228 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2021
    1. In our time, machine learning conference attendance and submission rates continue to compound, often outstripping the doubling of Moore's law the discipline relies on to make any forward progress. The quality of results in these and other fields since the vast expansion of their communities has not increased.

      Just wait until you see what publishers have planned for India and China

  2. Dec 2020
    1. I also think journalism and music both feed into the major lie of the internet that just because it is possible to reach people all over that means it is likely that will happen for you.

      the lie underlying almost all ideas of being an "influencer"....

    2. Publication voice is ridiculous. This idea of the publication being the authority is so dead. If the internet has truly taught us anything, people will be loyal to people.
  3. Nov 2020
  4. Oct 2020
    1. The authorship and perspective of this paper is hiding a bit:

      This position paper, by Readers First Working Group member Carmi Parker, proposes a single licensing model that aligns with print but optionally enables the unique capabilities of eLending: perpetual licenses and concurrent use.

      ReadersFirst is an organization of nearly 300 libraries representing 200 million readers dedicated to ensuring that library users have the same open, easy and free access to e-books that they have come to rely on with physical books.

      ---via Readers First

    1. “The whole issue of this negotiation [between libraries and publishers] over the last decade derives from a place where libraries have almost no rights in the digital age,” says Alan Inouye, the senior director of public policy and government relations at the American Library Association. “In the longer run, there needs to be a change in the environment or in the game. That means legislation or regulation.”

      If libraries, as government arms, were to band together collectively, they'd have increased buying leverage. Perhaps this is what they should be attempting?

    2. Last year, Macmillan took an additional step, limiting each library system to only a single digital copy of a new title—at half its usual price—until it had been on the market for two months. Macmillan CEO John Sargent said he worried there was too little friction in library ebook lending. “To borrow a book in [the pre-digital days] days required transportation, returning the book, and paying those pesky fines when you forgot to get them back on time,” he wrote in a letter announcing the policy. “In today’s digital world there is no such friction in the market."

      Isn't part of the point of technology improving to reduce the costs of the system? Publishers are attempting to prop up the price of books unnaturally using their old model when the cost to print and distribute e-books is a fraction of what it truly is. They (and society) would be better off if they dramatically reduced the digital version (and sold more copies) and held the cost of print which might actually increase over time as digital takes of the majority of the market.

    1. With shrinking budgets and outrageous prices, libraries are unable to provide all the ebooks users want, or to get a good handle on wait times. As a result, users see the library as being out-of-touch with reader needs, so they don’t fight for more funding. So funding gets cut more, so libraries can provide even less and are seen as even more out-of-touch and the cycle continues.

      The viscous circle of putting public libraries out of business.

    1. Mr. Duncombe published the results online using CommentPress, open-source software by the Institute for the Future of the Book. Online discussion and commenting is made possible by Social Book, a social-reading platform created by the institute.
    1. The ideas here make me think that being able to publish on one's own site (and potentially syndicate) and send/receive webmentions may be a very useful tool within open science. We should move toward a model of academic samizdat where researchers can publish their own work for themselves and others. Doing this will give them the credit (and job prospects, etc.) while still allowing movement forward.

    1. Relatively new bookstores in LA:

      • Last Bookstore (Downtown) opened 2008
      • Stories Books & Cafe (Echo Park) 2008
      • The Mystic Journeys (Venice) 2009
      • {pages} (Manhattan Beach) 2010
      • Pop-Hop Books & Print (Highland Park) 2012
      • Book Show (Highland Park) 2013
      • The Ripped Bodice (Culver City) 2016
      • OOF Books (Cypress Park) 2017
      • Now Serving (Chinatown) 2017
      • Owl Bureau (Highland Park) 2019
    2. Twenty Stories Bookmobile, which left L.A. traffic for Providence, Rhode Island, in 2018

      This makes me think that a mobile bookstore a la the traditional LA roach coach with a well painted/decorated exterior could be a cool thing.

      I'm reminded of a used bookstore pop-up I saw recently at the Santa Anita Mall prior to the holidays. Booksellers were traditionally itinerant mongers anyway. Perhaps this could be a more solid model, especially for the lunchtime business crowds.

    1. Publishers who aren’t media partners with Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter, aren’t highlighted prominently on these platforms, don’t receive a heads up about new products and never have a direct line to support at these companies.

      Looking at the relationship of authors, book publishers, and even the big 5 publishing companies provides a reasonable model for what all of this looks like down the road. All the publishers are generally screwed if they're reliant on one distributor which they don't control.

    1. Notice how print books have remained ad-free in an age when every other available surface carries advertising – something about print books has kept them immune from the disease of advertising.
    2. Books as websites can be public goods in a way that printed books cannot, especially for the poor.
    3. There are other great teams doing similar work: PressBooks uses a Wordpress backend for online book and website development. Booktype, which has been around for a long time, also uses a browser-based editing workflow to produce HTML and PDF books. PubSweet is developing a modular editorial workflow, optimised, for now, for journals and monographs. The MagicBook project is being used at New York University. And our Electric Book workflow uses on- and offline static-site generation to make print and digital books.

      Nice list of tools for digital publishing for the book space.

    1. While many people say that such and such a book changed their lives, you can be sure that they could not tell you who published the book. The identification is with the book and its author, not the publisher.
    2. My models were New Directions Press and Grove Press.
    3. Academics will probably bristle at this thought but, at least in relation to literature, all you have to do is look at the courses that are offered featuring the literatures of other countries. Not only don’t they teach these literatures, they don’t read them.

      We certainly could use an Anthony Bourdain of literature to help peel back the curtain on other countries and cultures.

    4. Small publishers are oftentimes awful at getting their books out to people, even though of course the marketplace determines many of the limitations.
    1. The attention of the audience is a writer's most precious possession, and the value of audience attention is seldom more clear than in writing for the Web. The time, care, and expense devoted to creating and promoting a hypertext are lost if readers arrive, glance around, and click elsewhere. How can the craft of hypertext invite readers to stay, to explore, and to reflect?

      A very early statement about what was about to become the "attention economy"

    1. PDF form

      Let me know when you're done and we'll see about helping you distribute it in .epub and .mobi formats as e-books as well.

    2. Senior colleagues indicate that I should not have to balance out publishing in “traditional, peer-reviewed publications” as well as open, online spaces.

      Do your colleagues who read your work, annotate it, and comment on it not count as peer-review?

      Am I wasting my time by annotating all of this? :) (I don't think so...)

    3. academia is built on the premise (IMHO) of getting a good idea, parlaying that into a job and tenure, and waiting for death. I’ve had a lot of colleagues and acquaintances ask why I would bother blogging. Ask why I share all of this content online. Ask why I’m not afraid that someone is going to steal my ideas.

      Though all too true, this is just a painful statement for me. The entirety of our modern world is contingent upon the creation of ideas, their improvement and evolution, and their spreading. In an academic world where attribution of ideas is paramount, why wouldn't one publish quickly and immediately on one's own site (or anywhere else they might for that matter keeping in mind that it's almost trivially easy to self-publish it on one's own website nearly instantaneously)?

      Early areas of science were held back by the need to communicate by handwriting letters as the primary means of communication. Books eventually came, but the research involved and even the printing process could take decades. Now the primary means of science communication is via large (often corporate owned) journals, but even this process may take a year or more of research and then a year or more to publish and get the idea out. Why not write the ideas up and put them out on your own website and collect more immediate collaborators? Funding is already in such a sorry state that generally, even an idea alone, will not get the ball rolling.

      I'm reminded of the gospel song "This little light of mine" whose popular lyrics include: "Hide it under a bushel? No! / I'm gonna let it shine" and "Don't let Satan blow it out, / I'm gonna let it shine"

      I'm starting to worry that academia in conjunction with large corporate publishing interests are acting the role of Satan in the song which could easily be applied to ideas as well as to my little light.


      [also on boffosocko.com]

    1. “Every Cambodian... including the King has the right to express freely their view.”

      While I like the sentiment here, a lot of the power of the message comes from not only the medium, but the distribution which it receives. Many daily examples of "typical" annotation done by common people are done in a way that incredibly few will ultimately see the message. The fact that the annotations of the emperor were republished and distributed was what, in great part, gave them so much weight and value. Similarly here with the example of the King's blog or Alexandra Bell's work which was displayed in public. I hope there is more discussion about the idea of distribution in what follows.

    1. Flow is ascendant these days, for obvious reasons—but I think we neglect stock at our peril. I mean that both in terms of the health of an audience and, like, the health of a soul. Flow is a treadmill, and you can’t spend all of your time running on the treadmill. Well, you can. But then one day you’ll get off and look around and go: oh man. I’ve got nothing here. I’m not saying you should ignore flow! This is no time to hole up and work in isolation, emerging after years with your work in hand. Everybody will go: huh? Who are you? And even if they don’t—even if your exquisite opus is the talk of the tumblrs for two whole days—if you don’t have flow to plug your new fans into, you’re suffering a huge (get ready for it!) opportunity cost. You’ll have to find those fans all over again next time you emerge from your cave.

      This is a great argument for having an author platform.

    1. A blog without a publish button I’m stealing this quote from my modern friend Ryan also has a nice little idea for modern friends as being something between internet stranger and ‘actual friend’. That’s me and Ryan Ryan Dawidjan who has been pioneering this concept of open-access writing and blogging without a publish button. For a long time he has maintained a quip file called high cadence thoughts that is open access and serves as a long-running note of his thinking and ideas. It’s a less-performative version of blogging - more of a captain’s log than a broadcast blog. The distinction will come down to how you blog - some people blog in much the same way. For me however blogging is mostly performative thinking and less captain’s log. So I am looking for a space to nurture, edit in real time and evolve my thinking.

      I like the idea of a blog without a publish button. I do roughly the same thing with lots of drafts unpublished that I let aggregate content over time. The difference is that mine aren't immediately out in public for other's benefit. Though I do wonder how many might read them, comment on them, or potentially come back to read them later in a more finished form.

    1. you can then use “Sign In with Google” to access the publisher’s products, but Google does the billing, keeps your payment method secure, and makes it easy for you to manage your subscriptions all in one place.  

      I immediately wonder who owns my related subscription data? Is the publisher only seeing me as a lumped Google proxy or do they get may name, email address, credit card information, and other details?

      How will publishers be able (or not) to contact me? What effect will this have on potential customer retention?

    1. Mr Fallon denied this, saying the firm's plans would provide authors with "a more sustainable income over time".

      but really only because they're doing this as a company to protect their own income over time! Authors should make sure that their percentage of the pie doesn't decrease in this transition--that's what they need to pay attention to.

    2. However, many of Pearson's digital products are sold on a subscription basis, raising fears that authors will lose out in the way musicians have to music streaming services.
    1. The title letters of the B42 itself were left blank so people could have them rubricated—colored in—themselves.

      In some sense the Gutenberg Bible was one of the first printed coloring books!

    1. Students like the convenience of the system, said Anderson, and all have access to the most up-to-date content, instead of some students having different editions of the same textbook.

      They're also touting the most up-to-date content here, when it's an open secret that for the majority of textbooks don't really change that much from edition to edition.

    2. A key difference between inclusive access and buying print textbooks is that students effectively lease the content for the duration of their course, rather than owning the material. If students want to download the content to access it beyond the duration of their course, there is often an additional fee.

      So now we need to revisit the calculation above and put this new piece of data into the model.

      Seriously?! It's now a "rental price"?

    1. Now all information belongs to a single category, and it all pours through a single channel.

      If this is true, then I desperately want to know how I can manage to feed books through this channel too. I'd often prefer to read those...

    1. To have, but maybe not to read. Like Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time,” “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” seems to have been an “event” book that many buyers didn’t stick with; an analysis of Kindle highlights suggested that the typical reader got through only around 26 of its 700 pages. Still, Piketty was undaunted.

      Interesting use of digital highlights--determining how "read" a particular book is.

    1. How Textbooks are Produced 1 Authors, often academics, write a national version of each text. 2 Publishers customize the books for states and large districts to meet local standards, often without input from the original authors. 3 State or district textbook reviewers go over each book and ask publishers for further changes. 4 Publishers revise their books and sell them to districts and schools.

      This is an abominable process for history textbooks to be produced, particularly at mass scale. I get the need for broad standards, but for textbook companies to revise their books without the original authors is atrocious. Here again, individual teachers and schools should be able to pick their own texts if they're not going to--ideally--allow their students to pick their own books.

    2. Pearson, the publisher whose Texas textbook raises questions about the quality of Harlem Renaissance literature, said such language “adds more depth and nuance.”

      If they wanted to add more "depth and nuance" wouldn't they actually go into greater depth on the topic by adding pages instead of subtly painting it such a discouraging light?

      But Texas students will read that some critics “dismissed the quality of literature produced.”

    1. Your machine is a library not a publication device. You have copies of documents is there that you control directly, that you can annotate, change, add links to, summarize, and this is because the memex is a tool to think with, not a tool to publish with.

      I can't help but think about Raymond Lull's combinatorial rings which he used as a thinking tool. Or Giordano Bruno's revision of Lull's tools as described in De Umbris Idearum. Given their knowledge of the art of memory stemming from rhetoric in combination with his combinatorial tool, he was essentially sitting on top of an early form of a memex.

      I also can't help but think about Kicks Condor's Fraidyc.at reader tool that pulls in wiki content from TiddlyWikis and which have the potential to also make wikis publishing tools as well.

    1. Lauren Michele Jackson is a contributing writer at The New Yorker and an assistant professor of English at Northwestern University.

      This is an excellent article on its own without the context, but it is more interesting with the context on the click-thru that Jackson's first book, the essay collection “White Negroes,” was published in 2019.

      I'm curious about the editorial decision to not mention it in the mini-bio here, particularly when the piece is so pointedly about identity and authenticity.

    1. Therefore it is a great valuefor fixing a memory-image that when we read books, we strive to impress onour memory through the power of forming our mental images not only thenumber and order of verses or ideas, but at the same time the color, shape,position, and placement of the letters, where we have seen this or that writ-ten, in what part, in what location (at the top, the middle, or the bottom)we saw it positioned, in what color we observed the trace of the letter or theornamented surface of the parchment

      I've always been able to generally remember how far into a book and on what part of the page (left/right; top/middle/bottom) the thing was. This obviously is not a new phenomenon, though obviously the printing of texts in the modern age helps standardize this for students in comparison with this particular example which discusses different versions of the same text.

  5. Sep 2020
    1. But I actually think stock and flow is a useful metaphor for media in the 21st century. Here’s what I mean: Flow is the feed. It’s the posts and the tweets. It’s the stream of daily and sub-daily updates that reminds people you exist. Stock is the durable stuff. It’s the content you produce that’s as interesting in two months (or two years) as it is today. It’s what people discover via search. It’s what spreads slowly but surely, building fans over time.

      Een interessant inzicht van Robin Sloan (via) wat mij doet denken aan zowel de Zettelkasten methode van Niklas Luhman maar ook aan de opkomst van nieuwsbrieven de laatste maanden. Online publiceren begon met het maken en distribueren van "stock" sites. Semi-statische sites die soms nog terug zijn te vinden. De laatste 20 jaar zijn de flow feeds daar bij gekomen. Met name de social sites. Email en nieuwsbrieven lijken die sweet spot er tussen hebben gevonden. Enerzijds flow omdat ze periodiek verschijnen. Anderzijds stock omdat ze blijven bestaan in een online archief en in het mailarchief van de ontvanger. Een zoektocht in mijn mailbox brengt soms het antwoord boven in de vorm van een nieuwsbrief bericht van jaren geleden.

  6. Aug 2020
    1. Published:

      Publicado seis meses después de recibido en editorial.

    Tags

    Annotators

  7. Jul 2020
  8. Jun 2020
  9. May 2020
  10. Apr 2020
    1. un ensemble hétérogène mais cohérent

      en effet, cette harmonisation technique est nécessaire pour penser la filiation entre l'écriture et la production: écrire dans MS Word peut être aussi éloigné de l'objet de publication que le manuscrit rédigé à la main (pas de cohérence), alors que l'écriture en Markdown ou LaTeX s'inscrit dans la logique fluide d'un système de publication nativement numérique comme la chaîne de Quire ou de Stylo (cohérent du premier jet à la publication finale).

    2. Nous pouvons constater qu’il y a un lien entre les formes produites et les moyens mis en œuvre pour les produire.

      dans une perspective nativement numérique, écrire et produire sont alors intrinsèquement liés.

      par exemple: dans le modèle du manuscrit rédigé à la main ou tapé à la dactylo, le processus de production est au mieux analogue (consistant à reproduire des lettres que l'auteur a posées sur papier), au pire complètement hétérogène à l'acte d'écriture (il faut prendre le processus du début pour en faire un livre publiable).

    1. There are “literally zero hoops,” one user in 4chan’s /pol/ forum told another in 2015. “Just sign up for Kindle Direct Publishing and publish away. It’s shocking how simple it is, actually.” Even Breivik, at the start of the 1,500-page manifesto that accompanied his terrorist attacks, suggested that his followers use KDP’s paperback service, among others, to publicize his message.
  11. Mar 2020
    1. Publishing Fee

      Publishing Output recognized

      • 2019
      • 2020
    2. he Publishing Fee allows for the Corresponding Authors to publish their articles as OA articles for free in all Hybrid Journals in 2019.

      Hinweis über Hybrid Journals, Elegibility?

    1. This could occur because, even if the institution’s users are using the content at the same or even higher rate, that usage may not be able to be attributed to the institution. Users will no longer have to pass through an authentication system to get to the content and so any off-campus, mobile device, etc. usage may end up untraced to the institution.

      This is a very important point to consider.

  12. Feb 2020
  13. Jan 2020
  14. Dec 2019
  15. Oct 2019
    1. Even more troubling is the state of evaluation for digital scholarship, now an extensively used resource for scholars across the humanities: 40.8% of departments indoctorate-­granting institutions report no experience evaluating refereed articles in electronic format, and 65.7% report no experience evaluating monographs in electronic format.

      This is startling!

    1. However, in the present era of publishing, those rights are consistently being called into question. Gennaro (2012) is particularly frank about how copyright law has come to privilege publishers at the expense of those who created the work in the first place: ‘Once you have transferred copyright to a journal [in order to publish] you cannot ethically use the words that you have written in another journal article; you no longer own those words’ (p. 109). Nevertheless, Bently (1994) remarks on Roland Barthes’ contention that once text has been published, the words no longer belong to that author or anyone else for that matter.

      What about publishing to your own site...or from your own site?

  16. Aug 2019
  17. Jul 2019
    1. Kahle has been critical of Google's book digitization, especially of Google's exclusivity in restricting other search engines' digital access to the books they archive. In a 2011 talk Kahle described Google's 'snippet' feature as a means of tip-toeing around copyright issues, and expressed his frustration with the lack of a decent loaning system for digital materials. He said the digital transition has moved from local control to central control, non-profit to for-profit, diverse to homogeneous, and from "ruled by law" to "ruled by contract". Kahle stated that even public-domain material published before 1923, and not bound by copyright law, is still bound by Google's contracts and requires permission to be distributed or copied. Kahle reasoned that this trend has emerged for a number of reasons: distribution of information favoring centralization, the economic cost of digitizing books, the issue of library staff without the technical knowledge to build these services, and the decision of the administrators to outsource information services
    1. The position of machine products in the civilized scheme of consumption serves to point out the nature of the relation which subsists between the canon of conspicuous waste and the code of proprieties in consumption. Neither in matters of art and taste proper, nor as regards the current sense of the serviceability of goods, does this canon act as a principle of innovation or initiative. It does not go into the future as a creative principle which makes innovations and adds new items of consumption and new elements of cost. The principle in question is, in a certain sense, a negative rather than a positive law. It is a regulative rather than a creative principle. It very rarely initiates or originates any usage or custom directly. Its action is selective only. Conspicuous wastefulness does not directly afford ground for variation and growth, but conformity to its requirements is a condition to the survival of such innovations as may be made on other grounds. In whatever way usages and customs and methods of expenditure arise, they are all subject to the selective action of this norm of reputability; and the degree in which they conform to its requirements is a test of their fitness to survive in the competition with other similar usages and customs.
  18. May 2019