Through my reading of the Manifesto, it is apparent that there is a need for a redefinition of the connotation of ‘success’ as we traditionally view it. As the Manifesto puts forth, process is the new god, not product. We need to break the norm of only valuing the end result, and place value on the entire process of learning, discovery, creation etc. I enjoyed the point made that the university library must hence be viewed as a lab, and traditional hierarchy must be broken with in order for the student to be recast as scholar, and vice versa.
This enforces the idea put forth in the Manifesto of the importance of collaboration and community in Digital Humanities moving forward as an inclusive model, where we can all learn equally from one another.
If one of the aims of Digital Humanities is to be inclusive, then on a positive note, the formatting of the article is certainly more inviting and engaging to a wider audience, in comparison to a traditional humanities document which can be austere and intimidating in tone and format. I personally must admit to finding the overall look a little amateurish, as if the tools used were ACTUAL paper, paste and scissors!
I had a definite sense of multiple authorship throughout the article but not to the extent of a hundred plus contributors. In that regard, the editing work must be applauded, but I do wonder, to what extent did the editors have a say in the shaping of this Manifesto? Towards making their individual voices or feelings heard? It is very difficult to edit 100% objectively, one could argue impossible.