In this first chapter, the discussion about what should and should not be changed when facing the transition of humanities into digital humanities struck me as fundamental. The author proclaims the preservation of humanities values based on the reasoning that what is not preserved would be out crowded by commercial and professional interests in the digital space. In the author’s view, promoting the digital existence of humanities thinking, as defined by its traditional values, is at the core of digital humanists’ works. However, the author did not argue against establishing new methods of humanities inquiry or innovative knowledge models but acknowledged them as essential components of digital humanities.

Through the use of a historical analogy, the author brought my attention to the progression from the Renaissance print era to the subdivided 16th-19th century academia, during which the transmission of humanities knowledge to a vast degree moved from a state of liberation to one that is specialized. How digital humanists address the balance between quantity and quality, attention span and depth of understanding, and consistency and adaptation in the processing, delivery, and presentation of humanities knowledge is a provocative question that I would strive to understand through participation in this course.

The author seems to possess a “liberation” view similar to the Renaissance era as she addresses the contrast between humanities and digital humanities. The reading suggested attention to the “iterative, mutable and expansive nature of digital media,” a culture of “shared digital reputation”, and a belief of” no single and centred view” in the digital space. The author subsequently voiced that in the face of this digital reality, we should pay attention to the considerations of pedagogy. These are keen reminders that digital humanists are not only advocates of humanities values but also are designers and educators for humanities knowledge.