Abstract
AbstractThis afterword discusses the most important, most under-rewarded, and most unsexy aspect of data visualization: the production and use of reliable underlying data. Starting from the premise that visualizations are only as good as their underlying evidentiary base, Freidman addresses the contributions of digital projects that have laid the foundation for such practices, including massive multi-institution projects like Orlando, mid-sized projects like The Early Novels Database (END), and the author’s own small-scale project, Manuscript Fiction in the Age of Print (MFAP). Following this assessment, the author proposes a set of guidelines for best practices in creating new data so that amendable, transformable visualizations can be produced, built on collective knowledge.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference17 articles.
1. Algee-Hewitt, Mark, Sarah Allison, Marissa Gemma, Ryan Heuser, Franco Moretti, and Hannah Walser. 2016. Canon/Archive. Large-Scale Dynamics in the Literary Field. Literary Lab Pamphlet 11 (January): 1–13. https://litlab.stanford.edu/LiteraryLabPamphlet11.pdf
2. Bode, Katherine. 2018. A World of Fiction: Digital Collections and the Future of Literary History. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3. Burkert, Mattie. 2017. Recovering the London Stage Information Bank: Lessons from an Early Humanities Computing Project. Digital Humanities Quarterly 11 (3): n.p. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/11/3/000321/000321.html
4. Campbell, E.G., B.R. Clarridge, M. Gokhale, L. Birenbaum, S. Hilgarten, N.A. Holtzman, and D. Blumenthal. 2001. Data Withholding in Academic Genetics: Evidence from a National Survey. Journal of American Medical Association 287 (4): 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.4.473.
5. Da, Nan Z. 2019a. The Computational Case against Computational Literary Studies. Critical Inquiry 45 (3): 601–639. https://doi.org/10.1086/702594.