Dublin-2009-05-transcript
From IntereditionWiki
Overview of different sorts of users:
KvD: line from data that we want to edit, up to edition for wider audience / cultural artifact
EV: 4 categories of users recently described. 1) concerned with single ideal text - literary scholars, historians, etc. 4) broad user who wants to read text for aesthetic reasons. Both of these are most interested in a single text.
KvD: But these are two different groups. Same product, different dissemination in mind. Learned readers & general readers are 2 different audiences. [EV&DA discuss differences between groups] So what should we do to target the general readers? [Provide a single accessible text.] But that is content/product. What should we be disseminating? [EV&DA discuss what the product should be for users.] Learned readers want digital or print; general readers could have print on demand of the single text. But version of text for readers is derived from the "elite" scholarly edition.
DA: But we seem to be focusing so far on production of a single text; we also need to deal with collections of texts, sources, pictures, films, whatever. Or a text, or a collection of manuscripts.
EZ: 2 types of intelligent uses of thse editions. Scholars doing active work on them, intellectuals using them for their own pursuits.
EV: But what about the taxpayers?
EZ: Sure there are more, but there is a distinction between these 2 classes of readers. Either you're making a contribution ot the scholarship itself, or you're using it for personal reasons or contribution to another field entirely.
KvD: ICT help -> scholars as editors -> scholars as users, general readers
DA: cultural shift on the Internet - users become contributors, feeding back to the scholars as editors. [diagram] Here we can start to fill in the places for specific tools.
EV: Now we're drafting a generalization of the contemnt of scholarly edition, whereas the operation of the generalization lies in the specific cultural / use context. You won't get nearly as many user/contributors to an edition in Dutch or Flemish literature than in English.
KvD: We're not trying to model edition, we're trying to identify target groups. Scholars as editors need many more tools and ICT help than the general readers.
TP: Would start not with ICT help but basic content. Scholars start with content in archive or digital libraries, then work on this text with help of ICT tools. Then the flow goes on.
DA: An approach to targets of dissemination is that scholarly editing is part of a chain. We are chained to each other for good or bad. Dependent on each other. Push/pull (IT) dynamic. Scholar wants to push, users want to pull. Scholars might be team that collects old Polish literature, establishes a corpus. Users can be historians of Polish language, translators, etc. Not part of edition process but exploit the primary product.
DA: Then role of publishers, which is disappearing or being replaced by other functions. May be assumed by scholar or by readers.
SS: Re general readers, this could feed into a publishing lifecycle. May not be interested in general edition but would be interested in a reading text. We need something in our lifecycle with digital editions so that people who do this work can get credit. Normally this is through peer review etc. [KvD: where do publishers come in in this chain?] Lots of publishers in Ireland who are small, but do perform function for us in scholarly lifecycle. Many of us who put our goods on the web are not getting the same amount of credit. So publishers could go pretty much anywhere in the chart. Publishing could be new or old kinds. A lot of them are trying to figure out how to embrace the new, cater to traditional audiences, deal with devices...Them and libraries. Who is going to keep all of our electronic stuff after all? Seems that we really need to involve those two communities.
TP: In each step of the chain the digital library could try to preserve the output. Could be intermediary between each step - provide initial data, provide edited content, provide reading text.
DA: tendency to knit together certain kinds of texts based on nation-state. So certain texts get a lot more attention on a national level, and other projects get ignord if they don't fit in with this national vision.
SS: But we're talking about content issues, and is that what our focus should be? If we provide tools & framework, and if I want to do a really obscure writer, that's my business. If Edward want sto do Ibsen or Shakespeare, great. Does it matter to us how big the projects are?
EV: But as long as you involve the 5 people in the model that's OK. If there are 5 people not interested in creating contributing community but wants to be receivers, if you design a model that leaves them out, you leave a lot out of this project.
SS: We need to think about not so much content, but ways that communities will ant to create & interact with these edtions, whether 5 or 500. If we need to have an interface that allows a community contribution, it's the functionality that's important not the obscurity of scholarship.
EV: Why I want to do away with the word "scholars". Contributers, users, readers. Whether scholars or not, who cares? They use the same technology.
SS: But then I'm wondering if there's an editorial function. Even Wikipedia has an editorial function. Is there a superuser there?
EV: Depends on rights you give to users.
SS: So maybe the word "editor" should remain. Need a gatekeeping function to retain control over the projects in this model.
EZ: If we take off the first word "scholars" and "general", what's the difference between a user and a reader?
EV: User needs processing tools, reader needs visualization.
DA: Would all be easier if we were talking about print editions. trustworthiness issues
EV: Peter used to want to do away with single text in an edition, around 10 years ago; 4 years he realized he was wrong about this - that you need a single text.
KvD: but do we have any influence on general readers outside this part of the model?
EV: influencing in what way?
KvD: Keeping the readers. Providing them with trustworthy texts. Do we want to find another way to influence the general readers apart from this chain, as scholars?
DA: Chain okay but only part of the picture. If we play missionary we aren't recognizing autonomy of users.
KvD: But what are we doing? We want to facilitate the top part of the chain, but what our practical approach to general readers need to be? Hoping we can leave it out.
EV: Can only point general readership toward the fact that there is something in it for them as well.
EZ: Naive to assume we can ignore general readers. Who are they? Plenty of intellectuals.
Me: We're not talking about distinguishing between rubes and savants. [try to limit things to tools not for general readers]
DA: Collaborative tools for users to annotate, criticize, etc. would then be excluded. Kind of tools that can be glued together quite easily.
KvD: Draw the line under "users"; because of feedback loop we leave room for general readers, but not directly address tools for them.
EV: But as soon as a reader starts to contribute he/she becomes a contributor or a user.
TP: Reader and user will have different user interfaces anyway. Roles change but readers cannot necessarily become user.
DA: Policy, authority, gatekeeping, trustworthiness, how far should people change roles. Policy is explicit or implicit in project, but is there either way. Should policy for editing be in there?
KvD: Include advice in roadmap to inform general readers of all the possibilities. That is dissemination fo what we've been developing.
[more fleshing out of what a reader is, and where the boundaries are blurred]
KvD: have responsibility to disseminate not only the technical stuff but also the editorial choices. Necessary to be clearer and more elaborate about the "why" and "how" in scholarly editions.
DA: practical issue for dissemination: how do you make the correct connection between isolated scholars and money sources? How do you get funded? How do you influence funding schemes?
KvD: hope Interedition will result in international proposals. That will in turn have an influence on national situations and countries, and on funding & willingness. Sort of a clear picture about the different areas, maybe it's time for lunch?