Modeling annotation and note taking can allow students to see that their voices matter in conversation with the "greats" of knowledge. We can and should question authority. Even if one's internal voice questions as one reads, that might be enough, but modeling active reading and note taking can better underline and empower these modes of thought.

There are certainly currents within American culture that we can and should question authority.

Sadly some parts of conservative American culture are reverting back to paternalized power structures of "do as I say and not as I do" which leads to hypocrisy and erosion of society.

Education can be used as a means of overcoming this, though it requires preventing the conservative right from eroding this away from the inside by removing books and certain thought from the education process that prevents this. Extreme examples of this are Warren Jeff's control of religion, education, and social life within his Mormon sect.

Link to: - Lawrence Principe examples of the power establishment in Western classical education being questioned. Aristotle wasn't always right. The entire history of Western science is about questioning the status quo. (How can we center this practice not only in science, but within the humanities?)

My evolving definition of active reading now explicitly includes the ideas of annotating the text, having a direct written conversation with it, questioning it, and expanding upon it. I'm not sure I may have included some or all of these in it before. This is what "reading with a pen in hand" (or digital annotation tool) should entail. What other pieces am I missing here which might also be included?

Ton has asked some good questions about social annotation using @Hypothes_is. I've annotated with some of my ideas. I'm also curious what others' practices look like.

https://twitter.com/ton_zylstra/status/1513219186524368896

Come give your answers in the margins: https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/04/three-questions-about-annotating-in-hypothesis/

syndication links: - twitter - zylstra.org

https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/04/three-questions-about-annotating-in-hypothesis/

Thanks for asking these questions Ton! I've been meaning to spend some time writing up my use cases and methods for this for a while, and your questions have created a scaffold for getting a large chunk of it done in some bite sized pieces. Now I should be able to roll up my answers into an article, do some light editing and be on my way.

In other words, you can build on this software in your proprietary software but can't change the Trailblazer source unless you're willing to contribute it back.

loophole: I wonder if this will actually just push people to move their code -- which at the core is/would be a direction modification to the source code - out to a separate module. That's so easy to do with Ruby, so this restriction hardly seems like it would have any effect on encouraging contributions.

Opening up social annotation and connecting it to a network of researchers' public-facing zettelkasten could create a sea-change of thought

This is a broader concept I'm developing, but thought I'd bookmark this question here as an indicator that others are also interested in the question though they may not have a means of getting there (yet).

A verb for Open Annotate can be called "opnotate". And a noun for open annotation can be "opnotation".

Therein lies the rub. Especially if this is to be “easy”.

Whaa..? This sounds seriously hard. But remarkably clever.

Here I have highlighted the title of the Compass Journal. I can add my notes here and also links like this to the Clipper Blog. I can also insert images like this

I wonder if she would close comments on her site if all were constructive? From my read, it wasn't that she didn't want to engage in conversation.

Another big thank you! As I've mentioned on Twitter, your course's "re/turn" to a previous Marginal Syllabus conversation (from October) is what Joe, Jeremy, and I hoped would happen over time - that educators would find conversations and texts that resonate with their interests and courses, and then join the text-based conversation via ongoing annotation. This turns the text-as-conversation into an open educational resource (OER), and - like you - we hope other educators and courses revisit these conversations to support their own learning.

I've had students say similar things about using Hypothesis to read together. I'd like to explore the relationship between open/collaborative web annotation and community-building... many questions to consider...

Awesome. Is it possible to connect with some of these posts and perspectives?

This is important, and in my teaching I've been careful to include web annotation in both private (group) and public modes so that learners find comfort with different approaches and can come to appreciate some of the scaffolding that you describe.

You're very welcome, and we're appreciative of your willingness to merge formal course activities with the more open-ended and interest-driven approach to educator learning via Marginal Syllabus.

A publicly visible and annotated syllabus is a great practice, and something I'll incorporate into courses - great idea!

This is quickly going to become a bit meta... :)

Indeed!

Hi there, I am using this open source tool to promote open science by make open annotations directly on the was as a platform for collaboration. You also can jot down your comments in the context where it belongs.

This pithy statement brings together all sorts of previous annotations. Would be neat to map them.

That’s something we’ve been doing, yes.

Could soooo imagine a presentation on using #Hypothesis with #PressBooks!

I'd like to hear discussion around the term "open" here. How exactly are you using it @remiholden? To mean public as opposed to private?

For me, open has specific infrastructural connotations: it's about a variety of annotation clients like hypothes.is conforming to certain wider standards so that web annotation--like the web itself--is an interoperable system.

But I'm curious the degree to which that matters to teachers and learners. And why? We're using hypothes.is, which promises to conform to standards being developed by the w3c, but could DIIGO do the trick even though they're system (for now) is closed?

While technology doesn't solve everything, I firmly believe it has a critical role to play in fixing our politics. Better and easier ways for citizens to hold their government accountable, engage with their elected officials and each other, and way more exist. We're using one right now.

An opportunity to employ online, open co-creation tools. Such as, say, Hypothes.is. Or what the D.C.'s Mayor Bowser and city council are doing with the Madison online policymaking software.

Back when this was still being negotiated in secret, a leaked chapter of TPP was opened on the very first version of Madison. What could've been as far as harnessing open online annotation for transparent, smarter policy outcomes.

Series of webinars on the pedagogy of Web annotation.

The “Open World Assumption” is central to this post and to the actual shift in paradigm when it comes to moving from documents to data. People/institutions have an alleged interest in protecting the way their assets are described. Even libraries. The Open World Assumption makes it sound quite chaotic, to some ears. And claims that machine learning will solve everything tend not to help the unconvinced too much. Something to note is that this ability to say something about a third party’s resource connects really well with Web annotations (which do more than “add metadata” to those resources) and with the fact that no-cost access to some item of content isn’t the end of the openness.

Fine by me.

Man kann wunderbarerweise auch Annotationen annotieren.

so do I.

Dies gilt jedenfalls, wenn Annotationstools so einfach und intuitiv gestaltet sind wie dieser Annotator.