1.> “Digitization of objects and their representations has transformed research methods that rely on such comparisons. Texts, images, sounds, and other entities—or portions thereof—can be compared in ways never before possible, whether side by side on a screen or through computational modeling. “

I believe that an important task of scientific research is to draw patterns in things by collecting data, although this does not seem to be an aspect that is heavily emphasized in humanities research. One of the ways to draw patterns is to try to identify commonalities by comparing different data to see if things fit a certain pattern. The accessibility of the research object of humanities research can be a possible problem for hindering further development. This is one of the major problems of traditional humanities research that I realized from the article, and it is digitalization that has improved this situation. However, as will be discussed later, there are still problems with digitalization, such as property rights, that prevent researchers from acting on research objects in digital form.

2.> Whether something becomes a source or resource for data in the humanities may depend on its form, genre, origin, or degree of transformation from its original state.

For the digital age, whether big data or social media data (such as the Twitter or Facebook data we discussed in class) should be considered reliable sources of data or how it should be reasonably processed to be a reasonable source of data, maybe a question for future discussion in digital humanities. Algorithms make the process of generating and collecting big data not entirely derived from human intelligence. For traditional data sources, we may be able to account for transparency by documenting some “metadata” information, however, we need more solutions to clarify the source of big data to improve the rationality of their use in academic research.