Dear Editors,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript based on the results of the open review. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most notable change in this draft is in response to Lara Putnam\u2019s comment. She rightly noted that \u201cthe target of this particular essay is something far more helpfully specific than \u2018the rise of digital history itself.\u2019\u201d We have reconfigured our second paragraph to eliminate the misleading passages, refine our intervention, and more explicitly connect our exploration of democratization with the evolution of digital history. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We made a series of other brief changes to reflect the wish of Reader 2 and several others that we acknowledge the enduring challenges of open access publishing in the world of academic journals. Alex Lichtentstein\u2019s final editors report offered us a helpful way to clarify those challenges. Similarly, one of Jordan Taylor\u2019s comments, singled out in the same report, has been added to the conclusion of the manuscript to acknowledge that democratization is not the inevitable result of technological innovation, and, in fact, it requires resources and significant, intentional work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an attempt to acknowledge the influence of libertarian discourse, alongside that of the New Left, we moved an acknowledgement of Stewart Brand from footnote 79 into the main text, much earlier in the article. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We attempted to do more with Randall Miller\u2019s note that this piece restricts itself almost entirely to scholarship from the United States. We believe that this is a necessary limitation of this single author, and hope that the explicit third footnote acknowledging that limitation is sufficient. We would welcome and indeed hope that other scholars will apply our analysis in other contexts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
We believe that these changes have made a much stronger article and are deeply grateful for the editors and participants in this open review. We added a first footnote to immediately acknowledge the open review and its participants. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
With thanks, <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Joe and Ben<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dear Editors, Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript based on the results of the open review. The most notable change in this draft is in response to Lara Putnam\u2019s comment. She rightly noted that \u201cthe target of this particular essay is something far more helpfully specific than \u2018the rise of digital […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":13,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"bgseo_title":"","bgseo_description":"","bgseo_robots_index":"index","bgseo_robots_follow":"follow","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-147","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/147","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=147"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/147\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":148,"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/147\/revisions\/148"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ahropenreview.com\/HistoryCanBeOpenSource\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}