3,982 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2016
    1. Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities

      A bit of interesting backstory about the background photo here. This stock photo of a computer lab was not the original image used for the article. As MIT English professor Wyn Kelley points out in the Discus comments:

      ...the uncaptioned photo above with a slide from MIT's HyperStudio implicates a small, struggling organization, one that is certainly more devoted to the diverse needs of humanities scholars, students, and fans than the promotion of straitjacketed digital programs, along with the larger institutions under scrutiny. To the extent that is possible in an institution that owes much of its support to government grants and within a culture that can use digital tools in lazy and exploitative ways, the HyperStudio is working to keep digital tools agile, customizable, small, and flexible.

      I'm not certain if Wyn Kelley's comment alone caused editors at LARB to change the image or if MIT's Kurt Fendt, who was pictured in the photo, directly requested so.

      Picking on a particular institution, entity, individual doesn't seem out of character for the authors here--though it was likely an editorial choice to use Kurt's image. Then again, the generic computer lab now used is symbolic of the rather technophobic, monolithic critique offered in the article.

    2. pushing the discipline toward post-interpretative, non-suspicious, technocratic, conservative, managerial, lab-based practice.

      I just view the DH movement as fundamentally different:

      ...pushing the tech industry toward a more interpretative, suspicious, less technocratic, conservative, managerial, <del>lab-based</del> practice.

    3. Why these funders chose to do this remains something of a mystery. To find precise explanations, we would need to have access to private conversations and communications, though it is remarkable that such an epoch-making shift can be so lacking in explicit justification.

      Really? There's not research to be done here? I find that hard to believe. Why not simply ask Don Waters or Brett Bobley?

    4. The implication is that in Digital Humanities, computer use is an end in itself.

      Lots of dependence on "implications" in this argument. I've never heard a DH scholar even vaguely make a statement like this. In fact, it's converse is probably most often used to signal that such work is necessary beyond whatever project or tool is being showcased.

    5. a declaration would entail that the workers in IT departments of corporations such as Elsevier and Google are engaged in humanities scholarship.

      And why not? The authors present such a narrow and traditional notion of the humanities that work against their claim to be returning politics to literary study.

    6. It unavoidably also suggests that other approaches in the humanities fit less well into the contemporary university, because the implied measure of success is economic.

      This framework is repeated throughout: because of the success of B, A no longer has value. I don't see how that's true in terms of the structure of English departments/university priorities or digital humanities rhetoric.

    7. SSHRC’s model of funding therefore complements the development of new models of intellectual work within the neoliberal university — accelerating the devaluation of older models of literary study.

      So the problem is that someone besides a traditional independent academic researchers is getting paid to do "humanities" work? Expanding the definition of scholarly labor to include such positions seems far more radical, both politically and economically, than anything outlined here.

    1. That link will also serve as the group home page

      During your annotation travels, you can always return to the group home page by clicking the text under the group name in the scope selector as seen below:

    1. group home page. 

      During your annotation travels, you can always return to the group home page by clicking the text under the group name in the scope selector as seen below:

    1. This talk shifts between “how to use hypothesis” and “the ideological implications of the open web.”

      It'd be great if every practical intro to hypothes.is veered toward these implications! Talk about students as engaged, digital citizens beyond the LMS...

    1. Not much ends up living on past the intended delivery period of the course, and student access is lost once they go forward in their educational endeavors.

      This is a key point I think more people should be rallying around.

    1. Closing large polling gaps in the time remaining is rare but certainly not unprecedented. In 1980, Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan in many polls this time of year. He went on to lose by 10 points.

      Yikes.

    1. Mr. Trump’s victory was an extraordinary moment in American political history: He is now on course to be the first standard-bearer of a party since Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five-star general and the commander of Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, who had not served in elected office.Mr. Trump, a real estate tycoon turned reality television celebrity, was not a registered Republican until April 2012. He has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats, including his likely general election opponent, Mrs. Clinton. And, at various points in his life, he has held positions antithetical to Republican orthodoxy on almost every major issue in the conservative canon, including abortion, taxes, trade, and gun control.

      This is all just so crazy!

    1. Or creating a program that will automatically publish all of a user’s annotations as bookmarks on their Known site, and maybe even cross-post those to Twitter.

      Great idea!

    2. What I think makes hypothes.is really interesting is the stream.

      So nice to see someone really spending some time here. Many users don't know it exists. And many find it confusing.

    3. It’s similar to how Medium users can annotate and highlight blog posts on that platform, but you can use the hypothes.is plugin on any website.

      If people know Medium, then I think this is one of the best descriptions of how h works.

  2. Apr 2016
    1. Click on a green area in one of the interactive maps below. What are the reasons given for that neighborhood’s desirability? Click on a red area. What are the reasons given for its low ranking?

      You can actually annotate these PDFs with responses!

    1. To be right across the water from the headquarters of the United Nations, where I represented our country many times.

      Speeches like this are often given in symbolic locations. Clinton is on her own turf--nearly a year later she would win the New York primary.

      But the United Nations reference and background here further symbolize the fact that Clinton has extensive political experience--primarily as secretary of state.

    1. smart publishers will focus on how their solutions can support and optimize student learning and achievements. They will see themselves as participants in the student outcomes business as well as in the publishing business.

      Publisher focus on content creation v student outcomes

    2. To succeed, they will need to fundamentally rethink their value propositions to take full advantage of the digital medium and consider the entire educational experience.

      And specifically the utility of various tools shipped with content.

    1. shrug off as teaching that requires no real effort and no real accountability.

      In fact, this kind of teaching requires tremendous rigor. You're basically reinventing the book and all the traditional ways of teaching/learning.

      I often think about how teaching digital writing (or web writing) really demands imagining the sequel to Strunk & White (insert whatever classical pedagogical text here you like).

    2. When I am talking to Maha, I am only just barely (not)present with her, and in that just barely lies a sliver of wonder: I can be in Egypt and in my home office at the same time.

      I really appreciate the optimism here. Too often these days think critics bemoan the limits of digital communication. Of course it's limited. But it also has such great potential, exemplified by Maha and Sean's correspondence.

    1. The action overturns a Civil War-era provision in the state’s Constitution aimed, he said, at disenfranchising African-Americans.

      Hard to ignore the racial legacy here.

    1. The benefits of such a cross-semester collaboration would have to be weighed against the value of having the new group of students approach the texts in a fresh form without being influenced by previous comments and markups.

      Indeed, both are valuable assignments, depending on the class. Hypothes.is's private groups feature allows a educator to choose which is best for their particular teaching context.

    2. described in general terms the kind of substantive and constructive annotations–questions, commentary, responses, close reading, contextual references–that would be required. This gave students the latitude to develop various forms of engagement with the texts.

      Yeah, this is what I think is especially great about this assignment. Brian requires students to perform three actions for each reading assignment, defining "actions" as follows.

      Action - Any annotation is an action, with some caveats. An action is: Many things: a question, a comment, an answer, some context you looked up and wanted to add - each of these is an annotation, and therefore an action in the basic sense. Constructive - It's made in good faith to build up and add value to the people reading the text. It can be a question, answer, or informative comment. Good questions cannot be answered in a few words and might help someone else with a similar question or another student looking to make a comment. Good answers are thoughtful. Good arguments are productive, allowing for the possibility of misunderstanding on all sides, creating spaces for further understanding. Considerate - At no point will a student be the target of a dismissive or otherwise negative comment. Doing so will cost a student one of his or her "skip days." Substantive – It is more than a very short reply. "I agree," or "Why?" will not count toward your three actions, though you can post any number of smaller annotations as you would like. They just won't count for your "three actions."

    1. Or engage in a thought experiment. Imagine that every email you got during a day had different fonts, headings, layout, navigation, and scrolling bar behavior. Wouldn’t that be fun?

      LOL!

    1. Genius just has one layer,

      Though they also have the notion of a Verified user, whose expertise has been authorized (albeit by Genus editors). Their annotations appear in green as opposed to yellow.

    2. “Currently, there isn’t even a means for Genius users to report abusive annotations, and there is certainly no way for creators to do so,”

      I think the former is a no brainer. The latter is more complicated...

    3. what should a tech company with a mission to bring hordes of people into the business of making the web work better do when it’s service makes regular people less likely to speak up online?

      A bit of a clunky formulation (sorry for the critique, Brady), but I think this sums up the issue up nicely.

    1. If the Garden is exposition, the stream is conversation and rhetoric, for better and worse.

      Hmmm. How are conversation and rhetoric (read as argument) the same thing? Isn't conversation necessarily iterative?...

    2. The excitement here is in building complexity, not reducing it.

      Great line.

      (PS. I'm pretty sure the other user here, Scott, would want a notification that I've annotated this page. Not to mention Mike himself--author of the post and an h user).

    3. Instead of building an argument about the issue this attempts to build a model of the issue that can generate new understandings.

      Interesting distinction. To me it's more a record of engagement than a model of an issue. But I agree it's different from how Tweets and blogs create meaning.

    1. “It takes class time,” Broussard says. “People can’t work their interface, or their battery’s dead, or they can’t find a plug.”

      Kids forget books too and need to be taught how to write essays.

    1. SoundCloud, a platform for music composers that has tens of millions of original works is in trouble. If it goes down, how many of those works will survive? If history is a guide, very few. And the same will be true of Amazon’s new effort. People will put much effort into it, upload things and maintain them there, and then one day Amazon will pull the plug.

      So centralization is antithetical to preservation.

    1. Bina48 Googles definitions like a hopeless best man writing a wedding toast. Webster’s Dictionary defines love; Google defines consciousness.

      More like a bad high school writer composing a last minute introduction to an English paper:

      Since the beginning of human history, people have have fallen in and out of love.

    1. Let’s look at how I do things, maybe with a slightly less important decision, like the time I had to pick where to eat dinner in Seattle when I was on tour last year.

      I love how researched Ansari is about where he eats! Definitely affirms my own obsession with Internet research about everything, and that the web isn't really as much of a highway as people suppose: it takes time and consideration in the same way that old school forms of research do.

    1. The team was encouraged to participate in all the conversations, because it is the founding team that determines how the software will behave, who set the tone, define the limits of what is tolerated on the service, which I wrote about in Wired.

      Really believe this to be true.

    1. If you want to keep the feedback between you and your student private, you can set up a “group” for just you and the student. You could also use a tag (e.g. “grades”, “feedback”) to keep your feed organized.

      We'd like to add functionality to better support this particular use of annotation.

    2. If you want to move away from the “reading quiz” but still want to hold your students accountable for doing the reading assignments, requiring students to post a certain amount of comments can serve as a nice alternative.

      I also think of annotation as "authentic accountability" in that a discussion forum post can be faked, but at least with an inline comment there's some built in accountability to the text--they had to at least have read that one sentence they annotated!

    1. The pictures we take with family, close friends or someone we love are more important than people themselves.

      Really? Isn't there a connection between the two? I love looking at pictures of my kids on social media while I'm a way from them.

    1. Now that more than 3 billion people can take to Facebook or Twitter or any number of platforms to debate anything, feedback is decidedly less revolutionary

      Actually isn't "feedback"/annotation more essential in this world of shrinking spaces for online expression?

    2. Genius also allows for granular reactions—line-by-line breakdowns of how an argument is constructed, critiques of grammar or style, or fastidious analysis of statistics and supporting points. It seems designed to offer criticism in the most targeted, fastidious, pedantic way.

      Indeed, this type of "pedantic" criticism is precisely what teachers do everyday in classrooms around the world, and generally one would hope for constructive purposes. But while both "line-by-line breakdowns"--like my intervention here--and "analysis of statistics" seem incredibly valuable things for the exchange of ideas, I don't see why annotation can't be used just as easily for positive feedback (as here).

      I'm not sure annotation is the problem itself so much as the culture of commentary, which can vary from community yo community and platform to platform.

    1. B.D. Riley’s Irish Pub at Mueller is being constructed just outside of Dublin, Ireland, disassembled, packed and transported to Austin, to be reassembled here.

      Had to read this a few times. Why?!

    1. open annotation platform (Genius, Hypothesis

      I'm still unresolved about the use of the word "open" in these discussions, more so because of the inclusion of both Genius and hypothes.is here in the same breath.

      So, if we mean "public" by open, in what sense are the annotations on Genius--which can be deleted by anyone with the sufficient power--public.

      If those annotations eventually come with advertising attached, does that change their status as open?

      I'm not suggesting simply that hypothes.is is open and Genius is not. Certainly if we are talking about public, then Genius has a lot more folks using the tool and having a "public" conversation.

      We might even dig into Terms of Service here. Who ultimately owns the annotations--your annotations--is different in both. All public annotation in hypothes.is are licensed under Creative Commons. Genius, like any VC funded social media company, retains a right to all content created using their service. Is that still open?

    2. then someone else comes along and spews hatful, sexist, racist, or abusive garbage using one of these annotation platforms?

      I'd fork the discussion here:

      What if what was said was not somehow constituting abuse/harassment? Would the same questions below still come up?

      This is not to say it's an easy answer if we are just talking about abuse/harassment. Clearly, these tools need to both empower internet citizens and be responsible themselves for moderating this type of hateful speech. But that's just the beginning of a long conversation about the technical tools and community policies to support such moderation.

    1. I watch as their networks expand, and as followers find one another as they voice ever more extreme opinions.

      This is the first time in a long time (maybe ever) that I've felt sympathy for the downfall of traditional journalism. Social media as a kind of echo chamber is really scary and almost sounds like a science fiction story.

  3. Mar 2016
    1. Genius isn’t the only tool that allows you to annotate what you read online. Other websites and browser extensions, like Scrible and Annotate It, allow users to write notes for themselves about what they find on the web. Some apps, like iAnnotate, allow users to annotate specific articles, while some allow users who are logged in to read what others are saying about a specific website.

      Ahem.

    2. the New York Times has the ability to limit the access Genius has to its content,

      I believe this was essentially a universal opt-out request that Genius honored.

    3. it’s the fact that annotations can be crowdsourced at all that’s at issue.

      Is it crowd-sourcing of annotations that's the problem--which I take as I say something, you revise it (the way Genius originated as Rap Genius)? Or the annotations of the crowd?

    4. The problem is that, in addition to scrawling comments, notes, and background information in the margins of a given text, plenty of people also like to snark.

      This is helping me get to a salient point about this controversy. At some point Genius shifted from exegesis to commentary. Offsite, annotations are comments. Onsite, they have both comments (personal annotations) and Genius annotations--edited, curated, vetted, etc.

    1. Generally the form is submitted via JavaScript to an iframe rendered on a page within the consumer, so the user does not have an extra step when trying to launch an app.

      Generally, but not always?...

      I'm okay if there's a second step. That could be:

      1) activating h within the LMS

      2) linking out to a via.bouncer page

    1. (Creepier than Genius’s conceptual model — third-party annotations are, after all, as old as writing itself, and a long sought-after feature of the open web — is the idea that, as developer Vijith Assar puts it, “the content and mechanisms [of online annotations] could end up owned by a single for-profit tech startup.” Assar suggests an “open-source software project,” or something “handled by a standards body.”)

      THIS. If only there were such a project...

    2. but the entire experience is "opt-in" already: You have to install the Genius browser extension, or click on a different URL, to access annotations, effectively achieving the same kind of silo and control that has traditionally existed on personal sites.

      Sensible point.

    3. Generally, these two concerns are easily reconcilable, as the post and response would be silo-ed off from one another: the blog post on WordPress, the ensuing discussion in a separate forum, like Twitter. (Comments sections are an exception, but, crucially, no one is obligated by law or custom to include a comments section on his or her site.)

      For me, this nicely lays out an important, if not ultimately substantial (at least legally or even practically), difference about the Genius (or hypothes.is) web annotation apps.

    1. But saying “this sucks” is not abuse, and to label it such cheapens the experience of every single person who’s ever been abused, harassed, stalked, or intimidated online.

      Provocative reversal...

    2. So, no, News Genius does not facilitate “pasting misinformation and guesses directly onto [Dawson’s] content.”

      No, not exactly, but is it different from blogging about it elsewhere? Visually? Psychologically? Legally?

    3. Missing from Hassler’s article was even an iota of self-awareness: How can she say that her commentary (or annotations, if you will) are any more valid than those that appear on News Genius?

      So all commentary and criticism are equal, whether in annotation or article form?

    Annotators

    1. Members of the Genius community are now grappling

      And this is honestly great. Despite it's potential for snark, I've always found the Genius community (staff included) to be pretty thoughtful in response to situations like this. Whether the company takes real action is an open question.

      (This other piece from Brady Dale in The Observer points to specific discussion threads and comments on the Genius forums dealing with the controversy. Here's a direct link to that thread.)

    2. more likely to intimidate marginalized voices

      Not sure about "more likely," but certainly the potential for abuse is there and needs to be dealt with better.

      That said, web annotation could also be argued to offer a space for marginalized voices to express their views on published content, one perhaps even easier and perhaps more powerful/empowering than setting up their own blog to voice their opinions.

      (It'd be pretty interesting to apply some kind of political/sentimental analysis to the Genius API to determine whether annotations using the service tend toward the hegemonic or the democratic.)

    3. Regardless of how thick a writer’s skin may be, once the psychological barriers between the writing and the defense of that writing have been removed—which is effectively what happens when commentary is superimposed on someone’s work—it can feel ultra-personal and invasive.

      I'm trying to think through what bothers me about this distinction between the Twitter/Facebook post and the Genius annotation in which the former is safer/better. Of course, the intimacy of commentary and content that annotation allows might also be argued (idealistically, I know, but I'm a former English teacher!) to force a more responsible approach to criticism--the source text is right there and needs to be considered/respected too. It's also of course the value proposition for such technology in comparison to those that precede it, like the more centrifugal forces of Twitter and Facebook.

    4. But the design and structure of News Genius is not built with work like mine in mind—it seems intended to speak truth to power and thoughtfully interrogate high-profile publications.”

      Not sure I buy this distinction. Seems like a hard line to draw ultimately. Can I annotate the Slate coverage of Dawson's debate with Genius, but not her personal blog posts about it?

    5. There’s a substantive difference between critiquing the work of a professional journalist or blogger and critiquing the writing of an individual who is using her blog as an outlet to communicate with other likeminded people.

      What about a racist blogger? Should I be able to debunk falsehoods therein? Does this site require corrective/critical annotation as a kind of flag of abuse. Even though it's not an official "MLK org"? Indeed, perhaps because it's not official.

    1. Opening my post using Genius was like discovering graffiti over some of my most personal work.

      Though there's lots of more informed folks to do this than I, I'm trying to think through the issues of free speech and intellectual property here. Are annotations on a website fair use?

    2. which theoretically they should not have had access to, as I had blocked them both on Twitter

      I thought blocking people on Twitter just hid anything they did from your view?

    3. That is the bare minimum required to keep people safe and not contribute to an online environment hostile to women, the LGBTQ community, and people of color.

      I haven't read enough about it and don't know where I stand, but the controversy here seems to me to overlap with all the debates going on on college campus about political correctness and trigger warnings, etc.

    4. Snarky journalists

      One takeaway here for me is that Genius probably didn't do itself any favors in terms of public image by hiring someone to set this kind of tone in their news room.

    5. News Genius was probably created as a way to speak truth to power, but it has incredible potential to punch down. I am not a highly paid journalist at a huge publication; I am a survivor with a blog.

      This is a really challenging point for me (working at a similar annotation service). What's the line between speaking truth to power and silencing someone else's truth?...