In 2017 most people (outside of students) have access to counter narratives: Edison was a patent pirate, actual geniuses like Tesla and Jobs are flawed people, academic biographies are more hagiographic than factual...

Sometimes a light bulb is just a light bulb. I made these high intensity short-arc mercury-vapor lamps used to micro-photolithograph masks onto silicon wafers before depositing the metal in a vacuum, firing the metal in a glass lined furnace, chopping the wafers into "chips" and soldering the leads to make "computer chips." I worked beside the glassblower that patented these lamps at his shop in Santa Clara, California, or, if you prefer; Silicon Valley.

My California Community College District is switching to Canvas and this will make student collaboration much easier.

Is there some sort of protocol that one could follow to encourage rather than discourage these kind of comments? Or is all non-curated space going to cause problems?

Wow, is this right?

It makes me wonder if certain works are more conducive to online annotation than others. Is there something about the embodied elements of reading long novels that doesn't mesh with online annotation?

What if you have a much smaller class? Would using annotation foster better class discussion or would it be alienating?

Anti-student statements are not helpful. Many people "drift into general statements."

This would be an ideal practice for Introduction to Literature courses introducing digital literacy.

Moretti seems to privilege the written text over modes of communication. Why is that the case? What does imply?

@afinucane Is it that this tool privileges the text-annotation relationship over the relationship among annotators?

Is there a reason that annotations are more useful than comments at the bottom of an article? To think about it another way, does annotation instead of end comments make the conversation too confusing for readers to follow?

So the conversation about the text supersedes the text itself.

This is an annotation on the public layer.

Very different understanding of this word from its everyday use on the Internet. Online, commentary is more typically imagined as far less authorial or editorial, problematically, but also democratically so.

say something

Step 2: Grabs the data from the URL...

Step 1: Creates a URL to be looked at by another fuction/method

I don't get it. Is this all I need to put into a Jupyter Notebook?

Is this specific to an annotation? Yes, I guess.

Yes, of course. But it's ironic that this three post tirade begins with a rather distant reading of the MLA program.

In the above performance of close reading, is the evidence more "inescapable"? Isn't is always in the fullness of the argumentation no matter where the data comes from?

Is this really how it played/plays out? I have an idea about something that I then confirm in the facts?

So it's close versus distant reading.

I continue to think this binary is false. Perhaps historically the liberal arts was established and viewed as an oasis. But in my experience there was always a connection between my academic work, from grade school to grad school, and the "real world." The connection might not always have been as direct and explicit to be vocational, but nonetheless is was there and it was felt.

LOL. I was in the middle of a dissertation when this was published: not just an English major, but a doctoral candidate.

Annotate!

(Originally, many used CommentPress to engage in this way, but you'll notice some folks have done so using Hypothesis more recently.)

I'd argue that analog scholarship too stands against this aim. And after finishing the "blog post" I think it's Fish's assumptions about the nature of scholarship and knowledge production that bias him against DH--among other things.

I actually think the moral valence of the following quote is ambiguous. I'm not certain it's a bad thing.

I'd actually argue that it lays bare the process of scholarly production more immediately. What might unfold over a sequence of interconnected monographs--published every 3-5 years--might now take place in an afternoon of Twitter exchanges.

Like "yawp"?

Isn't this a little like a movie reviewer saying, "I haven't seen this movie, but here's the problem with it"?

The image below is rather hostile , isn't it?