“Where Are They Now? The 2020 Status of Early (1996–2003) Online Digital Humanities Projects and an Analysis of Institutional Factors Correlated to Their Survival”

Drew VandeCreek

doi:10.1515/pdtc-2022-0011

Article

“Where Are They Now? The 2020 Status of Early (1996–2003) Online Digital Humanities Projects and an Analysis of Institutional Factors Correlated to Their Survival”

Drew VandeCreek

Published/Copyright: October 3, 2022

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Preservation, Digital Technology & Culture Volume 51 Issue 3

Abstract

Researchers have suggested that free-use digital humanities websites remain online for an average of five years and that larger, more functionally specialized and wealthier institutions are more likely than other organizations to continue to make them available online for a long period after their initial development. A study of fifty-nine websites created with funds provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities Education Development and Demonstration program 1996–2003 reveals a different situation. The data show that 68% of these websites remained online for free use in September, 2020, suggesting an online lifespan of approximately eleven to sixteen years. Further statistical analysis reveals that a significantly higher proportion of websites hosted by academic institutions remained available online in September, 2020 (74%) than websites hosted by non-academic institutions (45%). However, a comparison of types of academic institution revealed that a significantly lower proportion of websites hosted by R1 and R2 institutions remained available (67.5%) compared to websites hosted by Associates colleges, Baccalaureate colleges, and Masters/Comprehensive universities (100%). Comparing R1 institutions to all other types of institutions revealed identical proportions of available websites (R1: 68%; other: 68.0%). Analyses of institutional expenditures and institutional financial assets showed that neither factor produced a significant effect. Institutions with sites remaining available in 2020 showed higher levels of both expenditures and assets compared to institutions with sites not available, but neither of these differences was significant by a standard commonly used in the social sciences.

Keywords: digital humanities; digital preservation; website preservation; National endowment for the humanities; website lifespan

Corresponding author: Drew VandeCreek, University Libraries, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, USA, E-mail: drew@niu.edu

Appendix A: Funded organizations identified by type and classification

The table below shows each institution’s type and classification. The left (blue) columns identify each unique organization. The right columns show each organization’s type or classification.

1	R2
2	R1
3	BC
4	501c3
5	R1
6	MC
7	501c3
8	R1
9	R1
10	501c3
11	R1
12	R2
13	MC
14	R2
15	R1
16	R1
17	R1
18	R1
19	R1
20	R1
21	SD
22	BC
23	MC
24	R1
25	501c3
26	AC
27	BC
28	R1
29	R1
30	501c3
31	R1
32	R1
33	R1
34	R1
35	R1
36	BC
37	R1
38	501c3
39	501c3
40	501c3
41	R2
42	R1
43	MC
44	R2
45	R1
46	R1
47	R1
48	R1
49	501c3
50	R1
51	R1
52	R1
53	R2
54	R1
55	R1
56	R1
57	R1
58	R1
59	R1

Appendix B: Funded organizations’ financial characteristics as annual expenditure in year of award

The table below shows each institution’s annual expenditure. The left (blue) columns identify each unique organization. The right (black) columns show each organization’s annual expenditure, in millions of dollars.

1	455
2	959
3	76
4	1
5	1,500
6	122
7	7
8	695
9	510
10	10
11	1,450
12	422
13	84
14	166
15	393
16	259
17	665
18	401
19	1,700
20	93
21	ND
22	49
23	53
24	193
25	8
26	43
27	126
28	1,500
29	327
30	1
31	368
32	367
33	353
34	1,200
35	694
36	87
37	191
38	3
39	2
40	ND
41	271
42	589
43	81
44	152
45	2,871
46	1,000
47	244
48	2,629
49	23
50	919
51	620
52	285
53	332
54	185
55	661
56	1,000
57	744
58	326
59	624

Appendix C: Funded institutions’ financial characteristics as endowment or total assets in year of award

The table below presents data documenting recipient institutions’ endowments (or in cases of 501c3 institutions reporting no endowment, their total assets) in the fiscal year in which they received an award. The left columns, in bold type, identify institutions by numbers 1–59. The right columns present endowments or total assets (rounded to the nearest $1 million).

1	33
2	3,100
3	138
4	6
5	1,800
6	ND
7	49
8	331
9	233
10	14
11	1,700
12	33
13	12
14	32
15	423
16	111
17	923
18	1,440
19	4,300
20	10
21	ND
22	564
23	38
24	248
25	71
26	0
27	950
28	2,780
29	303
30	1
31	464
32	215
33	1,180
34	1,400
35	340
36	302
37	32
38	5
39	23
40	ND
41	42
42	808
43	1
44	53
45	3,050
46	231
47	18
48	2,530
49	79
50	556
51	75
52	324
53	140
54	28
55	1,808
56	937
57	1,000
58	290
59	529

Appendix D: Summary of organizations’ financial characteristics

The following table presents a summary view of the two types of individual organizations’ financial information discussed above. On each of the table’s two sides, the left columns in bold type identify each institution, the center columns present organizational expenditures in the year of award, and the right columns present institutional endowment or total assets in the year of award (rounded to the nearest $1 million).

1	455	33
2	959	3,100
3	76	138
4	1	6
5	1,500	1,800
6	122	ND
7	7	49
8	695	331
9	510	233
10	10	14
11	1,450	1,700
12	422	33
13	84	12
14	166	32
15	393	423
16	259	111
17	665	923
18	401	1,440
19	1,700	4,300
20	93	10
21	ND	ND
22	49	564
23	53	38
24	193	248
25	8	71
26	43	0
27	126	950
28	1,500	2,780
29	327	303
30	1	1
31	368	464
32	367	215
33	353	1,180
34	1,200	1,400
35	694	340
36	87	302
37	191	32
38	3	5
39	2	23
40	ND	ND
41	271	42
42	589	808
43	81	1
44	152	53
45	2,871	3,050
46	1,000	231
47	244	18
48	2,629	2,530
49	23	79
50	919	556
51	620	75
52	285	324
53	332	140
54	185	28
55	661	1,808
56	1,000	937
57	744	1,000
58	326	290
59	624	529

Appendix E: Funded websites’ status on September 30, 2020

The table below presents data documenting the September 30, 2020 status (available or unavailable) of websites funded at individual organizations on September 30, 2020. The left columns, in bold type, identify institutions by numbers 1–59. The right columns present website status (A = Available; U = Unavailable).

1	A
2	A
3	A
4	A
5	A
6	A
7	U
8	A
9	U
10	U
11	A
12	A
13	A
14	A
15	U
16	U
17	U
18	A
19	A
20	A
21	U
22	A
23	A
24	A
25	A
26	A
27	A
28	U
29	A
30	A
31	A
32	A
33	A
34	A
35	A
36	A
37	U
38	A
39	U
40	U
41	U
42	A
43	A
44	U
45	A
46	A
47	A
48	A
49	U
50	U
51	U
52	U
53	A
54	U
55	A
56	A
57	U
58	A
59	A

Appendix F: Funded projects’ website status compared to type and classification of original grant recipient organization

The table below presents data documenting the September 30, 2020 status (available or unavailable) of websites funded at individual organizations on September 30, 2020, correlated to each organization’s type and/or classification. The left columns, in bold type, identify institutions by numbers 1–59. The center columns identify the awarded organization’s type or classification. The right columns present website status (A = Available; U = Unavailable).

1	R2	A
2	R1	A
3	BC	A
4	501c3	A
5	R1	A
6	MC	A
7	501c3	U
8	R1	A
9	R1	U
10	501c3	U
11	R1	A
12	R2	A
13	MC	A
14	R2	A
15	R1	U
16	R1	U
17	R1	U
18	R1	A
19	R1	A
20	R1	A
21	SD	U
22	BC	A
23	MC	A
24	R1	A
25	501c3	A
26	AC	A
27	BC	A
28	R1	U
29	R1	A
30	501c3	A
31	R1	A
32	R1	A
33	R1	A
34	R1	A
35	R1	A
36	BC	A
37	R1	U
38	501c3	A
39	501c3	U
40	501c3	U
41	R2	U
42	R1	A
43	MC	A
44	R2	U
45	R1	A
46	R1	A
47	R1	A
48	R1	A
49	501c3	U
50	R1	U
51	R1	U
52	R1	U
53	R2	A
54	R1	U
55	R1	A
56	R1	A
57	R1	U
58	R1	A
59	R1	A

Appendix G: Funded projects’ website status compared to awarded institutions’ annual expenditure in fiscal year of award

The table below presents data documenting the September 30, 2020 status (available or unavailable) of websites funded at individual organizations on September 30, 2020, correlated to each organization’s annual expenditure in the fiscal year of their award. The number on the left (in bold type) displays the awarded institution’s identification number, while the number in the center column displays the funded website’s September 2020 status (A = Available; U = Unavailable). The number in the right columns displays the awarded organization’s annual expenditure in the fiscal year of their original award.

1	A	455
2	A	959
3	A	76
4	A	1
5	A	1,500
6	A	122
7	U	7
8	A	695
9	U	510
10	U	10
11	A	1,450
12	A	422
13	A	84
14	A	166
15	U	393
16	U	259
17	U	665
18	A	401
19	A	1,700
20	A	93
21	U	ND
22	A	49
23	A	53
24	A	193
25	A	8
26	A	43
27	A	126
28	U	1,500
29	A	327
30	A	1
31	A	368
32	A	367
33	A	353
34	A	1,200
35	A	694
36	A	87
37	U	191
38	A	3
39	U	2
40	U	ND
41	U	271
42	A	589
43	A	81
44	U	152
45	A	2,871
46	A	1,000
47	A	244
48	A	2,629
49	U	23
50	U	919
51	U	620
52	U	285
53	A	332
54	U	185
55	A	661
56	A	1,000
57	U	744
58	A	326
59	A	624

Appendix H: Funded projects’ website status on September 30, 2020 compared to awarded institutions’ endowment or total assets in fiscal year of award

The table below presents data documenting the September 30, 2020 status (available or unavailable) of websites funded at individual organizations on September 30, 2020, correlated to each organization’s endowment or total assets in the fiscal year of their award. The number on the left (in bold type) displays the awarded institution’s identification number, while the number in the center column displays the funded website’s September 2020 status (A = Available; U = Unavailable). The number in the right columns displays the awarded organization’s annual expenditure in the fiscal year of their original award.

1	A	33
2	A	3,100
3	A	138
4	A	6
5	A	1,800
6	A	ND
7	U	49
8	A	331
9	U	233
10	U	14
11	A	1,700
12	A	33
13	A	12
14	A	32
15	U	423
16	U	111
17	U	923
18	A	1,440
19	A	4,300
20	A	10
21	U	ND
22	A	564
23	A	38
24	A	248
25	A	71
26	A	0
27	A	950
28	U	2,780
29	A	303
30	A	1
31	A	464
32	A	215
33	A	1,180
34	A	1,400
35	A	340
36	A	302
37	U	32
38	A	5
39	U	23
40	U	ND
41	U	42
42	A	808
43	A	1
44	U	53
45	A	3,050
46	A	231
47	A	18
48	A	2,530
49	U	79
50	U	556
51	U	75
52	U	324
53	A	140
54	U	28
55	A	1,808
56	A	937
57	U	1,000
58	A	290
59	A	529

Appendix I: Comparison of awarded organizations’ financial resources (expressed as annual expenditure and endowment or total assets in fiscal year of award) with website status

The table below presents funded websites’ statuses as related to the original recipient institution’s financial characteristics, comprised of annual expenditure and endowment/total assets in the year of award. Institutions are identified by numbers 1–59 in the two columns in bold, black type. Website status appears in the second columns from the left (in orange type): A = Available; U = Unavailable. Expenditures (rounded to the nearest $1 million) appear in the third columns from the left (in blue type). Endowment/total assets appears in the rightmost column (in brown type).

1	A	455	33
2	A	959	3,100
3	A	76	138
4	A	1	6
5	A	1,500	1,800
6	A	122	ND
7	U	7	49
8	A	695	331
9	U	510	233
10	U	10	14
11	A	1,450	1,700
12	A	422	33
13	A	84	12
14	A	166	32
15	U	393	423
16	U	259	111
17	U	665	923
18	A	401	1,440
19	A	1,700	4,300
20	A	93	10
21	U	ND	ND
22	A	49	564
23	A	53	38
24	A	193	248
25	A	8	71
26	A	43	0
27	A	126	950
28	U	1,500	2,780
29	A	327	303
30	A	1	1
31	A	368	464
32	A	367	215
33	A	353	1,180
34	A	1,200	1,400
35	A	694	340
36	A	87	302
37	U	191	32
38	A	3	5
39	U	2	23
40	U	ND	ND
41	U	271	42
42	A	589	808
43	A	81	1
44	U	152	53
45	A	2,871	3,050
46	A	1,000	231
47	A	244	18
48	A	2,629	2,530
49	U	23	79
50	U	919	556
51	U	620	75
52	U	285	324
53	A	332	140
54	U	185	28
55	A	661	1,808
56	A	1,000	937
57	U	744	1,000
58	A	326	290
59	A	624	529

Appendix J: Comparison of awarded organizations’ type or class and financial resources (expressed as annual expenditure and endowment or total assets in the fiscal year of award) with website status

The following table presents all data pertaining to organizational type/classification, financial characteristics (expenditure and endowment/assets), and the status of a website funded by the NEH Education Development and Demonstration program in the 1996–2003 period. The two black columns contain organizational identifiers. The two green columns present an organization’s type or classification. The two orange columns display that organization’s website status: A = Available; U = Unavailable. The blue columns show that organization’s annual expenditures in the year of award. The brown columns contain that organization’s endowment or total assets in the year of award.

1	R2	A	455	33
2	R1	A	959	3,100
3	BC	A	76	138
4	501c3	A	1	6
5	R1	A	1,500	1,800
6	MC	A	122	ND
7	501c3	U	7	49
8	R1	A	695	331
9	R1	U	510	233
10	501c3	U	10	14
11	R1	A	1,450	1,700
12	R2	A	422	33
13	MC	A	84	12
14	R2	A	166	32
15	R1	U	393	423
16	R1	U	259	111
17	R1	U	665	923
18	R1	A	401	1,440
19	R1	A	1,700	4,300
20	R1	A	93	10
21	SD	U	ND	ND
22	BC	A	49	564
23	MC	A	53	38
24	R1	A	193	248
25	501c3	A	8	71
26	AC	A	43	0
27	BC	A	126	950
28	R1	U	1,500	2,780
29	R1	A	327	303
30	501c3	A	1	1
31	R1	A	368	464
32	R1	A	367	215
33	R1	A	353	1,180
34	R1	A	1,200	1,400
35	R1	A	694	340
36	BC	A	87	302
37	R1	U	191	32
38	501c3	A	3	5
39	501c3	U	2	23
40	501c3	U	ND	ND
41	R2	U	271	42
42	R1	A	589	808
43	MC	A	81	1
44	R2	U	152	53
45	R1	A	2,871	3,050
46	R1	A	1,000	231
47	R1	A	244	18
48	R1	A	2,629	2,530
49	501c3	U	23	79
50	R1	U	919	556
51	R1	U	620	75
52	R1	U	285	324
53	R2	A	332	140
54	R1	U	185	28
55	R1	A	661	1,808
56	R1	A	1,000	937
57	R1	U	744	1,000
58	R1	A	326	290
59	R1	A	624	529

Appendix K: Statistical analysis of data correlating website availability on date of data collection to three organizational characteristics

Analysis assessed the status of 59 websites at seven types of institutions, five academic (R1 universities, R2 universities, Master’s/Comprehensive universities (MC), Baccalaureate degree granting colleges (BC), and Associate’s degree granting colleges (AC)) and two non-academic (501c3 organizations (501c3) and school districts (SD)). Overall, 40 websites (67.8%) were available at the time of data collection, and 19 (32.3%) were unavailable. Availability did not differ significantly across all seven types of institutions, χ² (6) = 8.63, p = 0.19,^[3] although this should be interpreted with caution as two types of institutions (A and SD) included only one instance in the dataset.

A significantly higher proportion of websites hosted by academic institutions (R1, R2, A, B, MC) were available (36/49 or 73.5%) compared to websites hosted by non-academic institutions (501c3, SD) (4/10 or 40%), χ² (1) = 4.26, p = 0.039 (with continuity correction: p = 0.090; Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.062).^[4] Convergent results emerged by logistically regressing availability on institution type (academic vs. non-academic): institution type was a significant predictor, with the estimate = 1.42, z = 1.97, p = 0.049. The odds ratio of 4.15 indicates that the odds of a site being available if hosted by an academic institution (36:13, available: unavailable) are 4.15 times the odds of a site being available if hosted by a non-academic institution (4:6, available: unavailable). Excluding the school district institution yielded marginally significant results in the same direction (academic: 36/49 or 73.5%; non-academic: 4/9 or 44.4%; χ² (1) = 2.99, p = 0.084; with continuity correction: p = 0.181; Fisher’s exact test: p = 0.119; logistic regression: estimate = 1.24, z = 1.68, p = 0.096, odds ratio = 3.46).

Comparing type of academic institution (R1, R2 vs. A, B, MC) revealed that a significantly lower proportion of websites hosted by R1 and R2 institutions were available (27/40 or 67.5%) compared to websites hosted by A, B, and MC institutions (9/9 or 100%), χ² (1) = 3.98, p = 0.046 (with continuity correction: p = 0.115; Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.089). Logistic regression could not be run because one group (A, B, and MC) had no variability in availability (all sites were available).

Comparing R1 institutions to all other types of institutions (R2, A, B, MC, 501c3, SD) revealed nearly identical proportions of available websites (R1: 23/34 or 67.6%; other: 17/25 or 68.0%), all ps > 0.97. Likewise, comparing R2 institutions to all other types of institutions (R1, A, B, MC, 501c3, SD) revealed nearly identical proportions of available websites (R2: 4/6 or 66.7%; other: 36/53 or 67.9%), all ps > 0.95.

Finally, a series of analyses tested whether institutional expenditures or institutional assets significantly predicted site availability. Logistically regressing availability on expenditures revealed a non-significant effect of expendi-tures, with the estimate = 0.0005, z = 0.91, p = 0.36. Logistically regressing availability on assets revealed a non-significant effect of assets, with the estimate = 0.0005, z = 1.24, p = 0.21. Looked at another way, institutions with available sites showed higher levels of both expenditures (M = $558.8, SD = $676.8) and assets (M = $752.8, SD = $1032.1) compared to institutions with unavailable sites (expenditures: M = $396.2, SD = $398.2; assets: $396.8, SD = $688.5), but neither of these differences was significant: expenditures: t (49.07) = −1.13, p = 0.26, assets: t (44.65) = −1.52, p = 0.14.

References

Barone, F., D. Zeitlyn, and V. Mayer-Schonberger. 2015. Learning From Failure: The Case of the Disappearing Web Site, Vol. 20, 5. First Monday. Also available at https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5852/4456 (accessed April 27, 2022).10.5210/fm.v20i5.5852Search in Google Scholar

Brugger, N. 2010. “Web History and the Web as a Historical Source.” Zeithistorische Forschungen 92: 316–25.Search in Google Scholar

Burdick, A., J. Drucker, P. Lunenfield, P. Todd, and J. Schnapp. 2012. Digital Humanities. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9248.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Carlin, C. 2018. “Endings: Concluding, Archiving, and Preserving Digital Projects for Long-Term Usability.” KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies 2: 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.35.Search in Google Scholar

Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Also available at https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/ (accessed April 27, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Cohen, D. J., and R. Roy. 2006. Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Colman, A. M. 2015. Statistical Significance A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press. Also available at https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199657681.001.0001/acref- 9780199657681-e−7960?rskey=3i8rcr&result=1 (accessed April 20, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Dearborn, C., and S. Meister. 2017. “Failure as Process: Interrogating Disaster, Loss, and Recovery in Digital Preservation.” In Libraries Faculty and Staff Scholarship and Research Paper 180. Also available at https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1187&context=lib_fsdocs (accessed April 27, 2022).10.1177/0955749017722076Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, E., and R. G. Musto. 2015. The Digital Humanities: A Primer for Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139003865Search in Google Scholar

Hoeve, C. 2018. “Cultural Memory in Danger: Sustainable Information, Preservation, and Technology in the Humanities: A Theoretical Approach.” Collaborative Librarianship 10: 2.Search in Google Scholar

Huurdeman, H. C., J. Kamps, T. Samar, A. P. de Vries, A. David, and R. A. Rogers. 2015. “Lost but Not Forgotten: Finding Pages on the Unarchived Web.” International Journal on Digital Libraries 16: 247–265.10.1007/s00799-015-0153-3Search in Google Scholar

Isaac, M. 2011. Adobe Abandons Mobile Flash Development, Report Says. CNN Business. Also available at https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/tech/mobile/adobe-mobile-flash-wired/index.html (accessed July 11, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Jordanova, L. 2019. History in Practice, 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar

Kilbride, W. 2016. “Saving the Bits: Digital Humanities Forever?” In A New Companion to the Digital Humanities, edited by S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth. New York: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118680605.ch28Search in Google Scholar

Kretzchmar, W. A.Jr., and W. G. Potter. 2010. “Library Collaboration with Large Digital Humanities Projects.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 25, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq022.Search in Google Scholar

Lucky, S., and C. Harkema. 2018. “Back to Basics: Supporting Digital Humanities and Community Collaboration Using the Core Strength of the Academic Library.” Digital Library Perspectives 34, doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-03-2018-0009.Search in Google Scholar

Maron, N. L., and S. Pickle. 2014. Sustaining the Digital Humanities: Host Institution Support beyond the Start-Up Phase. Also avaialable at https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/sustaining-the-digital-humanities/ (accessed April 27, 2022).10.18665/sr.22548Search in Google Scholar

Meneses, L., and R. Furuta. 2019. “Shelf Life: Identifying the Abandonment of Online Digital Humanities Projects.” In Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34 (accessed April 27, 2022).10.1093/llc/fqy079Search in Google Scholar

National Association of College and University Business Officers. Also available at https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2020/NACUBO-TIAA-Study-of-Endowments (accessed May 5, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

National Endowment for the Humanities, Education Development and Demonstration, Humanities Focus Materials Development, Curricular Development and Demonstration, Dissemination and Diffusion. Special Opportunity: Teaching with Technology. Also available at https://neh.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/11215/4019/LIB_03_032- public.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. (accessed April 27, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

National Endowment for the Humanities Online Database of Awarded Grants. Also available at https://securegrants.neh.gov/publicquery/main.aspx (accessed April 27, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Nowviskie, B., and D. Porter. 2010. Graceful Degradation Survey Findings: How Do We Manage Digital Humanities Projects through Times of Transition and Decline?. Also available at http://dh2010.cch.kcl.ac.uk.academic-programme/abstracts/papers/html/ab-722.html (accessed April 27, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, C. L., 2004. “Thematic Research Collections.” In A Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth, 348–365. New York: John Wiley and Sons.10.1002/9780470999875.ch24Search in Google Scholar

Pitti, D., 2004 “Designing Sustainable Projects and Publications.” In A Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, and J. Unsworth, 469–487. New York: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9780470999875.ch31Search in Google Scholar

Poole, A. H., 2013. “Now Is the Future Now? the Urgency of Digital Curation in the Digital Humanities.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 7.Search in Google Scholar

ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. Also Available at https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/(accessed April 27, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Russell, E., and J. Kane. 2008. “The Missing Link: Assessing the Reliability of Internet Citations in History Journals.” Technology and Culture 49.10.1353/tech.0.0028Search in Google Scholar

Salkind, N. J. 2007. “Significance Level.” In Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Vol. 1, 890–2. SAGE Publications Inc (accessed April 27, 2022).10.4135/9781412952644.n406Search in Google Scholar

Smith, A., 2004 “Preservation.” In A Companion to Digital Humanities. edited by S. Schreibman, J. Unsworth. New York: John Wiley and Sons.10.1002/9780470999875.ch37Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, N. 2011. “The Average Lifespan of a Webpage.” In Signals: Digital Preservation. Also available at http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2011/11/the-average-lifespan-of-a-webpage/(accessed April 27, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

United States Department of Education. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Website. Also available at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds (accessed April 27, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Unsworth, J. 2008. Our Cultural Commonwealth: The Report of the American Council of Learned Societies Commission on Cyberinfrastructure for the Humanities and Social Sciences. Also available at https://www.acls.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Our-Cultural-Commonwealth.pdf (accessed April 27, 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-10-03

Published in Print: 2022-10-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2022-0011

Keywords for this article

digital humanities; digital preservation; website preservation; National endowment for the humanities; website lifespan

1	A
2	A
3	A
4	A
5	A
6	A
7	U
8	A
9	U
10	U
11	A
12	A
13	A
14	A
15	U
16	U
17	U
18	A
19	A
20	A
21	U
22	A
23	A
24	A
25	A
26	A
27	A
28	U
29	A
30	A
31	A
32	A
33	A
34	A
35	A
36	A
37	U
38	A
39	U
40	U
41	U
42	A
43	A
44	U
45	A
46	A
47	A
48	A
49	U
50	U
51	U
52	U
53	A
54	U
55	A
56	A
57	U
58	A
59	A

1	A
2	A
3	A
4	A
5	A
6	A
7	U
8	A
9	U
10	U
11	A
12	A
13	A
14	A
15	U
16	U
17	U
18	A
19	A
20	A
21	U
22	A
23	A
24	A
25	A
26	A
27	A
28	U
29	A
30	A
31	A
32	A
33	A
34	A
35	A
36	A
37	U
38	A
39	U
40	U
41	U
42	A
43	A
44	U
45	A
46	A
47	A
48	A
49	U
50	U
51	U
52	U
53	A
54	U
55	A
56	A
57	U
58	A
59	A

1	A
2	A
3	A
4	A
5	A
6	A
7	U
8	A
9	U
10	U
11	A
12	A
13	A
14	A
15	U
16	U
17	U
18	A
19	A
20	A
21	U
22	A
23	A
24	A
25	A
26	A
27	A
28	U
29	A
30	A
31	A
32	A
33	A
34	A
35	A
36	A
37	U
38	A
39	U
40	U
41	U
42	A
43	A
44	U
45	A
46	A
47	A
48	A
49	U
50	U
51	U
52	U
53	A
54	U
55	A
56	A
57	U
58	A
59	A