The concept of digital history/digital humanities is definitely interesting. I started thinking more about it after our first class meeting when Dr. Otis mentioned how she had a colleague create multiple online courses that weren’t considered “real work”. And this is, of course, because the classes are not in a traditional tangible format. Similarly, digital history/digital humanities is a somewhat intangible field since it exists primarily through technology. But why would that mean it isn’t worth as much? The internet is basically it’s own world and ecosystem, after all. It can never be destroyed since it permeates everything and like Milligan’s article discussed, there is not only archives of history but of the modern day population as well. So, I would say digital history/digital humanities is not just a discipline for the internet world but also a tool itself to improve older, more traditional disciplines.
So, another classmate pointed out that my wording wasn’t clear in the first paragraph. When I say the internet can’t be destroyed, I was thinking about it in terms of almost every electronic device having access to the internet world. I might just be rambling here but I do know that parts of the internet can and have become inaccessible. I was more thinking of the internet as it’s own digital world. I’ve talked about this with my friends before but it seems hard to put into words.
John also made a great point too about the reliance on technology during the age of COVID-19. It can be a blessing but also a nightmare to wade through unorganized databases, incomplete databases, etc. I think online archives can be great but their functions and level of completeness are definitely still being worked on. (A good example is my own research on the New Kingdom of ancient Egypt. It can be difficult to find reliable sources on this period that exist only in books, but not online yet. Not to mention the plethora of outdated/incorrect civilian websites…)