67 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. Wiki Use that Increases Communication and Collaboration Motivation

      (Click on download full text to read.) Through a cooperative learning assignment, University students responded to a case study that implemented use of a Wiki. Results demonstrate that Wiki is an effective communication and collaboration tool (access, structure, versioning) for all individuals (introvert, extrovert). Recommendations and considerations for use in the learning environment were provided. 6/10

  2. Sep 2020
    1. he will crush[j] your head,(BL)    and you will strike his heel.”

      God curses the serpent after deceiving Eve in the garden, and creates "enmity between [the serpent] and the woman." In the "Harry Potter" series by JK Rowling, the serpent is a symbol of evil, and near the end of the books, is the only piece of evil left to destroy before good can truly be restored.

  3. Jan 2020
  4. Jun 2017
    1. The digital humanities as a humanitiesproject

      Svensson, Patrik. 2012. “The Digital Humanities as a Humanities Project.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 11 (1–2): 42–60. doi:10.1177/1474022211427367.

    Tags

    Annotators

  5. Apr 2017
    1. General News Photography (Medium)First Place: “British Prime Minister David Cameron talks to ZU students and Dr. Sulaiman Al Jasim, left.” by Maha Jasim, Zajel, Zayed University
    2. Online Sports Reporting (Medium)First Place: “Abu Dhabi women take third in soccer tourney” by Dana Al Mutawa, Zajel, Zayed Uniersity
    3. Online Feature Reporting (Medium)First Place: “Sheena Kay: the face behind the voice revealed” by Dhabya Rashed Al Mehairi, Zajel, Zayed UniversitySecond Place: “Health students launch food safety campaign at ZU” by Ayesha Almazroui, Zajel, Zayed UniversityThird Place: “Tackling cultural norms crucial for UAE young women to gain independence” by Ayesha Almazroui, Zajel, Zayed University
    4. Best Independent Online Student Publication (Medium)First Place: Zajel, Zayed University
    1. I want toconsider the mechanics of one of the processes of authentication, before turning to theobstacles that digital medieval projects face in bridging the divide that can separate cred-ible scholarship and the new technologies used to facilitate its creation. Consider thehybrid edition ofCædmon’s Hymn, edited by D.P. O’Donnell and published as a bookwith an accompanying CD in 2005.15Several years after publication, O’Donnell noted ofhis own edition that, despite the inclusion of substantial textual variants made possible bythe mixed digital⁄physical publication, he has ‘yet to see a citation that does not use aform found in the print edition’ (O’Donnell, 114). There are three important points tobe made here. One, in 7 years since publication, CDs have largely become obsolete, andthe future of optical media more generally is questionable. Two, textual variants are notfrequently cited – only very particular types of scholarship are concerned with exploringand discussing textual variants, whether as philological evidence or as literary texts ontheir own right. Scholars regularly discuss Langland’sPiers Plowman, a poem about whichcritics tend to be keenly aware of the state of the text in competing critical editions,without tracking back to the constituent readings made available through the editorialapparatus. Three, O’Donnell’s comments point to a practical difficulty, though one heattempted to resolve by encouraging citation of numbered paragraphs rather than print-bound page numbers: it is difficult to cite things in the hybrid digital⁄analog world thatdominates the present moment.

      Discussion of my edition of Caedmon's Hymn

    2. The digital social networks that have quickly become ubiquitous have made visiblemany of the patterns underlying existing academic personal and professional relationships,and the ways in which reputation and reliability circulate in these structures. Social andintellectual networks have long constituted the professional contexts of scholars, but digi-tal networks representing some subset of those contexts have exposed more of what takesplace at the margins of those networks.

      Digital Social Networks, particularly Facebook and Twitter.

      Makes an interesting point about homogenisation in Facebook and Twitter (i.e. people are a binary of friend or not friend, categories that collapse all different categories.

      Interestingly, both Facebook and Twitter have taken steps to address this recently.

    3. The venerableLISTSERV email lists such as mediev-l (founded in 1992) and other medieval-focusedlistservs are early instances of the digital democratization of scholarship, conducted as anasynchronous and geographically dispersed conversation.

      Listservs and their relationship to Notes and Queries

    4. From July 2008 to April 2012, Googleoffered a service called Google Knol, where a ‘knol’ is a basic ‘unit of knowledge’ asopposed, presumably, to a unit of information.4Users wrote ‘knols’ predicated upon theirown interests and expertise.

      The "KNOL" a unit of knowledge: a Google experiment in crowd-sourcing knowledge

    5. firstwant to consider the ways in which our increased online presence has exposed manyof the existing networks that ground the sources of academic and intellectual authority(reputation, credibility, reliability).

      How online communities have changed the way humanists work.

    6. Fisher, Matthew. 2012. “Authority, Interoperability, and Digital Medieval Scholarship.” Literature Compass 9 (12): 955–64. doi:10.1111/lic3.12018.

      /home/dan/.mozilla/firefox/rwihx4ee.default/zotero/storage/PHS4P7D6/Fisher - 2012 - Authority, Interoperability, and Digital Medieval .pdf

  6. Mar 2017
  7. Feb 2017
  8. Jan 2017
  9. Jun 2016
    1. Of course, they will most likely all be co-authored pieces, but the significant point is that the REF rules, except in special cases, impose no penalty on genuinely co-authored work; they explicitly state that it is welcomed. In most cases, there is no disadvantage in submitting a co-authored item to the exercise (although there is some complication when co-authors submit in the same return); it is not as if it counts as half an output or less.

      The REF does not discount coauthorship

    2. If done in good faith, four like-minded authors in the arts who agreed on a project of work could co-author four papers together and have the REF return of each sorted. If they are from different institutions, this would certainly be a more efficient way of meeting the framework's requirements. It might be viewed as a cynical exercise, but perhaps viewing it that way would be a sign that we haven't yet changed our mindset. If genuinely collaborative work became the norm, it wouldn't be viewed with suspicion.

      How to game the REF

    3. If a major idea or approach came from another person, why not list that person as co-author and let them be equally generous in their turn where it applies?

      On when somebody should be a coauthor in the humanities

    4. he case for more collaborative work can be made. Indeed, most of us do it already, to some degree. We tend to discuss our ideas with colleagues and seek trusted opinions. We present talks at conferences and seminars, and use the feedback to develop ideas before publication. We solicit comments on drafts. Colleagues share a research environment that, if it is effective, contributes to the quality of all output. Yet when the work appears, the standard model is still sole ownership. A colleague could have given a lot of input, discussing ideas or providing comments on early drafts, yet their accepted reward is only to appear in the list of acknowledgements. This seems a paltry return on what can be a considerable amount of effort, an effort that is obviously a degree of collaboration. Perhaps one tries to mitigate the paltry reward by extracting a reciprocal amount of uncredited assistance in return.

      Bout how actual contributions to authorship of humanities work goes uncredited, except in acknowledgements

    5. Typically, authors can write something better together than they could have produced alone.

      Great justification for collaborative authorship!

    6. Combination acts

      Mumford, Stephen. 2012. “Combination Acts.” Times Higher Education (THE). February 16. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/combination-acts/419019.article.

  10. Sep 2015
    1. 12 different PhDs on a faculty of 21

      Kind of surprised it's not more.

    2. In the parlance of interdisciplinary advocates, universities are organized around disciplines; problems are not.

      This is true of all disciplines, not just information studies?

    3. pressing intellectual problems by their nature will cross existing disciplinary boundaries

      Similar to Ito's point about the need to be antidisciplinary.

    4. To be an iSchool is to place greater emphasis on broader human activities over these concerns with the specific agency or organizational form wherein the information practices occur.

      Study of information is not constrained by the physical site, e.g. a library or archive.

    5. concern that technology was just being treated as a tool for demonstrating academic relevance rather than as a genuine basis for disciplinary identity

      Is he saying here that the interest in technology was shallow and superficial?

    6. More importantly, by placing emphasis on human activities mediated by information and technology, this articulation shifts the field's focus from agencies of collection such as libraries or archives, which more typically are invoked when describing subject coverage in schools of library and information science, to the contexts in which people, information and technology interact

      Reminds me of Bates' following the "red thread" of information.

    7. the term information was taken to represent either a greater emphasis on people (in the case of computer science) or on technology (in the case of librarianship)

      Information was used as a glue word.

    8. I argue that iSchools are distinctive from other LIS programs less for their subject emphasis or methodological approaches than for their orientation to the study of information beyond agencies, their commitment to multidisciplinary work, and a formal emphasis on research productivity.

      information beyond agencies (outside of the library, archive, etc) multidisciplinary, research productivity (publishing)