“About Katherine A. Rowe | William & Mary.” Accessed May 23, 2018. https://www.wm.edu/about/administration/presidentelect/about/index.php.
Not exactly an article, but I noticed that the new William and Mary president is not only a Carleton grad and the founder of Syzygy (!) but also the founder of a company that makes apps for the study of Shakespearean texts and a huge example of success in the Digital Humanities. Rowe appears to be the perfect example of the academic combination of technology and humanities.
Angwin, Julia, and Hannes Grassegger. “Facebook’s Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men from Hate Speech But Not Black Children.” ProPublica (blog), June 28, 2017. https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-internal-documents-algorithms.
Julia Angwin and Hannes Grassenger outline the electronic bias between white men and people of color, regardless of validity of argument in extremely clear terms. Though there obviously should clearly be a difference between a person of color calling for change in institutionalized racism and a white person calling for the systematic death of all people of a religion, recent news makes it seem as if this is a change that we still must wait for (i.e. transgender model Munroe Bergdorf being removed from a makeup campaigns for her comments in response to the Charlottesville riots).
Buolamwini, Joy. The Coded Gaze: Unmasking Algorithmic Bias, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=162VzSzzoPs.
This piece actually reminds me of this mini documentary from the Digital Ethics folder in Zotero. It’s kind of a dramatic retelling of this exact problem (how AI can include some but exclude others) by Joy Buolamwini, who calls herself the Poet of Code. At the same time, it’s a call to coders and inventors to “incode” or create technology more inclusively.
Cottom, Tressie McMillan. Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy. New York: The New Press, 2017.
This book, unfortunately, is checked out of the Carleton library. However, I’m looking forward to reading it when it’s returned, as it seems like a very important issue, especially considering most for-profit colleges operate online. What is the line here— should internet providers monitor these for-profit colleges knowing that some operate largely on a system of fraud?
Editor-at-large, Analysis By Chris Cillizza, CNN. “How the Senate’s Tech Illiteracy Saved Mark Zuckerberg.” CNN. Accessed April 11, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/mark-zuckerberg-senate-hearing-tech-illiteracy-analysis/index.html.
Disclaimer: not from a tech insider, but worth reading about: Zuckerberg defends Facebook’s data compromising while many senators seem to find it hard to nail down exactly the issues with Facebook’s slippery ethical standpoint. Though senators were not truly as terrible as Twitter may be making the situation seem (some senators, at least, had valid and relevant questions for Zuckerberg), the overall point made clear to the world today is that the government seems to lack the skills it needs to regulate these confusing and choppy waters.
Eskénazi, Maxine. “Crowdsourcing for Speech Processing: Applications to Data Collection, Transcription and Assessment.” In Crowdsourcing for Speech Processing, edited by xine Eskénazi, Gina-Anne Levow, Helen Meng, Gabriel Parent, and David Suendermann, 1–7. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118541241.ch1/summary.
Eskenazi explores the realities of crowdsourcing when the crowd seeks compensation. For my own research purposes, this article provides some good quotes on how crowdsource transcription should effectively work, and in terms of my future work could help explain crowdsource transcription, not in my own words.
Estes, Adam Clark. “The Guy Who Invented Those Annoying Password Rules Now Regrets Wasting Your Time.” Gizmodo. Accessed September 7, 2017. http://gizmodo.com/the-guy-who-invented-those-annoying-password-rules-now-1797643987.
This article is a long-form critique on the technological trends that can actually make things harder, unlike most technological trends. By proving the entanglement of the larger technological world in the process of creating longer, yet easier to crack passwords, it encourages readers to stay critical.
Fort, Kären, Gilles Adda, and K. Breonnel Cohen. “Amazon Mechanical Turk: Gold Mine or Coal Mine?” Last Words, 2011. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/COLI_a_00057.
Researchers explore the ethical implications of using a website like Amazon Mechanical Turk in academic settings; for example, the researchers explore the type of people that use MTurk, but also the ramifications of such a website both on users’ lives, and also the current gig economy, by looking at user and requester experience.
Hill, Kashmir. “How Facebook Figures Out Everyone You’ve Ever Met.” Gizmodo. Accessed April 18, 2018. https://gizmodo.com/how-facebook-figures-out-everyone-youve-ever-met-1819822691.
This article explores the strange reality of the “Do You Know….?”function on Facebook, which suggests users to befriend, users who are sometimes eerily too close to home. It also explores the fact that there some people who are not on Facebook are given “Ghost Profiles” as placeholders to connect more Facebook account-holding users.
Hindman, Matthew. “How Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook Targeting Model Really Worked – According to the Person Who Built It.” The Conversation. Accessed April 3, 2018. http://theconversation.com/how-cambridge-analyticas-facebook-targeting-model-really-worked-according-to-the-person-who-built-it-94078.
Though this article is a little bit techy and mathy, it highlights some interesting points about the abillity of companies like Cambridge Analytica to continue to collect far more data than we may expect, from one of the creators of the infrastructure themselves. Full disclosure, the article is not written by someone within the tech industry BUT it does get a good narrative about the realities of this breach from someone who understands it really, really well and is able to relay it in terms that non-tech people can understand.
JD. “Keeping Your Files Safe in Google’s Cloud – The New York Times.” Accessed November 15, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/personaltech/security-google-cloud.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FComputer%20Security%20(Cybersecurity)&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0.
Kirk, Anne, Tara Carlisle, Quinn Dombrowski, Erin Glass, Tassie Gniady, Jason Jones, Joan Lippincott, et al. “Building Capacity for Digital Humanities: A Framework for Institutional Planning.” EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR), May 30, 2017. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2017/5/building-capacity-for-digital-humanities-a-framework-for-institutional-planning.
Kirk, Carlisle, Dombrowski et. al. illustrate the structures that Digital Humanities can be found within on college campuses. In my opinion, digital humanities at Carleton operates either through a “mesh network” model or a “consortial” model. The mesh model reminded me of Carleton’s program as digital scholarship at Carleton draws from many different pools of academia. However, I do see Carleton’s program as similar to a consortial model, as well, as it seems to have developed organically and without a “game plan,” so to speak– it simply operates as it does.
Leroi, Armand Marie. “Opinion | One Republic of Learning.” The New York Times, February 13, 2015, sec. Opinion. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/14/opinion/digitizing-the-humanities.html.
I’m including this article to send to anyone who asks me in the future what “digital humanities” actually means. It defines the field both succinctly and beautifully (one excellent quotation: digital humanities “transforms texts from caterpillars into butterflies”) and also outlines the potential that the field offers, although I’m not completely sold on the author’s point that perhaps digital humanities will be the end of the division of academia; rather, I see digital humanities as more of a bridge between the two, STEM and Humanities.
Owens, Trevor. “Digital Cultural Heritage and the Crowd.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 121–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12012.
Owens explores the reality of cultural heritage and the reliance they place on the public sphere to do work, in museums in particular. This poses an interesting dilemma for those working in the humanities in museums, which offer ample opportunities for visitor participation: when is user participation more applicable as “work” rather than contribution?
Reyburn, Scott. “How Important Is Art History in Today’s Market?” The New York Times, October 29, 2016, sec. Arts. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/arts/design/how-important-is-art-history-in-todays-market.html.
The title might be misleading (and obviously, it is what caught my eye) but the interest here is Hans Obrist, the artistic director of Serpentine Galleries in London (and, by the way, the man known as the most powerful individual in the art world). Firstly, Obrist has recorded over 2,000 hours of interviews and posted them online for everyone to access on Tumblr (a fairly accessible platform). He also co-founded 89plus.com, a website that curates modern artists. His work, combining both art and technology, is what gives him an edge as a modern curator (along with his insatiable drive), and his work is, in a word, fascinating.
Riesenberger, Nicole. “Museums, Show Your Collection Some Love (Part 1).” Uxdesign.Cc (blog), August 28, 2017. https://medium.com/@NRiesenberger/museums-show-your-collection-some-love-part-1-74406bbc12ee.
Reading this, I think that the article does raise some interesting points about accessibility and usability. More importantly, I wonder how accessibility can be changed for a museum website– for example, how can a blind person view a website that is centered around a visual experience? These challenges are nothing new, of course; museums have dealt with the dilemma of providing experiences for blind and deaf visitors for decades. However, in the digital world, how do we keep these gates open for everyone?
Singer, Natasha, and Danielle Ivory. “How Silicon Valley Plans to Conquer the Classroom.” The New York Times, November 3, 2017, sec. Technology. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/technology/silicon-valley-baltimore-schools.html.
“Tech firms are deploying sophisticated marketing techniques to try to sell their wares into America’s schools.” The final frontier for tech companies seems to be outfitting schools, particularly charter schools and other low-income education centers, with the latest technology.
Valentino-DeVries, Jennifer. “Hundreds of Apps Can Empower Stalkers to Track Their Victims.” The New York Times, May 19, 2018, sec. Technology. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/technology/phone-apps-stalking.html.
The New Yor kTimes’ Jennifer Valentino-DeVries explores the next step beyond data incriminated by Facebook– an app that gives individuals the ability to track others, a power that goes as far as to reading the deleted texts on another’s phone. In general, this article is about the huge technical understanding gap between lawmakers and the tech industry which poses a lot of problems for the modern user, as we still strive to find the line between legal and illega in the digital world.
Wong, Julia Carrie. “I Was One of the First People on Facebook. I Shouldn’t Have Trusted Mark Zuckerberg | Julie Carrie Wong.” the Guardian, April 17, 2018. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/17/facebook-people-first-ever-mark-zuckerberg-harvard.
Lately anything in the news related to anything digital has been overshadowed vastly by the Facebook dramatics, but this is an interesting article by a woman who attended Harvard at the same time that Mark Zuckerberg did, and witnessed the spread of whtat she calls “the virus” of Facebook. A technology reporter, her grasp of the situation is at once personal and situational, and she explains the circumstances both as they are relative to her and relative to us.
Zhitomirsky-Geffet, Maayan, Barbara H. Kwaśnik, Julia Bullard, Lala Hajibayova, Juho Hamari, and Timothy Bowman. “Crowdsourcing Approaches for Knowledge Organization Systems: Crowd Collaboration or Crowd Work?” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 53, no. 1 (January 1, 2016): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301013.
The panelists of this article raise ethical questions of finding good data in a world that can rely heavily on unqualified individuals. The crux of the issue lies in whether or not data that is sourced from a crowd can be considered contribution or should be considered work on behalf of the organizers. It is a question I considered frequently this year working with projects like the DIY history survey as well as the Canvas; do projects that need a crowd’s help require authorship for the crowd? Or is a crowd’s participation enough of a sign-off?