There will be a profound and witty concluding paragraph here, some day. But if you've noticed anything at all, it's that the process of crafting digital history never comes to an end. Adam Crymble published a piece recently that throws this into high relief — pay attention to his second paragraph in his main diagram!
In the meantime, I want you to know that you too can craft excellent digital history. There were some great moments in the first iteration of this course, and you will have great moments too: like when Matt forked one of my tutorials and rewrote it for the better, or built a virtual machine. Or when Patrick finally slayed GitHub! Or when Allison got the Canadiana API to work. Or when Phoebe finally persuaded Inkscape to play nice. Or when Matt conquered TWARC. Or when TEI blew Ryan's mind. Or when Christina forked an Anthropology class project at MSU to repurpose for her project. Or... or... or. We covered a lot of ground.
You will too.
A word to the wise
If, in your other courses, you decide to use some of the methods here, I will be most gratified. However, in course work as in life, know your audience. Will your professor appreciate this work? Is your professor familiar with the underlying issues — will she know what to look for, the hidden gotchas, the places where things might get, erm, fudged? It is your responsibility to make the argument, in your work, why a particular methodological choice is appropriate. It is your responsibility to show how these choices are theoretically informed and meaningful. As in all history, you have to make the argument. Never fall into the trap of thinking the method speaks for itself. This is why I compelled you to create the paradata document for your project. As that master historian Yoda once said,
Do or do not. There is no try.
Alright, not exactly appropriate. But you get the gist: digital history requires explicit paradata. Do. There is no try.