Parvin – Digital Past

Open Access Does Not Automatically Mean Ethical Access

As always, I woke up early and thought of a word I had heard in a movie the night before but didn’t know the meaning of. I decided to “Google it.” When I opened Google, I noticed that the logo was decorated with different characters, so I clicked on it to see what it was about. I read the information, followed a link for more details, and then clicked on another link. Suddenly, I realized that I had spent quite a bit of time learning about this person, someone I had never heard of before and who might not even be particularly important.

This experience came to mind while I was listening to UCLA professor Safiya Umoja Noble discuss the power of algorithms. She has conducted extensive research on Google Search, particularly how search engines organize and present information and how suggested search terms and results can influence what people discover online.

My experience made me wonder how much control we really have over the information we encounter online. I initially opened Google to find the meaning of a single word, but I ended up reading about something entirely different. Although I made the decision to click on each link, Google had already influenced my choices by deciding what to display on its homepage.

I found Safiya Noble’s 2015 keynote, “Power, Privilege, and the Imperative to Act”, particularly interesting because it raises an important question about digital technology: Who controls the information we find on the internet, and how does that control influence our understanding of the world?

We often think of the internet as a place where information is freely available to everyone. Noble emphasizes the importance of the first page of search results because it influences what information people are most likely to encounter. Search engines such as Google give us access to enormous amounts of information within seconds. And we see her concern is very important especially for the statistics that she presents regarding the extent to which people trust search results and search engine.

However, Noble challenges the assumption that digital technology and search engines are neutral. The information that appears in search results is influenced by algorithms designed by people and companies. These systems can reflect existing social inequalities and determine which information becomes visible and which remains difficult to find.

Regarding this issue, Sharon Block’s criticism of JSTOR in her article “Erasure, Misrepresentation and Confusion” was particularly interesting to me because, as a student, I regularly use JSTOR for academic research and have always considered it a reliable source. However, I had never thought about how its search and classification systems actually work. Block explains that JSTOR uses algorithms to assign topics to scholarly articles, but the process is not entirely transparent.

One example she provides is an article about a woman named Charity Folks, which JSTOR classified under the topic “Charity,” apparently without recognizing that Charity was a person’s name. This example shows how a computer can recognize a word without understanding its meaning or historical context.

Block’s criticism made me realize that even academic databases are not completely neutral. The decisions made by programmers and database designers can influence how scholarship is classified and discovered. This is particularly important for women’s and racial histories, where incorrect classifications may make certain subjects less visible to researchers. I think historians should question not only the historical sources they use but also the digital tools through which they find those sources.

Another interesting example comes from S. L. Ziegler’s article, “Open Data in Cultural Heritage Institutions: Can We Be Better Than Data Brokers?” Ziegler discusses Louisiana State University’s decision not to acquire an important collection of African American historical materials in the 1940s. This example demonstrates that archives have never been completely neutral. The decisions of librarians and archivists about what to collect and preserve can influence what future historians are able to study.

Ziegler also compares cultural heritage institutions with data brokers and raises the question of whether libraries, museums, and archives are handling information more responsibly than commercial companies. The article warns that making historical data openly available without considering its consequences can create further problems. As Ziegler writes, “If we do not take this seriously now, we are likely to compound the problem through our open data.”

The article “Algorithmic Accountability: A Primer” helped me understand that algorithms do much more than organize information on the internet. They are also used to make decisions about employment, housing, healthcare, and even criminal justice.

One example that surprised me was the COMPAS system, which was designed to predict whether someone might commit another crime. According to the article, an investigation found that the system was more likely to incorrectly identify Black defendants as high-risk than white defendants. This made me think about how dangerous it can be when we trust computer systems without questioning how they work.

We often assume that mathematical calculations are objective, but algorithms are designed by people and use data that may already contain prejudice.

My simple Google search that morning seemed harmless, but it reminded me how easily digital platforms can direct our attention. In academic research, the consequences can be more serious because algorithms influence what information we find and how we interpret it. Digital technology has certainly made access to knowledge much easier, but we should not confuse easy access with neutrality, accuracy, or fairness.

References:

Algorithmic Accountability: A Primer. Data & Society Research Institute, 2018. https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/DandS_Algorithmic_Accountability.pdf

Block, Sharon. “Erasure, Misrepresentation and Confusion: Investigating JSTOR Topics on Women’s and Race Histories.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 14, no. 1 (2020). https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/14/1/000448/000448.html

Noble, Safiya Umoja. “Opening Plenary & Keynote Address.” Video recording of keynote address, Digital Library Federation Forum, Vancouver, BC, October 26, 2015. University of British Columbia, cIRcle. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/55474/items/1.0220808

Ziegler, S. L. “Open Data in Cultural Heritage Institutions: Can We Be Better Than Data Brokers?” Digital Humanities Quarterly 14, no. 2 (2020). https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/14/2/000462/000462.html

After watching a video about digital storytelling and listening to the podcast “Your Most Obedient & Humble Servant,” I began thinking about the relationship between storytelling and history. Storytelling is certainly not something new. People have told stories for thousands of years, long before writing, photography, film, or digital technology existed. What has changed over time is the way we tell stories and the tools we use to communicate them.

From my experience working with documentary films, I know that collecting historical materials is only the beginning of telling a story. Interviews, archival footage, photographs, and documents are pieces of evidence, but they do not automatically form a narrative. The filmmaker must decide how to arrange these materials, what to emphasize, and how to connect them. Even when we work with the same historical materials, we may tell different stories depending on our perspective and the questions we want to explore. This also shows how important interpretation is in both filmmaking and historical research.

I found “Your Most Obedient & Humble Servant” an interesting example of how digital media can communicate history. In an episode about Elizabeth Drinker’s letter from 1778, the historians use a personal document to explore everyday life during the American Revolution. Instead of focusing only on major political figures and military events, the podcast introduces a personal perspective on history. Through the discussion of her letter, we learn about the experiences of people who lived through these historical events. I think this is an effective way to connect individual experiences with larger historical developments.

This also made me think about the difference between history and storytelling. History is based on investigating and interpreting evidence, while storytelling is a way of communicating experiences and giving them meaning. Historical research requires examining sources, questioning their reliability, and understanding the circumstances in which they were produced. Storytelling helps communicate the results of that research to an audience. Digital technology may change how we present these narratives, but it does not remove the responsibility to represent the past accurately.

Another interesting aspect of digital storytelling is the difference between linear and non-linear narratives. In traditional storytelling, such as books, documentary films, or podcasts, the audience usually follows a sequence established by the author. The story has a beginning, a development, and an ending. Even when a film moves backward and forward in time, the filmmaker controls the order in which the audience receives the information. In non-linear digital storytelling, however, the audience may have more freedom to decide which direction to follow.

Moreover, I found interesting about The Road to Canterbury is that the reader becomes an active participant in the storytelling process, making decisions that influence how the story develops rather than simply following the author’s narrative. The story is inspired by Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales and takes place in a historical setting, but it allows readers to make their own choices. This reminded me of computer games, where players make decisions and experience different consequences. I had not really thought about this kind of interactive experience as a form of storytelling before.

Another example is the article about a simulation of college life during the COVID-19 pandemic. I found the idea of presenting a situation through choices and their possible consequences interesting because it allows the audience to explore a problem rather than simply read about it. However, the choices and possible outcomes are still designed by the creator. The audience can participate, but it does not have complete control over the story.

I also think digital storytelling has limitations, especially when it is used to present history. Making a story entertaining or interactive does not necessarily make it historically accurate. There is always a danger of simplifying complicated historical events or mixing historical facts with imagined situations.

Before these readings, I did not know much about digital storytelling, particularly its interactive possibilities. I found it interesting that storytelling can also work like a game, where the audience makes choices and influences how the story develops. I think this makes digital storytelling more engaging because the audience is not just watching or listening but actively participating in the story. It can also be an interesting way to learn about history.

References:

Gehred, Kathryn, host. “Episode 60: Those Guardians of Liberty.” Your Most Obedient & Humble Servant. Podcast, July 14, 2025. Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, George Mason University. https://podcasts.rrchnm.org/show/your-most-obedient-humble-servant/

Heartfield, Kate. The Road to Canterbury. Interactive fiction game. Choice of Games, 2018. https://www.choiceofgames.com/road-to-canterbury/

Pennsylvania Labor History Society. “Homestead Strike of 1892.” YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ZOqiRAIH4

Zahneis, Megan. “A Ph.D. Student Simulated a Day in the Life of a Covid-19-Era Campus. It Went Viral, but It Wasn’t Pretty.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 1, 2020. https://archive.is/20200703112628/https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-PhD-Student-Simulated-a/249106

Siebert’s article explains how GIS can help historians understand the relationship between history and place. His main point is that human history always has a spatial dimension, but historians do not always pay enough attention to it. GIS allows researchers to combine different kinds of historical evidence, such as maps, census records, political boundaries, and transportation networks, and compare how they change over time. In his study of Tokyo, Siebert shows that GIS is useful not only for creating maps but also for documenting, visualizing, and interpreting historical change. He also emphasizes that building a historical GIS takes a great deal of time because researchers must collect, digitize, organize, and georeference the data before meaningful analysis can begin.  I recently used QGIS to create a map of Paris for my environmental scan. I learned only the basics of the program, but this experience helped me understand some of what Siebert describes.

Daniele Salvoldi’s article uses GIS in a similar way, but his project focuses on reconstructing the historical landscape of Nubia. He uses the William J. Bankes Archive from 1815–1822, which contains maps, drawings, travel accounts, archaeological information, and observations about people and the environment. Much of this historical landscape later changed dramatically, especially after the construction of dams on the Nile and the flooding caused by the Aswan High Dam. Savoldi’s project connects archival information to geographic locations so researchers can study settlements, monuments, travel routes, environment, trade, and other historical relationships. GIS therefore becomes a way of organizing and preserving historical evidence as well as reconstructing a landscape that can no longer be studied in its original form.

Susan Grunewald’s article shows another important use of GIS. She mapped German POW camps in the Soviet Union after World War II and compared their locations with industrial areas, coal resources, population centers, and transportation networks. Mapping these relationships helped reveal that many POW camps were connected to important economic and industrial areas, which supported her research into the role of German POW labor in Soviet postwar reconstruction. Grunewald also makes an important point that GIS does not replace archival research. Instead, maps and archival documents can work together: mapping can reveal patterns and raise new questions, while archival sources help historians explain what those patterns mean.

For me, learning GIS was one of the most useful parts of this week. I only learned the basic functions of QGIS while creating a map of Paris for my “environmental scan,” yet even this small project helped me understand how historical information can be linked to specific locations and visualized. I also realized that working with GIS is somewhat similar to using photo or video editing software. However, because the interface was new to me, I had to experiment to find specific tools. It requires patience and practice, especially when working with layers, geographic locations, labels, and historical maps.

GIS also does not work entirely on its own. Depending on the project, images and numerical data may first need to be prepared or organized in other programs such as Excel, Numbers, or Photoshop before being imported into QGIS. After this first experience, I would like to continue learning GIS and eventually use it in my own historical research projects.

Refrences:

Grunewald, Susan. “Beyond the Archive: What GIS Mapping Reveals about German POWs in Soviet Russia.” Perspectives on History, February 26, 2019. https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/beyond-the-archive-what-gis-mapping-reveals-about-german-pows-in-soviet-russia-february-2019/

Salvoldi, Daniele. “A Historical Geographic Information System (HGIS) of Nubia Based on the William J. Bankes Archive (1815–1822).” Digital Humanities Quarterly 11, no. 2 (2017). https://dhq.digitalhumanities.org/vol/11/2/000294/000294.html

Siebert, Loren. “Using GIS to Document, Visualize, and Interpret Tokyo’s Spatial History.” Social Science History 24, no. 3 (2000): 537–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1171611.

I found Brian Resnick and Julia Belluz’s article “The War to Free Science” ¹ very interesting because it reminded me of my own experiences dealing with copyright while making documentary films.

I have personal experience with copyright because I have produced three documentary films using television news footage and music. I had to pay significant copyright fees for some of this material, so I became familiar with how copyright works in practice.

For me, copyright is important because it protects and supports the creator. If someone creates a film, photograph, piece of music, or artwork, I think they should have the right to decide how other people use it and, when appropriate, be paid for that use.

I also learned in art history about Albrecht Dürer and his attempts to protect his work in the early sixteenth century. His prints were being copied, and he even took legal action to stop others from using his famous monogram. I found this very interesting because it shows that artists were concerned about the copying and ownership of their work long before our modern copyright system existed.

For this reason, I do not see copyright simply as a rule forced on artists from outside. Copyright also represents a right that artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and other creators have fought for in order to protect their work and ideas. Of course, the system continues to change as technology changes.

However, my experience with copyright has also shown me another side of the issue. There were times when I had to pay very high fees for only a few seconds of old television news footage. The price was calculated according to the length of the clip, even when the footage was many decades old and probably had little commercial value by itself.

This made me wonder how much of the price actually goes to the original creator and how much comes from the companies and estates that control access to the material. Historical news footage and television archives, for example, are often licensed through large agencies such as Getty Images. A filmmaker may therefore be paying not simply for the creative work itself, but also for access to an archive and the right to reuse the material.

I understand why companies such as Getty Images charge for this material. They collect, preserve, organize, digitize, and make large archives available to filmmakers, researchers, and the public. That work also has value and costs money.

So I do not see Getty Images or similar archives as the problem. In fact, without these collections, much historical footage might be very difficult to find or use. My experience simply made me realize that copyright is not only about protecting the original creator. It also involves the work of archives, agencies, and companies that preserve material and make it accessible.

For me, the difficult question is how to keep a fair balance. Creators should be protected, archives should be paid for their work, but historical material should also remain reasonably accessible to people who want to use it for documentaries, research, education, and other cultural work.

My experience therefore does not make me against copyright. It has actually made me appreciate how complex the system is. Copyright protects creators, while archives and licensing companies also play an important role in preserving and providing access to cultural material.

The war to free science: How librarians, pirates, and funders are liberating the world’s academic research from paywalls,” Vox July 10, 2019.

1. 
   The war to free science: How librarians, pirates, and funders are liberating the world’s academic research from paywalls,” Vox July 10, 2019.
   ↩︎

This week, we read about and worked on managing Digital Humanities projects, and we looked at some of the tools and ideas that can help a project stay organized. Before this class, I did not think very much about project management in the humanities. I usually thought of historical research as something more individual: reading, taking notes, looking at sources, and then writing. Digital Humanities projects are different because they often involve technology, data, deadlines, and several people working together. Griffin and Hayler point out that this relationship is not only between people. They write, “Such recognition challenges any understanding of collaboration as a solely human activity.”¹ This idea interested me because, in a DH project, digital tools and technologies are also part of how the work is created and how we understand the material.

One thing I learned is that a good project needs clear planning from the beginning. It is important to know what the goal of the project is, what tasks need to be completed, who is responsible for each task, and when those tasks should be finished. I also learned the meaning of a milestone in project management. A milestone is not just one small task. It is an important stage that shows that a major part of the project has been completed.

I also liked Tabak’s idea that a DH project should be flexible and can change while we are working on it. He writes, “The team should regularly reflect on how to become more effective, then tune and adjust its behaviour accordingly.”² I think this is important because it means that the original plan does not have to be perfect. We can create something, test it, see what works and what does not, and then improve it.

The readings also made me think more seriously about collaboration. Digital Humanities projects often bring together people with different skills, such as historians, librarians, programmers, designers, and students. Good communication is therefore very important. Team members need to know what they are doing, what other people are doing, and what problems may come up during the project.

I have to say that I am not really a fan of teamwork. I have not always had good experiences working in groups. Sometimes one person does much more work than others, sometimes communication is not clear, and sometimes people have different ideas about how the work should be done. Because of these experiences, I usually feel more comfortable when I am responsible for my own work.

Still, I understand that this kind of teamwork is part of Digital Humanities, and I am willing to try it and do my best. I think a tool like Basecamp can make teamwork easier because everything is more visible. We can create to-do lists, assign responsibilities, set deadlines, share files, write messages, and follow the progress of the project. Instead of wondering who is doing what, everyone can see the plan. Even though teamwork is not my favorite way of working, I will try to participate seriously and do my part as well as I can. Maybe having a clear structure, clear responsibilities, and better communication will make this experience better than some of my previous group projects.

To test my old WordPress blog that I just activated

I hope it works. 🙂