Domenico Fiormonte是意大利罗马特雷大学政治学系的传播和文化社会学讲师。他是《走向数字文本批判》（Towards a Critique of the Digital Text）的作者，也是《数字人文主义者：批判性探索》（A Critical Inquiry）的合著者。

Sukanta Chaudhuri是印度贾达夫布尔大学英语系的名誉教授。他最新的专著是《文本的形而上学》（The Metaphysics of Text）。他是Bichitra的首席统筹人，这是一个泰戈尔作品的在线分类网站。他目前正在统筹孟加拉语历史词典的计算机化。

Paola Ricaurte是墨西哥蒙特雷科技大学人文与教育学院的副教授，也是哈佛大学伯克曼·克莱因互联网与社会中心的副教员。她是Tierra Común的联合创始人（与Nick Couldry和Ulises Mejías合作），该网络旨在促进全球南方对数据殖民主义的反思。

“Global South” is a controversial label that has been traditionally used in the realm of sociology. Although the analysis of a North-South divide goes back to the “South- ern Question” developed in the late 1920s by the Italian philosopher and politician Antonio Gramsci, its spread in the last fifty years reflects an obscure semantics based not on geography but on geopolitical biases and ambitions.4 In this book we are using it in the sense highlighted by Anne Garland Mahler, of the “resistant imaginary of a transnational political subject”, that is, as an alternative to Western epistemological canons and dominant discourses in the digital humanities.

“全球南方 “是一个备受争议的标签，在社会学领域里一直沿用至今。尽管对南北鸿沟的分析可以追溯到意大利哲学家和政治家Antonio Gramsci在20世纪20年代末提出的”南方问题”，但它在过去五十年的传播反映了一种晦涩的语义，不是基于地理，而是基于地缘政治偏见和野心。在本书中，我们在Anne Garland Mahler强调的意义上使用它，即 “跨国政治主体的抵抗性想象”，也就是说，作为西方认识论典范和数字人文学科的主导话语的替代。

Geographically, the Global South is understood as comprising Asia, Africa, Oceania, the Middle East, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Symbolically, it refers to all places located at the economic, cultural, and social margins of the indus- trialized world. We recognize the existence of multiple Souths, those communities that are eco- nomically, epistemically, and ontologically excluded, regardless of their geographical location.

在地理上，全球南方包括亚洲、非洲、大洋洲、中东、拉丁美洲和加勒比海地区。从象征意义上说，它是指位于工业化世界的经济、文化和社会边缘的所有地方。我们承认多个南方的存在，即那些在生态上、认识上和本体上被排斥的社区，无论其地理位置如何。

Despite some inevitable gaps, we have endeavored to build a different representation of DH based on cultural, linguistic, political, and ultimately epistemological diversity. The spread of formal and informal DH research groups, teaching programs, and associations across the globe has shown that an extended debate on the application of digital technology to the study of cultural artifacts is taking place in contexts, countries, cultures, and languages beyond the dominant centers of DH in the West. These debates reflect different visions of DH, including conversations in which the digital humanities is not a dominant concept in the development of technological approaches to the humanities.

尽管存在一些不可避免的差距，但我们努力构建基于文化、语言、政治和最终认识论多样性的数字人文的不同表征。正式和非正式的数字人文研究团体、教学项目和协会在全球范围内的传播表明，在西方数字人文主导中心之外的语境、国家、文化和语言中，正在发生一场关于数字技术应用于文化艺术品研究的广泛辩论。这些争论反映了数字人文的不同愿景，包括数字人文在人文学科技术方法发展中不是一个主导概念的对话。

In the second decade of the twenty-first century, DH has experienced a significant “global turn” that has begun to challenge many aspects of our field. It is now common in mainstream DH publications and at conferences to reflect not only on the benefits and innovations of global expansion but also on its “dark sides”—that is, on how digital practices can marginalize or make invisible scholarship carried out in regions or by people and cultures that either lack access to state-of-the-art digital infrastructures or are normally misrepresented by mainstream network tools. In his foreword to A Companion to Digital Humanities, Roberto Busa highlighted the importance of the global dimension of DH, but it was not until the 2010s that DH biases, imbalances, and barriers of a different nature started to be analyzed from a global (and geopolitical) perspective, especially beyond Anglo-American academic circles.

在21世纪的第二个十年里，数字人文经历了一次重要的”全球转向”，开始挑战我们领域的许多方面。现在，在主流数字人文出版物和会议上，不仅普遍反映了全球扩张的好处和创新，也反映了它的”阴暗面”——即数字实践如何边缘化或使那些无法获得最先进的数字基础设施或通常被主流网络工具所歪曲的地区或人民和文化所开展的学术研究不可见。Roberto Busa在他的《数字人文指南》前言中强调了数字人文全球维度的重要性但直到2010年代，才开始从全球(和地缘政治)视角，特别是超越英美学界的视角来分析不同性质的数字人文偏见、失衡和障碍。

Scholars based outside the United States and United Kingdom have discussed the epistemic and political consequences of the English-speaking hegemony in DH. At the same time, scholars working in both North American and European academic institutions have introduced a critical approach to DH from a range of different perspectives: post- colonial studies, race, gender, intersectionality, cultural diversity, digital commons, digital pedagogy, digital divide, politics, and so on.

美国和英国以外的学者探讨了数字人文英语霸权的认知和政治后果。同时，在北美和欧洲学术机构工作的学者从不同的角度介绍了数字人文的批判性方法：后殖民研究、种族、性别、交叉性、文化多样性、数字公域、数字教育学、数字鸿沟、政治等。

It is also now common to develop attempts at regional or community-level descriptions, for example Sneha (Mapping Digital Humanities in India) and Chaudhuri (Bichitra) for India, Risam and Gairola (South Asian Digital Humanities) for South Asia, Fernández l’Hoeste and Rodríguez (Digital Humanities in Latin America) for Latin America, and the DARIAH-CLARIN course registry for Europe. However, data collected by different sources has shown that the voices most often heard in mainstream conferences, events, and publications are still those coming from Western (and especially anglophone) institutions.

现在还普遍开展了区域或社区层面的描述尝试，例印度的Sneha（印度数字人文地图）和Chaudhuri（Bichitra），南亚的Risam和Gairola（南亚数字人文），拉丁美洲的Fernández l’Hoeste和Rodríguez（拉丁美洲的数字人文），以及欧洲的DARIAH-CLARIN课程注册。然而，由不同来源收集的数据显示，在主流会议、活动和出版物中最常听到的声音仍然是来自西方（尤其是英语国家）机构的声音。