We live in a current moment where, to get things done, we have to deploy terms in ways that capture the imagination of decision makers and the public in ways that affect change
This connects to my Dante topic because medieval manuscripts also had to be presented in ways that grabbed attention. The way a manuscript looked could influence how seriously people took the text. So marketing knowledge is not just digital, it existed back then too.
While tempting to store meaningful information in formatting like color codes or bolded text, this is a very bad idea. Formatting gets easily broken between software versions and applications.
This reminds me of Dante manuscripts because from what I have been learning so far, the pages can be really decorative and visually interesting, but that does not automatically make them easy to analyze. Good looking does not always mean simple to understand.
There’s no perfect format choice that applies to every project, but there are some trade offs to keep in mind.
This connects to my Dante manuscript topic because there is no perfect manuscript copy either. Each copy of Dante is different and each version has trade offs. There were choices about spelling, commentary, and what sources or references to include. Choosing a database format today is basically the modern version of choosing a manuscript format back then.
When working with legacy data, or even on your own large projects, you’ll need to begin by gathering many datasets into a harmonious collection
This relates to my Dante topic because modern Dante manuscript research is basically legacy data. Scholars compare multiple medieval copies from different libraries, and have to bring them together to analyze patterns. That is similar to what this line is saying about harmonizing datasets.
data can’t ever truly be “raw”(Gitelman 2013)
This connects to my Dante manuscripts topic because manuscripts were never raw either. Every copy of Dante had interpretation built into it. Scribes made choices at every stage of copying, so the medieval text is not a pure or untouched version. It is already processed knowledge.
These layers represent an accretion of practices, decisions, and compromises by a host of different agents, by no means all archaeological, many of whom will be unaware of each other.
This connects to my Dante manuscript topic because medieval manuscripts also show layers of choices by different scribes, readers, and owners who never met each other but still affected the final text
he digital 'cognitive artefacts' that archaeologists use – for example, digital cameras, total stations, laser scanners, proton magnetometers, X-ray fluorescence machines, and their ilk – all encapsulate in various ways a mixture of techniques, calculations, and interventions that they employ on our behalf to explore, reveal, capture, and characterise archaeological objects
This helps me think about Dante manuscripts because scribes also built in techniques and choices into the handwritten page. Their individual decisions like layout, spelling, and commentary are basically interventions that guide how future readers understand Dante. So the manuscript itself contains layers of knowledge from the person who made it.
Cognitive artifacts are … important to study, not only because they make us more powerful and versatile thinkers, but also because they shape and transform our cognitive system and cognitive practices
This connects to my Dante manuscript topic because medieval manuscripts did the exact same thing. They shaped thinking and interpretation in the medieval world. Reading Dante through handwritten manuscripts made people think differently, and that shows how cognitive artefacts in the past also transformed how humans understood information.
what makes an object relevant and useful in relation to the production of scientific knowledge … is not just the object itself, but the knowledge involved in recognizing an object for what it is and how it can be used
This matters for my Dante research because medieval manuscripts were not just pages with words. Readers had to have enough background knowledge to actually understand Dante, his references to classical authors, and the symbolism he used. The manuscript only works as knowledge if the person reading it knows how to use it. That is the same logic this line is talking about.
the tools we create, adopt, refine and employ have the effect of augmenting and scaffolding our thought and analysis
This connects to my Dante manuscript topic because manuscripts were literally the medieval version of this. Scribes were creating and refining the physical text, and by doing that they were shaping how later readers thought about meaning and ideas. So manuscripts were tools that also shaped analysis, just like digital tools shape analysis today.