Wikipedia is open and free to the public. It is also a crowdsourced knowledge that allows contributors to edit articles for the free encyclopedia; however, there are some stipulations for editing information in Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is still frowned upon by some academics and scholars, some of the supporters argue that it is a good source for connecting users to their official sites. For example, Ed Galloway and Cassandra DellaCorte contend that users will be lead to the appropriate site “by placing external links to site content from relevant Wikipedia articles” (86); therefore, “the data also indicate that multiple users followed links to the ULS digital collections from Wikipedia” (93). By providing the proper links in the article’s external links section, Wikipedia will eventually lead the user to the appropriate site for more information about the source. The posted Wikipedia articles with extensive content are what the users deem as popular. For example, Rosenzweig explains, “Participation in Wikipedia entries generally maps popular, rather than academic interest in history” (RRCHNM). Before it was deemed as popular, Wikipedia offered a place for open access and crowdsourced knowledge for Digital Humanities since 2006.
In order to understand the development of Digital Humanities in Wikipedia, deconstructing its article/entry allows the user to read a Wikipedia article with a different approach. There are several questions to ask in order to deconstruct it: when, how, and why the article was created. Also, there is the question of what was posted in the article. In order to answer the questions, the user can select “View history” for Digital Humanities to view detailed information on who created the article, who contributed, who edited, what was edited, and when. By selecting “View history,” I found out that the Digital Humanities article/entry was created on January 30, 2006 by Elijahmeeks (username). In addition to Elijahmeeks, there were also other key contributors such as Gabrielbodard, Johnunsworth, ARK, SimonMahony, Alf7e, and Willardmccarty.
By clicking on the contributor’s username in “View history,” the user can find out more about the user’s information. For example, I clicked on Elijahmeeks’ biography; and it includes his occupation as a DH specialist at Stanford University with a link to his website and links to other Wikipedia web pages that he has created and/or contributed. On the other hand, JohnUnsworth’s biography is empty in Wikipedia because he has not added information. Simon Mahony’s bio has links to his biography page in Wikipedia and a link for his workplace because he works for the UCL Centre for Digital Humanities in London. These biographies may have influenced how the editors understood the topic of Digital Humanities and how it should have been displayed for the wide audience in Wikipedia. They may have influenced the trend in DH by editing information on the page that might seem conflicting, bias, or incorrect. Also, the biographies may have influenced the editors on what types of scholarships and external links were appropriate for the DH article.
Next, I viewed the contents of the article and examined the development of the content from start to current. Initially, there was a brief definition of DH and three sections: See Also, References, and External Links. First, contributors edited External Links and See Also. Then, the Contents list became longer. On May 31, 2006, “Toolset Lens” was changed to “Objectives.” On February 27, 2009, the DH Journals section was added. DH or “Humanities Computing Projects” were added. In late 2007, the “Bibliography” section was added. From 2009 to 2010, the “External Links” was edited. Between Dec 2011 and early 2012, there were edits to the Objectives, Bibliography, and Centers. In 2011, information for Graduate Degrees or Certificate programs was added. On May 30, 2012, a contributor changed the section “Problems and Limitations” to “Criticisms.” A visual chart that displayed the Quantification of Digital Humanities was temporarily added in 2012. In the summer of 2012, there were multiple edits to the Objectives and History. In 2014, the section that was edited the most was “Centers.” In 2013, there were more edits to “Centers,” “External Links,” and Journals. In 2014, the edits focused on “Objectives” and “Centers.” Also in 2014, a contributor changed “Objectives “to “Areas of Inquiry.” From 2015 and forward, most of the changes were made in “Criticisms”, “Journals,” “Centers,” “Bibliographies.” The definition, Objectives (Areas of Inquiry), and History were edited almost every year since it appeared in Wikipedia. The changes to DH in Wikipedia reflect the awareness and emergence of DH as an academic field and public interest.
While viewing the content development, I was able to analyze the issues. There were some issues with scholarship, definition/objectives, and See Also section created the most controversy on the DH page. There were also issues with consistency of the Bibliography styles. Then, there were trolls who edited and/deleted information that was either unrelated to DH or tried to discredit it. For example, on July 3, 2010, a user redefined DH as a “bs field,” and it was quickly deleted by a contributor or editor. Then, another user/contributor added an unnecessary category “summer schools” in the “See Also” section.
By deconstructing the DH Wikipedia article, I began to question if the article was informative and trustworthy. The DH page in Wikipedia provides the basic and almost neutral definition; however, it does not include the changes in the definition of DH in depth. Also, the articles or references are helpful, but they are not sufficient for understanding the trend in DH throughout the years. It does not provide enough information about the digital tools. Overall, the DH page is still evolving in Wikipedia. There will probably be more edits and additional content categories to be added to help promote DH and bring awareness to a wide audience. Also, it is somewhat trustworthy. Some of the information is valid because the contributors are associated with DH institutions. However, I am not sure the if user names of leading figures of DH studies are actually associated with the DH programs/organizations because some of the contributors do not have their biography posted in Wikipedia.
Overall, the Wikipedia page provides the very basic definition of Digital Humanities. It is a good starter page for someone who is searching for a basic understanding of DH. However, it can be a little frustrating for a scholar who is interested in learning more about DH because the information is very basic and more technical. It does not answer the following question: How is humanities related to Digital Humanities?
When reading a Wikipedia article, the user should carefully study its contents by searching “View history.” This activity opened my mind to viewing Wikipedia in a different way. If the information seems questionable, I can search “View history” to carefully examine the trustworthiness or reliability of the posted contents. Also, I can view the information for most of the key contributors. There is a “talk” option to view the exchange of communication before the edits. According to Rosenzweig, even though “a historical work without others and with multiple, anonymous authors is thus almost unimaginable in our professional culture,” “Wikipedia has become astonishingly widely read and cited” ( RRCHNM). Therefore, Wikipedia is a source for retrieving quick information about the article; however, users should not fully trust everything that is posted in Wikipedia, so it’s wise to review the contents in “View history.”
