Never heard this quote before, but it's great!

One of my favorite quotes!

An irreversible step.

This is a pretty good point - but then why would we not see AI-based civilizations?

Besides the piece’s content, the interactions which happened through a layer of Diigo annotations were quite interesting.

Might want to add yet another layer to this old discussion.

I might use something like it as the basis for an NLP passage but at a much much easier level

Link

would be good to check these out

Levy, D.M. (1997) "I read the news today oh boy".

Check out this article and share with JD.

Read this paper

textbook reading 36.9- The human population continues to increase, but the growth rate is slowing.

textbook reading 36.10- Age structures reveal social and economic trends.

36.5- multiple factors may limit population growth

Textbook section 37.13- Invasive species can devastate communities.

Not Mathematical

textbook 37.10- Species diversity includes relative abundance and species richness.

This passage reminds me of Eve Sedgwick's essay on reparative reading.

Yes!

This emphasis on collaboration is particularly important in social reading. Through replies, each annotation is actually the beginning of a potential conversation.

I think Billy Collins captures this tortuous pedagogy well in "Intro to Poetry":

But all they want to do is tie the poem to a chair with rope<br> and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose<br> to find out what it really means.

Collins actually imagines a moment of shared marginalia in his poem. In a copy of A Catcher in the Rye that he borrows from a library as a boy, he finds the following: “Pardon the egg salad stains, but I’m in love.” The young Collins imagines the note to be written by a beautiful girl and feels himself in a sense falling in love with that other reader. Though we need not develop a dating service out of the modern technologies that allow for social reading, we can at least see the humanity that can be shared in the margin of a digital page: the teachable moments, the conversations that might occur. We have glimpsed such moments on other social media like Twitter and Facebook, but I argue they lack the depth of annotation, which brings together text, comment, and now, readers.

It's interesting to think about this idea of "slow reading" in relation to collaborative online annotation. So many traditional humanists complain of the cursory of the digital--hashtags on Twitter replacing sentences, Wikipedia summaries are replacing "actual" research. But web annotation requires readers to pause and consider in the very ways we have always taught our students to do in English classes.

Such an ambivalent phrase. The narrator seems to be claiming that this is a "moment" unparalleled in its significance. Yet this significance is "undetermined"; it remains unclear exactly how the moment is significant.

Digital annotation powerfully visualizes this process, as the application allows the user to isolate a particular word or phrase, and then create a comment specifically on that piece of textual evidence.

Close reading is a major emphasis of the Common Core Standards, though most English teachers since New Critic I.A. Richards would probably agree that is it essential to any humanities curriculum. As the "Introduction" to the ELA section states:

Students who meet the Standards readily undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding and enjoying great works of literature.

Digital annotation, though, is close reading 2.0. The major activity of a service like hypothes.is is "annotation," the highlighting and noting of words, phrases, and sentences, which demands that students keep their thinking and writing "close" to the text and its evidence.

Moreover, because digital annotation has the potential to be collaborative. It links this mandate for close reading with later calls in the Standards for collaboration. I like to think of hypothes.is as a "A Social Network for Close Reading." Could we make students obsess with annotations on the web like they obsess with Facebook and Twitter posts?...

Seems like an article worth reviewing when we dive into whatever changes need making to the fuzzy anchoring components.

Adam Hyde on proprietary knowledge culture

This has to be one of the most intense opening scenes in all of literature. We are immediately thrown into a moment of panic as each guard responds wearily to the other's approach. In general these opening lines set the tone of the play to be one of apprehension.

Oh, again.

This conclusion even accounts for the everyday rave in Berlin. A fatigue throughout devastated individuals is not to deny anymore.

subsumption of this paragraph

typo

Claudia Müller-Birn differenziert in ihrem Vortrag als "types of scholarly reading":

1. close reading
2. hyper reading
3. machine reading

und bezieht sich damit auf N. Katherine Hayles vgl. Beyond reading in print – “close reading” vs “hyper reading”. In: Communication Mediated. 28.08.2013

"the scholarly and scientific record is rapidly evolving to become a formalized web of content, in which any node must be able to be linked to any other node, with formal, typed relationships" (2)

Reading the first 3 chapters of AoC for discussion in #coasespenguin on 2013-02-11.

If thriving is a metric (is it measurable? too subjective?) of success then the 3 characteristics it must have are:

• modularity: divisible into components
• granularity: fine-grained modularity
• integrability: low-cost integration of contributions

I don't dispute that these characteristics are needed, but they are too general to be helpful, so I propose that we look at these three characteristics through the lens of the type of contributor we are seeking to motivate.

How do these characteristics inform what we should focus on to remove barriers to collaboration for each of these contributor-types?

Below I've made up a rough list of lenses. Maybe you have links or references that have already made these classifications better than I have... if so, share them!

Roughly here are the classifications of the types of relationships to open source projects that I commonly see:

• core developers: either hired by a company, foundation, or some entity to work on the project. These people care most about integrability.

• ecosystem contributors: someone either self-motivated or who receives a reward via some mechanism outside the institution that funds the core developers (e.g. reputation, portfolio for future job prospects, tools and platforms that support a consulting business, etc). These people care most about modularity.

• feature-driven contributors: The project is useful out-of-the-box for these people and rather than build their own tool from scratch they see that it is possible for the tool to work they way they want by merely contributing code or at least a feature-request based on their idea. These people care most about granularity.

The above lenses fit the characteristics outlined in the article, but below are other contributor-types that don't directly care about these characteristics.

• the funder: a company, foundation, crowd, or some other funding body that directly funds the core developers to work on the project for hire.

• consumer contributors: This class of people might not even be aware that they are contributors, but simply using the project returns direct benefits through logs and other instrumented uses of the tool to generate data that can be used to improve the project.

• knowledge-driven contributors: These contributors are most likely closest to the ecosystem contributors, maybe even a sub-species of those, that contribute to documentation and learning the system; they may be less-skilled at coding, but still serve a valuable part of the community even if they are not committing to the core code base.

• failure-driven contributors: A primary source of bug reports and may also be any one of the other lenses.

What other lenses might be useful to look through? What characteristics are we missing? How can we reduce barriers to contribution for each of these contributor types?

I feel that there are plenty of motivations... but what barriers exist and what motivations are sufficient for enough people to be willing to surmount those barriers? I think it may be easier to focus on the barriers to make contributing less painful for the already-convinced, than to think about the motivators for those needing to be convinced-- I think the consumer contributors are some of the very best suited to convince the unconvinced; our job should be to remove the barriers for people at each stage of community we are trying to build.

A note to the awesome folks at Hypothes.is who are reading our consumer contributions... given the current state of the hypothes.is project, what class of contributors are you most in need of?

The first analytic move.

Towards the end of our last conversation the text following "common appropriation" seemed an interesting place to dive into further for our future discussions.

I have tagged this annotation with "meta" because it is a comment about our discussion and where to continue it rather than an annotation focused on the content itself.

In the future I would be interested in exploring the idea of "annotation types" that can be selectively turned on and off, but for now will handle that with ad hoc tags like "meta".

Note that this disclaimer only says the document should not be used for citation purposes, but doesn't say we can't use it for annotation purposes like testing out the Chrome PDF.js + Hypothes.is extension! :)

You can install the extension from the Chrome Web Store with this link:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pdfjs-%2B-hypothesis/bipacimpfefoidapjkknffflfpfmjdog/related

The second analytic move.

Reading in the Middle Ages considered a mild form of exercise.

This may be a reference to the Eighteenth Century Collection Online-Text Creation Partnership (ECCO-TCP) project, which transcribed and marked up in XML ~2,200 eighteenth-century books from the Eighteenth Century Collections Online database (ECCO). The ECCO-TCP corpus is in the public domain and available for anyone to use: http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/tcp-ecco/

Similar to what Quintilian said.

Writing is essential to improve not only the way we speak, but how we organize our thoughts. It produces clarity

First time this has been addressed explicitly for education, though Cicero did mention the need to be well-read