As Mullen states, simply using technology in support of the humanities doesn’t make you a digital humanist, but it is a step on the spectrum toward DH. Pushing forward, trying new things and experimenting with the capabilities of technology are major aspects of DH, but failure is acceptable in that it will produce a stronger work when corrected or improved. Some, like Unsworth, seem to have a higher standard for DH. His definition might be too narrow. Simply posting a novel online isn’t a scholarly endeavor, but I’d say it’s akin to SparkNotes. It’s there to help, but it’s not really meant to be taken as a serious venture. Further still, some like Flanders see DH as a critical analysis of using technology to enhance the humanities. Is DH already examining itself? Can something lacking a definition really analyze itself? Maybe it’s moving too fast.
Digital Humanities [dɪʤɨɾl hjumænəɾiz] n. (Also: DH, Humanities Computing) – An interdisciplinary field of study born of the advent of computing technology and the Internet and their applications to the humanities (Literature, Philosophy, History, Music, Art, etc.); especially interested in the enhancement of the study of humanities material through the advantages of computing: making a concordance of a literary work, crowdsourcing in order to accelerate a project and diffuse effort, collaborating across oceans and continents using the Internet and enriching texts with strictly digital tools, especially links and integrated annotations.