“A Short Guide to Digital Humanities” highlights the distinction between what encompasses traditional humanity studies and digital humanities. One thing I agree with is the theme of collaboration. Sharing information is essential to increasing a collective understanding of the world around us, but one advantage of any digital study is the ability for instant communication and detailed analysis. A researcher in New York can talk with a researcher in Tokyo with a few emails. It is possible to carbon date stone age weapons or to analyze the paint compositions on renaissance works of art. As computational power increases, it will be interesting to see what we can learn.

Another theme I agree with is the personalization seen with digital humanities. Traditionally, a scientist, philosopher, or student would practice humanities in a controlled environment like a library or a university. This remains true with digital humanities, but research is now possible at home. I can work on a project without leaving my room, using store-bought computational power, and collaborate with a partner across the planet. The potential to learn is greater than ever before.

One thing I did not agree was the explanation of when digital humanities diverged from the main branch of humanities as a practice. The reading focuses on early work from 1949 with advances in the 1980s and the growth of the personal computer. However, I wanted to know more about how earlier technology could have influenced digital humanities. After all, earlier analog computers came before 1949, and inventions such as the telegraph allowed people to communicate instantaneously across great distances. These earlier inventions may have contributed heavily to the digital revolution and changes to the field of humanities. I feel the reading should give them more of a focus.