This response to his reply post is mere to indicate/document the process and product I appreciate in his post. I’ll have a couple of longer posts unpacking my thinking. I already recorded a quick video response.
I value the annotations that Chris left behind in my post using Hypothesis. This, in and of itself, is a value, but the real exciting part for me was bringing these comments back to the post on his site. Sometimes I worry that the great discussion in Hypothesis will sometimes only be visible to those that know how to install and maneuver the system. Pulling these comments out and into the post allows more viewers to connect, while integrating this content into all of your other breadcrumbs left online.
As an example, Chris had a lot of comments and questions in my post that I think were excellent, and I want to be able to share with others, think about some more, and ask (myself) the hard questions.
I’ll share some of these at the end of this reply post.
The last thing that I really like about Chris’s post is the key that he provides to contextualize his responses. This framing of meta-annotation gives me (& others) another lens some context for the review.
While unpacking this read post response from Chris, I dream of an opportunity to better work Hypothesis into my workflow. I use it in classes, but don’t use it enough in my personal/professional workflow. I’d like to have the following workflow:
- Bookmark interesting posts in Wallabag or some other read-it-later service
- Sit at computer to consume content while annotating using Hypothesis
- Easily pull all of these annotations into one block of HTML or markdown that I can copy/paste. This may already be possible.
- Copy/paste to my breadcrumbs site as a read, reply, or bookmark post.
- I can then edit in some commentary to the materials I copy/paste from the Hypothesis output.
- Publish. Profit. 🙂
The comments from Chris, and some of my responses. I’m still trying to figure out the best way to copy/paste the HTML over. I think it looks horrible below:
Which is more likely: someone a 100 years from now delving into my life via my personal website that aggregated everything or scholars attempting to piece it all back together from hundreds of other sites? Even with advanced AI techniques, I think the former is far more likely.
Of course I also think about what @Undine is posting about cats on Twitter or perhaps following #marginaliamonday and cats, and they’re at least taking things to a whole new level of scholarship.
[also on boffosocko.com]
Could you pull all of these posts, annotations, and social media posts, put them into some machine learning, and make predictions about behaviors?
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]
Hopefully I can return the favor and inspire someone else.
Mentions