Talk:Digital scholarship

Peer review SI 110
This article has a good opening that is detailed and clear. It provides a good summary to the topic so that, if the other sections are filled out more, it becomes a very good starting point for research on the topic. As with the sections of the article, they need to be expanded upon with additional sources and information so that they are informative and helpful. This article is at a very good starting point, but it needs a bit more work to be complete. Amoss1332 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the group has written a solid opening, but it is currently misplaced. The introduction should not be placed as one of the headers, but rather as the leading section at the very beginning of the article. Aside from the introduction, the rest of the article is well-structured. I like how the article has been separated into three distinct sections focusing on different parts of digital scholarship. However, the addition of visual aids like diagrams or images could help deepen the readers’ understanding and improve the quality of this article. Amychen2012 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has good information, but it is important to have more links to other Wikipedia articles so that users can read about things they are unsure of. Digital scholarship is well written in terms of links; there is plenty of links that provide ample information. However, some sections can be improved. For example, in the Sharing of Digital Media Section, it would be helpful if the article listed methods of sharing digital content, and linked these methods to their respective wikipedia pages. Ywizzy (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Going off of Amy, I agree that there is a good opening, however it overpowers the rest of the article. In order to achieve a good balance throughout the article, there needs to be more information under the headers “The Sharing of Digital Media”, “Digital Scholarship Changing Academia”, and “Concerns.” The introduction gives good insight about the definition and examples of digital scholarship, but the sections underneath do not give much more information involving the examples or topic itself. Along with a good balance, more emphasis could be placed on the concerns with digital scholarship because this has become a hot topic in our generation with problems such as plagiarism. The balance of the good in digital scholarship is just as important as showing the bad in digital scholarship in order to show a neutral stance. Melpierc (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)melpiercMelpierc (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The article provides links to several reliable sources. The first source is from the University of Virginia, a well-acclaimed institution. It is a scholarly source that provides in-depth information, providing the reader with extensive information on digital scholarship. Similarly, the other two sources the Wikipedia article cites appear to be of similar scholarly regard and thus the writers do a good job of providing reliable data to back up their information. The writers are also successful at creating footnotes that make it easy to follow what data comes from which specific source. To strengthen the article even more, I think the writers would benefit from using even more sources. By finding a few more sources, the article will become more credible and in turn, like Andrew said, add more breadth and information to the articles current content. Ktbaral (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, the content presents a good neutral point of view when discussing the topic of "Digital Scholarship". One area that will require caution for future editors is "Digital Scholarship Changing Academia". People may have a variety of different views on the positive or negative impact that digital scholarship has brought to academia. My words of advice would be to maybe be very specific on what factual changes have occurred to avoid conflicting opinions. Expressing critic concerns was very well done, allowing the editors to provide a bias point of view, while keeping the neutral integrity of the article. Curtchu (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I really liked the way you guys covered many different aspects of Digital Scholarship. You talked about the benefits in a non-biased way and also mentioned the concerns of people. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you had to be as fair as possible to both sides to which you did a good job of. Just a note, like previous users have said, you should add more links so that Wikipedia users can refer to pages if they are unsure of something you are talking about. I would refer users to the NEA page at the bottom of that section if they would like to learn more about the topic. Overall, the edits are legitimate and well done, but a few minor changes to your edits (particularly links) could be made. -Ali Yellen

The opening of this article is very detailed and gives a good explanation of what a digital scholarship is. The descriptions under the other headers are also very clear, but it may have helped to create subheadings under each header to split up the information even more. Doing this helps to further improve the organization of the page and information. The introduction links to plenty of other wikipedia articles, which helps the reader be able to refer to other pages to learn more about the overall topic, but the rest of this article has only one link to another wikipedia article. Adding more links will help the reader have a better understanding of the information they are reading about. Lastly, I really like the addition of discussing a Supreme Court case; it helps tie together real world events with digital scholarships. Overall, this article was edited very well and includes plenty of resources. Racheldienstag (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the edits made to this Wikipedia article improved the article a substantial amount. However, I do think that the article lacks some necessary key points that may be helpful to a reader. I think that the opening two paragraphs are clear and concise in explaining the basis of digital scholarship. However, when comparing the original edit to the most recent edit, I took note of the fact that much information was not added or altered. Additionally, I think that the history and outlook sections of the Wikipedia article are lacking. The contributors may consider adding information to these two sections. A great aspect of this article is the neutral coverage of digital scholarship. There is no bias, opinions, or value statements present in the article. Overall, the article maintains a lead section that has an easy-to-understand overview, a clear structure and reliable sources. Moreover, the talk page proves that there is no hostile dialogue and there is no warning banner. However, I think that the contributors could better the article by balancing the different sections of the article and by adding aspects that are missing. It is fair to say that this article is decent.Mewilner (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Challenges" section
I'm not in your class, but I'm a frequent contributor to this article. There is some good information in the new "challenges" section, but it draws pretty heavily from the structure and content of a single source. It's also not really encyclopedic in tone (see the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV), but reads more like a guide or editiorial. Try condensing the information from this source and moving it into the "concerns" section that has already been established.

Also, you don't have to create multiple citations to link to a single source (and it's a bit messy to do it that way). The first time you reference a source, you can establish a name for it using wikicode, like this: " ." Then, the next time you want to make a reference to the same work, just type "  " and you don't have to put in the rest of the information. It will automatically link to the appropriate reference.

I think it's great to have a class working on this important article! Thanks for all your contributions. I hope some of you will stick around as editors after you graduate. Wikipedia needs information professionals.--Libraryowl (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Followup- I don't like to delete other people's contributions, but Wikipedia calls on editors to remove infringing content, so after some deliberation, I felt like I had to remove this section. I'd be happy to have a discussion or work on other ways to integrate that resource into the article. --Libraryowl (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Organization
It seems like there is a good amount of information here that would fit better on a page about digital learning environments. "Digital scholarship" is more of an academic discipline and movement, focused on (and driven by) graduate and postgraduate work in the humanities. See the top results here. Since it's already a distinct topic/buzzword of some interest, I don't want to muddy the waters. Instead of a basic overview of education or the costs/benefits of computer-based learning overall, I think we need to focus on some of the major academic works on this topic, a summary of current debates, and the institutions that are active here.--Libraryowl (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is also a pretty large section on intellectual property (also: what about Creative Commons?). It could be summarized or split into sub-sections for easier reading. The rest of this article needs to be expanded too. The "Outlook" section is for both advantages and disadvantages so that we get a well-rounded neutral picture. --Libraryowl (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Defining Digital Scholarship
The introduction of this article defines digital scholarship as:

"'Digital scholarship is the use of digital evidence, methods of inquiry, research, publication and preservation to achieve scholarly and research goals.[1] Digital scholarship can encompass both scholarly communication using digital media and research on digital media. An important aspect of digital scholarship is the effort to establish digital media and social media as credible, professional and legitimate means of research and communication.[2] Digital scholarship has a close association with digital humanities, often serving as the umbrella term for discipline-agnostic digital research methods.'"

Technically, this definition includes all academic research in a paper-free environment. I think it needs to incorporate (a) emerging technologies, or (b) technologies or methods still relatively novel to the disciplinary literature. Computational Chemistry is not Digital Scholarship. Neither is submitting an article pdf to a journal and having the editor email it to the reviewers.

Digital scholarship requires that the rationale to use "digital evidence, methods of inquiry ..." and the way that it is used is itself a distinct scholarly contribution to the academic discipline.

Joe Easterly (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)