to code,\u201d Miriam Posner\u2019s\nBlog: Digital Humanities, Data, Labor, and Information<\/em> (February 29, 2012),\nhttps:\/\/miriamposner.com\/blog\/some-things-to-think-about-before-you-exhort-everyone-to-code\/<\/a>. Safiya Noble likewise has identified the push to get\nblack girls to code as \u201can individualized, privatized approach to thinking\nabout Black women\u2019s empowerment, in neoliberal fashion.\u201d Safiya Umoja Noble, \u201cA\nFuture for Intersectional Black Feminist Technology Studies.\u201d Scholar & Feminist Online<\/em> 13, no.\n3\u201314, no. 1 (2016): 1\u20138. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[126]<\/sup><\/a> Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Wernimont, eds., Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and Digital Humanities<\/em> (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2018), xvii. For the relationship of DH\u2019s digital tools and its broader values, see Natalia Cecire, \u201cIntroduction: Theory and the Virtues of Digital Humanities.\u201d Journal of Digital Humanities<\/em> (2011), http:\/\/journalofdigitalhumanities.org\/1-1\/introduction-theory-and-the-virtues-of-digital-humanities-by-natalia-cecire\/<\/a>; Stephen Ramsay, \u201cOn Building.\u201d Stephen Ramsay Blog<\/em>, January 11, 2011. http:\/\/stephenramsay.us\/text\/2011\/01\/11\/on-building\/<\/a>; and Tom Scheinfeldt, \u201c\u2018Where\u2019s the Beef?\u2019 Does Digital Humanities Have to Answer Questions?\u201d in Matthew K. Gold, editor, Debates in the Digital Humanities<\/em> (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012) [http:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/debates\/text\/18<\/a>]; and Roopika Risam, \u201cNavigating the Global Digital Humanities: Insights from Black Feminism,\u201d Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016]; Siva Vaidhyanathan, \u201cAfterword: Critical Information Studies,\u201d Cultural Studies<\/em> 20 (2006), 292-315. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[127]<\/a> Fiona Barnett, Zach Blas, Micha C\u00e1rdenas, Jacob Gaboury, Jessica Marie Johnson, and Margaret Rhee, \u201cQueerOS: A User\u2019s Manual,\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016].  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[128]<\/sup><\/a> Kim Gallon, \u201cMaking a Case for the Black Digital Humanities,\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[129]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cWilliam G. Thomas III, and Elizabeth Lorang. \u201cThe Other\nEnd of the Scale: Rethinking the Digital Experience in Higher Education,\u201d Educause Review<\/em> (September 15, 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[130]<\/sup><\/a> Amy E. Earhart and Toniesha L. Taylor, \u201cPedagogies of Race: Digital Humanities in the Age of Ferguson,\u201d in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, <\/em>edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein (Minneapolis: University Minnesota Press, 2016) [https:\/\/dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu\/projects\/debates-in-the-digital-humanities-2016].  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[131]<\/sup><\/a> Anthony Grafton,\u201cLoneliness and Freedom,\u201d Perspectives: The Newsletter of the American Historical Association<\/em>, 49 (March 2011) [https:\/\/www.historians.org\/publications-and-directories\/perspectives-on-history\/march-2011\/loneliness-and-freedom]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[132]<\/sup><\/a> Scott Nesbit et al, \u201cA Conversation with Digital Historians,\u201d Southern Spaces<\/em>(January 31, 2012) [https:\/\/southernspaces.org\/2012\/conversation-digital-historians]. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

History Can Be Open Source: Democratic Dreams and the Rise of Digital History In 2006, pioneering digital historian Roy Rosenzweig published an article in the Journal of American History entitled \u201cCan History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past.\u201d By then Wikipedia had already become, he said, \u201cperhaps the largest work of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"bgseo_title":"","bgseo_description":"","bgseo_robots_index":"index","bgseo_robots_follow":"follow","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-113","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/113","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/113\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":125,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/113\/revisions\/125"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}