Annotated Bibliography

Bree, Linda, and James McLaverty. “The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Johnathan Swift and the Future of the Scholarly Edition.” Text Editing, Print and the Digital World. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009. 127-37. Print.

The main question brought up is how a scholarly piece should be represented. Should it be in electronic or print form only, or a combination of both? Limits are not seen by electronic ones because the only limitations are the expertise and knowledge of the creators, compared to a print which has publishing limits. The project outline has to be determined from the starting point because with print copies a publisher would have been able to set the design whereas in a an electronic form most of these decisions have to be made by the creators. The information goes beyond the knowledge which would have been originally needed for an edition. Technical expertise come into play. An interesting point here is mentioned in a previous lecture about the need for historians and other humanities scholars to learn code. The chapter repeats itself quite often when talking about the Johnathan Swift electronic edition but a few key points are mentioned about the necessities of finding appropriate funding to ensure the perpetual running of a project. The source would prove valuable towards a study of the the representation of scholarly editions.

Gabler, Hans Walter. “Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition.” Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 43-56. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Generally outlines a Digital Scholarly Edition as a presentation of text – literary, historical, philosophical, juridical – or of a work (mainly, a work of literature) in its often enough several texts, through the agency of an editor in lieu of the author of the text, or work. Hans mentioned the importance of surrounding auxiliary procedures when producing a Digital Scholarly Edition. The three main ideas he comments on are apparatus, annotations and commentary. He defines all of these simply and moves onto revised models and the form of an edition. “The base line of my understanding of the scholarly edition is that it is a web of discourses. These discourses are interrelated and of equal standing.” The importance of this definition is described as the pivotal influence of a Digital Scholarly Edition, at least in its production, is based mainly on the editor instead of the author or the text itself. Further on in the article Hans begins to describe how many author’s original material is now born digital rather than being changed into digital. “We read texts in their native print medium, that is, in books, but we study texts and works in editions – in editions that live in the digital medium. The material brought up in this article is of great importance when studying Digital Scholarly Editions especially the definitions of the important aspects of the editions.

Price, Kenneth M. “Electronic Scholarly Editions.” A Companion to Digital Literary Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007. N. pag. Print.

Comments on how the advent of new technology is causing a shift in textual theory away from the old theories of a single definitive text definition and towards a more broad theory which allows for various editions. This is a very important aspect of digital scholarly editions because the extra space and availability of updating allows for multiple versions of one text to be placed in the one area. The use of this cannot be understated because it allows a scholar to study a much wider range of text in one sitting. However, this paper notes that it may stretch the general academic attempting to place something online, extending the amount of people in a project. This is linked entirely with the interdisciplinary nature of digital humanities as a whole. The chapter begins to strangely comment on the notion of entirety in a Digital Scholarly Edition. That if it is supposed to hold everything about an author should that stretch to shopping’s lists, autographs etc. Although mentioned in a very flippant way this brings up important questions of what is important? The problem is that the author just mentioned how many people were used in the formation of an edition yet forgets to include that there are separate people for selection of resources and a plan defined from the beginning of the project.

Deegan, Marilyn. “From Print to Digital: The Hybrid Edition.” Web log post.Oxford Scholarly Editions Online. N.p., 9 July 2012. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

Every generation of researchers and scholars bring new tools, techniques, perspectives and interpretations to textual artifacts. This helps with the search for meaning through analysis. The Roberto Busa quote “ What’s difficult we can do straight away, what’s impossible takes a little longer” is an important notion on the subject of scholarly editions. The article presents a brief run through of the history of scholarly using technical resources, comments on the advent of computers , hypertext language, cd-roms and online collections. The important note made at the end of the piece is that we now have the best that the digital world can present us while it is still developing at a quick rate. But, on the other hand we still have the best of what a book can give to the audience.

Clarke, Desmond. “Being Philosophical about Scholarly Editions.” Web log post. Oxford Scholarly Editions Online. N.p., 30 Mar. 2012. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

A historical basis regarding scholarly editions is mentioned at the beginning of the article regarding the editors of older scholarly editions which were not digital. The idea of editing became a lot more defined during the 20th century and the standards definitely improved. The crowd was not useful for the subject because it was refined down to a certain area. An edition may only be in a handful of museums or through a university library. Digital Scholarly Editions now allow for this data to be accessed across the world. The editions allow for a large amount of out of print pieces to be accessed and for different versions of translations/authorship to be shown to an audience. This article is important to allow a full sense of the history of Digital Scholarly Editions.

Hajo, Cathy Moran. “The sustainability of the scholarly edition in a digital world.” Presented at International Symposium on XML for the Long Haul: Issues in the Long-term Preservation of XML, Montréal, Canada, August 2, 2010.

This article brings up some interesting points about the sustainability of a digital scholarly edition. The main concerns which arise from this are mentioned in a variety of papers. If a Digital Scholarly Edition is to be maintained than the long term sustainability and future funding would have to be a problem discussed at the beginning during the management process. The important point that can be derived from this article is that technologies in the future must have the functionality of adaption for older technology. Without this notion present born digital projects can be found essentially broken in decades to come. This has always been a huge concern for Digital Scholarly Editors and is one which arises many questions.

Daengeli, Peter. “Digital Scholarly Edition: Alfred Escher Correspondence.” Web log post. Geschichte & Informatik. N.p., 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

The usability of the Alfred Escher project is mentioned in one specific part of this article. Usability is a very important aspect of a digital scholarly edition and has not been mentioned in previous articles in this annotated bibliography. The usability of a project must allow for historical or humanities research, while also catering for a critical interpretation through the website. The piece critiqued in this article is using a chronological frame instead of a list of dates to show the data in a much easier way. The digestion of data is important, a researcher is able to look at a block of text in any single book the important aspect of scholarly editions is to allow this information to be shown in a much more concise and interesting way. The review also shows how the chronological side of the information can be placed in a cartographic spectrum. This further extends the usability of the website for a digital scholarly edition.

Schmidt, Desmond. “Towards and Interoperable Digital Scholarly Edition.”Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative 7 (2014): n. pag. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

This piece is interesting as a technological standpoint and description. The article mentions substantially the use of technologies such as XML, TEI and web based programs. Commenting that the new wave of internet users take interoperability for granted because browsers can be viewed on multiple devices, image files can be edited across platforms etc. The need for all born digital and made digital projects to have the same type of interoperability as books is essential. Certain coding languages may be inter-operable such as XML and to an extent TEI but the issue of an audiences from of an artifact arises. Different people will look at a book and envision different tags, different key words which may cause a problem. Interesting arguments are made regarding leaving out markup languages, but the problem of plain text and a person’s own interpretation remains valid. Very interesting quote within the conclusion is “Human interpretations will never be inter-operable on their own, but it is possible to incorporate them into a technological structure that takes into account their variability.

Robinson, Peter. “Desiderata for Digital Editions: Why Digital Humanists Should Get out of Textual Scholarship.” Web log post. Academia. N.p., 19 July 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

Is a very useful source with regard to it’s structure and comments on digital editions. The main argument is based around the material and data used within the edition. The five he mentions explicitly are encoding of the document and text, editorial acts being attributed, all materials should be available through creative commons by default, all materials should be available independent of any one interface and all materials should be held in a long term sustainable storage system. These general points prove very useful when talking about both the humanities side of a digital scholarly edition and the technical side. The general discussion which is then brought up as it goes into the semantics of the issues which illustrate, possibly, the main problems which occur with a digital scholarly edition. Which as a basis could promote a further study on digital scholarly editions in detail.

IFPH. “Session 2: Scholarly Editing in a Digital World: Pushing the Boundaries.” Web log post. IFPH Amsterdam. N.p., 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 22 Nov. 2014

This blog post which is centered around the first conference of the International Federation of Public History in Amsterdam, October 2014. The blog post focuses on three American scholarly editors answering questions regarding the future of scholarly editing. A brief evaluation of this source brings up to important benefits. Firstly, the source was originally written last month which means it is a very worthwhile source for modern interpretations. Secondly, the use of three main editors ensure that the information written is relative to the practice. Many important answers are within this blog post, however some of the most interesting are based around the business model of a digital scholarly edition. That the main problem with success is not technical issues or funding, its with the business model at the beginning of the project. This is an interesting approach and could be discussed in great detail.

CrowdSourcing: Exploration of Ethics

CrowdSourcing is essentially the practice of obtaining ones needs by allowing a large group of people, or crowd, to contribute. The theory is derived from the idea of outsourcing which became popular in the early 21st century. Although linked it is important to distinguish between the two. Business ventures would push for outsourcing because it included the cheapest labor which they could find. CrowdSourcing has now become the cheapest form of online collaboration and contribution between an organisation and the general. The specific concept of ethics in CrowdSourcing is one which has risen in popularity over the past five years. There are various academic scholars and professionals in their fields who have started to debate the idea. A false notion of ethics not being discussed is commonplace throughout these articles, suggesting that it is not on the forefront of CrowdSourcing study. However, there is a plethora of information through journals and on websites regarding the subject. Ideas vary between the extreme illegal unethical ideas produced in C Harris'(Schmidt) look at the dark side of CrowdSourcing to the less extreme labor rights mentioned in works of Ross Dawson and Sean Moffitt (Phneah). The grounded idea of CrowdSourcing would lead any person to derive a positive influence. However, there are certain ideas which must be taken into account when dealing with the general public. This blog post will talk specifically about the notion around strong standards of control and ethics, ensuring that future organisations can benefit from CrowdSourcing in a complete ethical and fair way.

Shelly Kuipers, from Chaordix notes how new companies who are inexperienced in CrowdSourcing run the risk of ethical issues if they do not have some sort of consultancy plan (Phneah). At the same conference the idea of a governance body should maintain the ethics of CrowdSourcing was rebuffed due to the transparent nature of the topic and the self governing done by the public who are involved. However, a separate governing body would not be needed, crowdsourcing.org has already begun to produce standards. The crowdsourcing industry website is attempting to create a standard designed to protect both crowdfunders(people pledging or investing capital) and fundraisers(people raising capital). Known as the CAPS program, Crowdfunding Accreditation for Platform Standards. The standard is attempting to foster the sustainable growth of the crowdfunding industry to provide much needed capital for projects and initiatives, start-ups and small businesses while certifying the project to ensure legality (CrowdSourcing).

With the new age of the digital world, standards and rules should be shared openly and freely through wesbites such as crowdsourcing.org. The constant need for protection and transparency has been a strong idealistic manner in the modern world as education continues to grow. People begin to further question ethical issues, gender relations and the implications of all problems which they can find. Can a company like Doritoes use a crowdsourcing campaign which asked for new flavours and videos, to purely advertise their own company. This social media aspect adds a whole different spectrum to the problems which have arisen. Crowdsourcing is still a young notion but the connection with social media could sky rocket the idea and the controversy.

Generally, the use of CrowdSourcing by social media, thus far, has been quite transparent. Twitter has asked the crowd to help translate tweets in several languages and historical crowsourcing projetcs are consistently pushing their ideas through social media. However, the ethical issues around advertising and gaining help for free, brings up an aspect which is missing in many articles. The pure notion of a CrowdSourcing project is that it uses the crowd, even if the transparency of a project is not clear, it would take a large amount of people to realize for the results to be useless. A certain amount would understand the intent of a company, the other half would not, but the similar question is why would they care? If a video is only about their new flavor for a brand, the personal choice of uploading and sharing surely negates the aspect of rights. A further look into the darker side of crowd work is the paid idea of Amazon Turk. perhaps one of the most contested form of crowd work. The system stems from the amount of work a person can achieve against others while earning an incredibly low amount of money. Jeff Howe, who originally coined the CrowdSourcing name, calls the project “both rather depressing and rather brilliant”. But, if a project does not give money for the work, what incentive is there for a crowd to participate?

The gameifcation of crowdsourcing projects is one of the strongest tool present to control and manipulate a crowd. Ian Bogost has likened gameification with exploitationware. The normal form is done by the use of a points system in which people can gain experience and thus move up the ranks of the website. Similar to the idea presented in Viki an Asian company which allows the crowd to add subtitles to some of their favorite shows(Phneah). Bogost believes that this kind of concept undermines the importance of the crowd in a business platform (Bogost). The essential argument of fair labor and pay is brought up constantly in these works. However, if a person gains their own sense of importance and enjoys such work why should that become a problem of ethics?

A interesting comparison is then produced. If a business can easily gather a crowd to do work, does that begin to demean a profession which a person has studied to perfect? Many design websites have competitions for logos and offer prizes for winners. Similar to Doritoes attempt to find a new flavor, a pure marketing strategy. Does this mean that these professions will begin to die out? Will crowdsourcing conclude by taking over certain professions in the working world? This scope is far too broad. Current trends, around 80% growth of crowdsourcing a year, would suggest continued growth, but surely there is a point in which a paid professional would be more desired? Without standards of ethics and control can CrowdSourcing continue? CrowdSourcing.org is the perfect opportunity to change the future a type of fair trade mark(Schmidt). However, this idea is central to the future of the concept and one which will be contested for years to come.

“The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Florian Alexander Schmidt. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.

Phneah, Ellyne. “Crowdsourcing Faces Ethical, Legal Risks | ZDNet.” ZDNet N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2014

Phneah, Ellyne. “S’pore Startup Finds Niche in Crowdsourced Video Subtitling | ZDNet.” ZDNet. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.

“The Crowdfunding Accreditation for Platform Standards | Crowdsourcing.org.” The Crowdfunding Accreditation for Platform Standards | Crowdsourcing.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

Bogost, Ian. “Persuasive Games: Exploitationware.” Gamasutra Article. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.