I edited a stub article for a town in Hungary called Salföld with a population of about 70 people. I added two facts: “It is home to a ruined monastery which belonged to the Order of Saint Paul the First Hermit” and  “Salföld is part of a protected area in the Kál Basin, part of the Balaton National Park.” I also added a picture that was already in the Commons. Since I picked something almost no one would care about, I doubt anyone will find a problem with my additions. But one of the sources I used is technically promotional material for an art project. It was hard to find a source for a simple fact, that this building exists in this place.  

I thought about Jessica Marie Johnson’s article when looking at the talk page for “Slavery in the United States. She wrote “… black digital practice models a core black studies imperative: That the study of black life and culture must also accompany an ethical and moral concern with sustaining black life and shaping black futures.” (p. 66). The talk page has a discussion about the photographs used in the article, the most prominent of which are enslaved people being brutalized. One of the participants argues that pictures of formerly enslaved people would present a positive bias about slavery. Some of the images are the abolitionist images mentioned by Johnson.

I also thought a lot about the Vincent Brown quote she starts the article with, about shifting from historical recovery to “rigorous and responsible creativity” and practices that “communicate our sense of history’s possibilities.” I have a lot of experience using a genealogy website, WikiTree, which is modelled after Wikipedia. I see a lot of the same conflicts that occur on Wikipedia on this site. Profiles are all collaborative, and for the most part anyone can edit any page. Their guidelines say you should include a “neutral” biography section and in forum discussions, people often support their side of an argument by claiming a category implies judgment (in a discussion about categorizing someone as an enslaver) or say things like “I, for one, would like to see it settled to accommodate everyone” (in an argument about a pointlessly gendered ribbon some people like to add to profiles of people who died as infants). The definition of neutrality for the person who doesn’t like “enslaver” as a category is hiding facts that they don’t like to make sure that no one who reads the profile has any emotions . It makes it harder to do more important work – if you’re not interested in re-fighting the Civil War on a family tree site, there’s tons of easy work you can do that no one will ever pay attention to.

The worst example I’ve seen of false neutrality on WikiTree is that I cannot add a profile I made of a man in the Union Army, who I have good evidence to believe was enslaved at birth, to the biggest Civil War project without adding a confederate flag to his profile. Both flags in the image are given equal weight regardless of which side the person was on. I figured out how to add him to his regiment, but then he doesn’t get a tag on his profile showing he was in the Union Army. I can exclude the participation of formerly enslaved people in the Union, or I can bring more confederate flags into the world. It doesn’t register to some people that “the Union and the Confederacy were equivalent” is an opinion.

I think WikiTree has a pretty good example of collaboration in the US Black Heritage project. They seem to have consulted with descendants about things like terminology, and it’s much more structured than some projects.

One of my favorite parts of this course so far has been the exposure to so many incredible archival projects that have painstakingly, over time and with great care, curated materials to unearth and preserve knowledge, a particular viewpoint, or a cultural experience. I particularly respect this work as an active, visible, and tangible form of resistance to the power structures responsible for the pervasive, dominant narratives that often get recorded as history, simply by default.

I appreciated Stephen Brier and Joshua Brown detailing so much of their process in The September 11 Digital Archive: Saving the Histories of September 11, 2001. I hadn’t previously considered how September 11th’s status as the “first truly digital event of world historical importance” might have influenced its particular potency for so many of us, and I also hadn’t considered how academics, historians, librarians, and archivists respond to events like this that, in real time, we already know deserve remembering. While the resource itself is moving and impressive in its breadth, I finished the article also grieving the many other catastrophic events around the globe that do not receive the same level of care, intention, and investment in preserving the extent of their human impact.

When Brier and Brown described September 11th as the “first truly digital event of world historical importance,” I immediately reflected on the pervasive global structures that exist to dictate what does and does not qualify as an event of global or historical importance. I imagine that the COVID-19 pandemic or the invasion of Ukraine would meet the criteria, but not the recent environmental disasters in Morocco or Libya, or the ongoing genocide of indigenous and minoritized peoples worldwide, or the destruction of our major world forests, or even the international increase of refugees. This examination made me all the more grateful for the ways that humanists, and especially those in the digital humanities, leverage their expertise to preserve historical counter-narratives and force critique and dialogue of the prevailing ones. However, the pervasive imbalance of access to funding, resources, and majority public sentiment is not lost on me. It was heartening to hear the urgency and care so many people took to preserve the history around September 11th through Brier and Brown’s account, and I hope that the example of their process and product can contribute to preserving an increasingly expansive record of our global human experience.

I attended GCDI’s Intro to HTML/CSS workshop on September 26th. I was already a little familiar with the mechanics of HTML and CSS, but I wanted a refresher, especially as I am thinking about creating some websites in the near future. As someone who’s generally familiar with coding languages, I found the content accessible and well-organized. From the start, the facilitators did a good job of introducing the essence of HTML and of CSS.

They also introduced both a simple and more complex example of what the code looks like to make the connection between the simple examples we’d be working through that day and how these languages might be used to build to a live, existing website.

However, introducing both HTML and CSS was a lot to squeeze into an hour, especially with introductions and context setting at the beginning. So, I wasn’t surprised when the workshop went over time by at least 30mins! In the future, it might be helpful to schedule more time, especially to orient people to the code editor tool, and/or to send over some of the syntax in advance so that participants have a better sense of what they’ll see when they first encounter HTML and CSS. I’d also argue that some of the voiceover instruction to introduce each of the languages might be shortened with some structured exploration or exercises so that participants might create their own mental models and definitions of what various components mean.

For someone with existing context, this workshop moved along at a comfortable pace and was a helpful refresher. I enjoyed producing the website they coached us through using HTML and CSS!

However, I was curious about a true beginner’s experience being introduced to two languages, plus having to acclimate to the code editor. I was left wondering if potentially highlighting code libraries or common resources for supporting documentation or learning more might also be helpful considering the short timeframe.

As an added tip: they ask you to download VisualCode in advance for code editing but I used my Replit account and was able to follow-along just fine!

On September 26, I attended the Quantitative Methods & Reasoning Across Disciplines workshop hosted by the Quantitative Research Consulting Center and the Interactive Technology and Certificate Program as part of their Fall Skills Lab series. The two hour session covered topics in statistical analysis, data collection, and research design to empower an the group to incorporate quantitative approaches in the own projects.

The workshop served several purposes, the first being a refresher in fundamental and more intermediate topics in Statistics, while the rest of the time was spent with an eye toward applying those methods in research. In the first, and simplest portion on Statistics, we discussed measures of centrality in a dataset (e.g., Mean, Median, and Mode), as well as ranges within a dataset the as it relates to skew and volatility. I was familiar with these concepts already from undergraduate Statistics.

From there, we discussed measures of correlation and when it was appropriate to use each one. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Linear Regression both describe the relationships between two variables. I remembered both from Algebra and Statistics at one point or another, but was happy to think about them in the context of my interests within the Digital Humanities. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient is a value ranging from 0 to 1 or -1, indicating the strength of the relationship in either a positive (i.e., change in one variable leads to a change in the same direction of the other) or negative (i.e., change in one variable leads to a change in the opposite direction of the other) direction. Linear Regression also describes how one variable impacts another with the formula y = mx + b, but should be used when trying to predict another value based on one you already have. I was much less comfortable with the forms of Supervised and Unsupervised Classification we spoke about next.

Logistic regression is a supervised classification model used when your dataset contains two possible values (e.g., whether or not someone is employed job). The model is supervised because it is trained on a dataset. K means clustering is an unsupervised classification scheme that breaks data down into identifiable groups by partitioning the set down into clusters organized around the nearest mean. It is considered unsupervised because the algorithm learns patterns without being trained.

We concluded the workshop by discussing research design, touching on randomized experiments, natural experiments, and survey analysis. The last two, natural experiments, which are more so observational studies, and surveys seemed more apt for Digital Humanities subjects, it was helpful to understand how research is carried out to better understand academic works we read, as well.

I found the session to be a great resource and a really strong grounding in quantitative social science methods that I will keep in mined while pursuing my own projects and research within DH.

It was an amusing experience to complete the Wikipedia praxis assignment after reading the “When Wikipedia Fought Back” article, written by Will Mari. I was incredibly excited to complete this assignment as I think Wikipedia, as an online platform/encyclopedia, is a modern marvel of innovative information preservation and engineering. Prior to completing the assignment, I understood that there is a strong community of Wikipedia experts, diligently monitoring articles and citations for anything that may be out of place. This is a wonderful thing! Ensuring that only helpful and accurate information is being displayed is of the utmost importance. However, after reading Mari’s article, I found myself feeling very intimidated and nervous to make any sort of error.

The entire process of signing up, joining our course, and completing the assigned trainings was quite simple. The training materials were engaging: demonstrating the integrity and significance of the platform. The five pillars were the most significant:

• Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia
• Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
• Wikipedia is free content
• Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules

However, each of these 5 seemed to come with some leniency. Much like most online platforms, it was stated that there is flexibility as sources and digital platforms continue to evolve. The following trainings were slightly more technical, how to edit articles, add citations, and so forth. Once the groundwork was laid, it was time to actually begin making a minor edit.

I dove headfirst into CitationHunt, scrolled through a whole bunch of potentially lacking statements, and could not find one with a source that felt within my reach. This amusing error message also continued to populate every few clicks:

At this point, I pivoted and thought “What’s something that I think about every day, and would like to learn a new fun fact about?”. That was when I got to thinking- Stuytown! Personal tidbit: I moved into StuyTown with a friend when I moved to NYC. He and a friend of his moved in at the peak of the pandemic, thus the rent is stabilized at a more affordable rate than I may have otherwise been able to find.

It’s also no secret that Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village has deep histories. This community was opened after WWII, and quite a few of the original residents are still here. StuyTown is commonly in housing news, most often now for stabilization debates, but once for topics such as housing segregation and ownership loan defaults. There is plenty to learn about this Manhattan community, so it seemed like the perfect topic for which I could find a fact and toss it into the Wikipedia page.

I found mention of Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village in a 2005 book, New York: The Movie Lover’s Guide: The Ultimate Insider Tour of Movie New York. The book mentioned a number of films and TV shows which were either shot or set in the neighborhood, as well as some of the famous residents who have lived here. I was able to find that the 1957-1958 TV show Decoy included shots of the neighborhood, which was not mentioned on the Wikipedia page. I decided that would be a nice contribution to the “In Popular Culture” portion of the article.

After completing the training materials, the process of actually making the edit was significantly easier than deciding what edit to make. I simply put the article into edit mode, made my changes, ensured that the citation was properly documented, and published.

After reading of the experience that Mari’s students had when editing their school’s page, I am very anxious to see if my minor edit stays in place, or if it will be further edited or removed. I was careful to make sure that all formatting and citing was done properly, so perhaps it will stick, but I’d find myself unsurprised if that wasn’t the case. Either way, it was very cool to engage in a platform that is so heavily trafficked and I’ve been interested in for a long while. Perhaps in the future I will brush up further on these skills and jump in on an “Edit-A-Thon”!

I was excited to try the Wikipedia praxis assignment, because I’ve always wanted to learn more about how Wikipedia works. When I was first introduced to Wikipedia in elementary school, it was presented an unreliable or non-definitive source for information: our teachers would let us consult the online encyclopedia, but we certainly couldn’t use the site to back up our school projects and papers. However, as I completed the training module, I could see that blatant misinformation wouldn’t have been as likely to find on Wikipedia as my fifth grade teacher led me to believe. As Joe mentioned in his blog post, the barrier to entry in becoming a Wikipedia editor — namely, the thorough introductory modules — might be enough of an obstacle to deter trolls, bots, or other nefarious actors who might want to edit specific Wikipedia pages to serve a biased interest. Unfortunately, the obstacle of the training module and the “objective” pillars that guide Wikipedia’s editors certainly lend the site a subjective slant that Cherrie Kwok’s article dissects well. 

Before I even attempted my Wikipedia edit, Kwok and Will Mari’s articles raised some questions for me about the process I was about to undertake. For one, I became captivated by the idea of who was behind the editing. Kwok asserts that adopting a neutral point-of-view is impossible, and so I wondered if it could be beneficial to lean hard the opposite way and highlight the editors who’ve contributed to the article as well as list the other articles they’ve edited.This idea, of course, was addressed in the training module with the explanation of the talk page. 

Still, Mari’s article made me feel wary of the other Wikipedia editors – despite the Wikipedia training’s championing of the “community” aspect of the editor role. As Mari describes, “My students’ careful and fact-based links, edits, and other changes were being erased and wiped clean, in rapid succession, by the original editor, but also now by several others. The word must have gotten out: we didn’t stand a chance!” I was immediately curious about the editors wiping the students’ contributions to the Wikipedia page: how did they know that this particular page was being edited? How did they communicate with each other to coordinate their counter-editing? If there was a limit to the number of editors on the page when Mari’s class began their assignment, then how did the editors gain access to the page? Is there a hierarchy of editors, where some people’s contributions are weighted more than others? As I began the task of “hunting” down a citation to add, I felt nervous about the waters I was about to wade into: would my edits be immediately flagged and removed by other editors? Could I convince anyone at all that I was enough of an authority on “The Time Machine”, by H.G. Wells to add a citation to this book’s Wikipedia page? I navigated through the “edit” tab, linked a definition to “eschatology” (the citation that was initially lacking), and nervously hit “publish”. Was it legitimate to cite an Encyclopedia Britannica page to support the definition of this word? Only those other editors could say… 

After completing this week’s reading and the Wikipedia editing exercise, my belief that Wikipedia is a neutral, reliable source of information has weakened. Kwok’s students’ difficulties grasping that Wikipedia cannot be neutral – indeed, that language cannot be neutral – makes sense to me. If we have relied on Wikipedia as the definitive, online reference source, then how can we grapple with its fallibility? Can we ever fix it? Or replace it? What the recognition of Wikipedia’s biases mean for our personal databases of knowledge, much of which has surely relied on information we’ve pulled from Wikipedia over the course of our lives? To confront the frailty of Wikipedia is nearly impossible, like looking at the sun.

When reading “The September 11 Digital Archive”, written by Stephen Brier and Joshua Brown of the Graduate Center, I was initially amazed by how quickly things with this archivist project seemed to evolve. The kickoff in November was so immediate after the September attacks that it comes across that the origins of this project were innately innovative as prompted by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The immediate recognition of the need to responsibly and collectively create a multi-faceted archive demonstrates the role that digital humanists play in these spaces where, as the world was reeling from this life-altering event, they saw the importance for the future of history to document not only the event itself, but the emotional and humanistic aftermath.

Among this immediacy, there were a few other important questions/topics that this paper addressed well. The first is the preservation of digital humanities projects: how can this be done sustainably and who is responsible for doing it? Another is the question of ethical preservation of the deep islamophobia which followed September 11: should hateful sentiments be preserved, and how can this be done consciously and without inflicting further harm?

Digital humanities projects, such as this archive, are unique in that they exists solely in the digital space and could, thus, theoretically last forever in a highly accessible way. A major concern with this, however, is the constantly changing nature of the digital space. September 11 was only 3 years after the invention of Google in 1998- and the internet has not slowed down in its constant evolution since. Because of this, programs are constantly becoming outdated at an increasing rate. The ability of online spaces to continually improve and grow is boundless, however this means that much of the content in these older forms of digital archives may also be assigned the title of “outdated” simply because of the platform in which they exist. In order for an archive to remain relevant and, more importantly, accessible, it must be maintained and continually updated/improved so that it is not lost to time. That would defeat the purpose of these digital humanists seeking to preserve significant history contemporarily.

The September 11 Digital Archive is still very much in use and, when visiting the website, you can see who is now responsible for its maintenance and support. The raw nature of this archive is unique and relatively unfiltered, with its continuing growth. The ultimate question is how long will this project be maintained? Will it ever only exist in the digital space? If left with one institution for protection and maintenance, the project may be at risk of being lost to the depths of the internet, in which case, it would sadly become lost to the jumble of the modern internet.

The second major question which I found myself asking while reading this article was about the hateful sentiments which became incredibly vocal following the events of September 11. The United States in not at all unfamiliar with hateful speech and othering of institutionally oppressed groups, but this became an environment in which hateful people came to feel justified in their hate. Widespread islamophobia snowballed in the United States, with rhetorics shifting in a large-scale and terrifying way.

If I were a digital humanist, I don’t think that I would want to preserve and publish these sentiments. But, I don’t think that these humanists were facing that question. The question instead was: what is important for society and historians to recognize about this event in the future? When reframing this mindset, it is important to document this nationalist wave of islamophobia which caused additional, long-standing harm. Any record of September 11 that did not highlight this and show the hate that unfolded would not be doing the course of events justice. Regardless of the complexity, it is a thread that is central to the aftermath, even now years later.

Brier and Brown did touch on this right at the end of the reading, stating that is is exactly these problematic complexities paint the clearest image of the events. They describe much of the material submitted to the project as “riddled with jingoistic, racist, xenophobic, and messianic attitudes and opinions.” While this would make it difficult to put even further into the public memory, that is exactly why it needs to be there.

I found that the reading surrounding this project was very informative, as well as a strong demonstration of just why these digital humanities projects are so important to modern history. The digitization of archiving and preserving history in real time allows us to capture much larger and clearer images, but being conscious of what we preserve and how we do it is of the utmost importance.

The Struggles of Maintaining Neutrality

After looking at the reading, “When Wikipedia Fought Back,”  highlighted the challenges of maintaining neutrality on the platform, especially when there are no firm rules. Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality often leads to rigorous debates among contributors, showcasing the complexity of representing diverse perspectives on contentious topics. This article emphasized the importance of understanding the nuances of neutrality and the responsibility it places on editors to navigate controversial subjects.  Dr. Mari, assumed that the platform would not have a life of its own, when their students started posting and making edits, that seemed harmless, they did not stay on the webpage as some of the information being added was false or students were too connected to the topic, but my question is according to whom? 

Digital Archives and Equity

Looking at digital archives I also delved into the broader implications of online archives and knowledge production. Online archives have the potential to perpetuate inequities, as access to the internet, education, and notability can influence what is considered notable.  An example discussed was the 9/11 archive, which highlighted the need for intentional efforts to include underrepresented voices in digital archives to avoid skewed narratives, especially on the events that transpired during the 9/11 incidents.  This reflects the broader issue of social inequality and the digital divide.

My Contribution to Wikipedia
After gaining a better understanding of Wikipedia’s principles and the challenges it faces, I began to make a minor edit to a Wikipedia page. I chose to edit the page on “Nuyorican” wiki page. A  term that holds personal significance for me as a New Yorker of Puerto Rican descent. I added Mariposa Fernandez, a poet mentored by Pedro Pietri, to the list of notable Nuyoricans. This edit aimed to contribute to the recognition of individuals who have made valuable contributions to the Nuyorican culture and poetry scene. See below for a screenshot: (in case it gets deleted) 

This assignment to look at Wikipedia provided valuable insights into the inner workings of this vast online encyclopedia and its commitment to neutrality, collaboration, and accessibility. It also sheds light on the broader issues of equity in digital archives. By making a minor edit to a Wikipedia page, I participated in the ongoing process of knowledge creation and dissemination, reinforcing the idea that Wikipedia is not just a resource but a dynamic platform shaped by its contributors. It is a reminder that each of us has the power to influence and enhance the digital knowledge landscape through our contributions, however minor they may seem.

I just got to checkoff one of my academic “bucket list” accomplishments of editing a Wikipedia article, but I’m not sure that it was as satisfying an experience as I had expected. I actually went about this exercise in reverse order; namely, I dove into the fairly intuitive editing process of an article, prior to reading thru all the policies, guidelines, pillars and taking the quizzes that are part of the daunting tutorial process and before reading our class assignments for October 3, 2023. Luckily, my assigned topic involved editing a post on Rise Asset Development, a public-private initiative that provides financial support to individuals seeking self-employment despite being challenged with mental health and addictions issues – all personal interests of mine. In fear of reprisal or rejection, I took extra care in providing a thorough copyedit and checked sources (when available) to avoid tainting my work (or reputation) with any non – “neutral” text or subtle biases. This portion of the assignment was a little nerve wracking, and it took me a lot longer than I had anticipated but was rewarding overall. 

It wasn’t until I completed the Wiki.edu module that I realized how onerous it is for broad public participation. Said another way, that the barriers to entry may cause limited contribution and thus promote exclusivity, in my view. Nonetheless, the platform is a great educational resource, and I am grateful to have benefited enormously from its content for close to two decades. It’s understandable that strict guidelines for entitling access to edit or add topics to Wikipedia are necessary for content integrity. However, the rigidity of the platform and the power of content administrators, have made me cognizant of the fact that this is a platform where creativity and controversy are prohibited. On the flip side, this stifling ecosystem is reassuring in that the content aims to be non- biased or “unaligned” (see below).

This brings me to the “Beyond the Hashtags” article on the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, where I decided to check Wikipedia to see if this incredibly insightful study of archived Tweets of this “public-facing digital platform¹” was sourced. Here, I was dismayed to see a one-sentence factual attribution to a 92-page document, which I targeted to connect to the Wikipedia learning experience.  Here’s the one liner:

Although not altogether comparable platforms, the twitter participant experience in “Beyond the Hashtags,” vastly contrasts that of Wikipedia. This realization isn’t necessary new for me, but after this assignment, I am acutely aware of the sterility of Wikipedia – especially in the topic of Black Lives Matter. Wikipedia lacks the inclusive historiography of Black Lives Matter, as I discovered from reading Possibly Impossible, where “Wikipedia itself admits that the “notability” requirement is one that reinforces the online resource’s systemic bias.” I don’t deny that Wikipedia is exceptionally informative and educational, but it isn’t a democratic platform.  Not to say that the elimination of sardonic text isn’t sometimes appreciated. For instance, in “Beyond the Hashtags,” there are two very snarky biased twitter references that help prevent compromise or mutual agreement between liberals and conservatives.

The first instance, is on page 29 where the “unaligned parties”/mainstream media are maligned for not advocating for or against the movement and police violence victims.” Here the authors find fault with “’neutral’” news media for “aiding the other side by emphasizing or minimizing particular facts or interpretations thereof.” Huh? Isn’t it the role of mainstream media to deliver the news objectively?

The second is where both the left and the right arrive at the same conclusion, but along different lines of thought or ideologies, whereby “conservatives were not above incorporating partisan jabs into their condemnations of Eric Garner’s death.”  Here, the right can’t leave well enough alone – they can’t be seen as coming to the same conclusion of “anti-brutality activists” and so they “attempt to claim Garner as a tax martyr because the law he violated was a state tax law,” and we know the right hates taxes PP. 61-62).  At least this mutual agreement on police brutality by both sides was picked up by Twitter – there’s no reference to this on Wikipedia.

¹“Possibly Impossible; Or, Teaching Undergraduates to Confront Digital and Archival Research Methodologies, Social Media Networking, and Potential Failure” on Manifold @CUNY (manifoldapp.org)

I took the <Intro to HTML & CSS> workshop provided by CUNY GCDI. I am taking <Intro. to Javascript> class this semester, so I thought the workshop would help me understand how webpages are structured and created. I didn’t know the basic concepts of these two tools used for websites. Now I understand HTML & CSS in a very simple way: 1) HTML provides the structure of a webpage, whereas 2) CSS controls the style of a webpage.

In the workshop, I tried to make a simple webpage with a basic format of HTML and CSS.

1. Visual Studio Code & the base HTML file_index.html

First, I have downloaded VSCode. This code editor is handy for coding because it supports many coding languages. Also, I can see the precise structure of the coding -even though I don’t fully understand the meaning of coding- because each color distinguishes codes, texts, and syntax.

Plus, I got a basic template for HTML, which consists of Doctype, HTML, head, and body. With the template, I started making a webpage.

2.HTML

Again, HTML provides the structure of a webpage. The basic grammar(?) for HTML is using opening and closing tags: < > & </>

The tags include contents, namely the text you put in.

I filled the basic template with text, a picture, and links.

⇓

I can see this code on a webpage.

⇓

You can see that this page is boring and has no style. Now I can put some touches on it with CSS.

3.CSS

CSS sets the rules of a webpage: color, font-family, font-size, font-weight, and text-align.

CSS can be integrated into my HTML. In the workshop, I created external integration in a separate document by adding the code below:

<link rel=”stylesheet” href=”style.css”>

On a separate page, I changed the style of content in HTML.

⇓

This CSS code modifies the style of content.

⇓

The workshop was for a beginner, but it still had some tricky parts to follow – I didn’t know how to add my picture in HTML. I always use the uploading window when I click the upload button on a website. -, but I got a broad picture of how websites are created and operated. In addition, with HTML & CSS, I can make, build, and design a new website. (Can I now call myself a digital humanist?)