TiddlyWiki

<<tabs txtMainTab\nTimeline Timeline TabTimeline\nAll "All tiddlers" TabMoreAll\n? "Missing tiddlers" TabMoreMissing\n! "Orphaned tiddlers" TabMoreOrphans\n>>

function addCloseMessageLink(args) {\n var msgArea = document.getElementById("messageArea");\n if (msgArea.childNodes.length == 0) {\n linkDiv = createTiddlyElement(msgArea,"div",null,null,null);\n link = createTiddlyElement(linkDiv,"a",null,null,"[close x]");\n link.setAttribute("href", "javascript:clearMessage();");\n link.setAttribute("style", "float:right; font-weight:normal;");\n }\n return args;\n}\n\nAspects.addBefore(this,"displayMessage",addCloseMessageLink);\n

//Thanks to Roman Porotnikov\n//http://www.jroller.com/page/deep/20030701\n\n//NB this systemConfig needs to be evaluated before other ones \n//that use the Aspects so the name starts with "."\n//since they're loaded alphabetically\n//should really put it into the main source code, but\n//wanted to keep everything upgrade-proof\n\nAspects = new Object();\n\nAspects.addBefore = function(obj, fname, before) {\n var oldFunc = obj[fname];\n obj[fname] = function() {\n return oldFunc.apply(this, before(arguments, oldFunc, this));\n };\n};\n\nAspects.addAfter = function(obj, fname, after) {\n var oldFunc = obj[fname];\n obj[fname] = function() {\n return after(oldFunc.apply(this, arguments), arguments, oldFunc, this);\n };\n};\n\nAspects.addAround = function(obj, fname, around) {\n var oldFunc = obj[fname];\n obj[fname] = function() {\n return around(arguments, oldFunc, this);\n };\n};

store.addNotification(null,refreshMenu);

if (!config.options.txtDefaultTiddlers) {\n config.options.txtDefaultTiddlers = "";\n}\n\nfunction retrieveLayoutFromCookie(args) {\n var start = config.options.txtDefaultTiddlers;\n\n if(!window.location.hash && start.length > 0) {\n args[1] = start;\n }\n return args;\n}\n\nfunction saveLayoutInCookie(args) {\n var tiddlerContainer = document.getElementById("tiddlerDisplay");\n var visibleTiddlers = tiddlerContainer.childNodes;\n var defaultTiddlerSpec = "";\n for (i=0;i<visibleTiddlers.length;i++) {\n if (visibleTiddlers[i].id) {\n defaultTiddlerSpec += ' [['+ visibleTiddlers[i].id.substring(7) +']] ';\n }\n }\n config.options.txtDefaultTiddlers = defaultTiddlerSpec;\n saveOptionCookie('txtDefaultTiddlers');\n return args;\n}\n\nAspects.addAfter(this, "displayTiddler", saveLayoutInCookie);\nAspects.addBefore(this, "displayTiddlers", retrieveLayoutFromCookie);\nAspects.addAfter(this, "closeTiddler", saveLayoutInCookie);\n

Aspects.addBefore(this, "onClickTagOpenAll", function(args) {\n closeAllTiddlers();\n return args;\n});

config.macros.list["untagged"] = {prompt: "Tiddlers that are not tagged"};\n\nconfig.macros.list.untagged.handler = function(params)\n{\n//displayMessage("Building list of untagged tiddlers");\n var results = [];\n for(var t in store.tiddlers) {\n var tiddler = store.tiddlers[t];\n if(tiddler.getTags() == "")\n results.push(t);\n }\n results.sort();\n return results;\n}

dissertiddler\n

<<tagCloud systemConfig>>

The plugins for this dissertiddler are:\n<<listTags plugins title *>>

// //''Name:'' list tags plugin\n// //''Author:'' SteveRumsby\n\n// //''Syntax:''\n// //<< {{{listTags tag //sort// //prefix//}}} >>\n\n// //''Description:''\n// //Generate a list of tiddlers tagged with the given tag.\n// //If both //sort// and //prefix// are omitted the list is sorted in increasing order of title, with one tiddler per line.\n// //If //sort// is specified the list is sorted in increasing order of the given tiddler property. Possible properties are: title. modified, modifier.\n// //If //prefix// is specified the given string is inserted before the tiddler title. The insertion happens before the text is wikified. This can be used to generated bulleted or numbered lists.\n\n// //''Examples:''\n// //<< {{{listTags usage}}} >> - generate a plain list of all tiddlers tagged with tag //usage//, sorted by title\n// //<< {{{listTags usage modified}}} >> - the same list, with most recently modified tiddlers last\n// //<< {{{listTags usage title #}}} >> - generate a numbered list if tiddlers tagged with //usage//, sorted by title\n\n// //''Code section:''\nversion.extensions.listTags = {major: 0, minor: 1, revision: 0, date: new Date(2005, 6,16)};\n\nconfig.macros.listTags = {\ntext: "Hello"\n};\n\nconfig.macros.listTags.handler = function(place,macroName,params)\n{\n var tagged = store.getTaggedTiddlers(params[0], params[1]);\n var string = "";\n for(var r=0;r<tagged.length;r++)\n {\n if(params[2]) string = string + params[2] + " ";\n string = string + "[[" + tagged[r].title + "]]\sn";\n }\n wikify(string, place, null, null);\n}

// //''Name:'' tagCloud plugin\n// //''Author:'' ClintChecketts\n\n// //''Syntax:'' << {{{tagCloud //tags//}}} >>\n// //Any //tags// listed as arguments are omitted from the cloud.\n\n// //''Code section''\nversion.extensions.tagCloud = {major: 0, minor: 2, revision: 0, date: new Date(2005,7,16)};\n\nconfig.macros.tagCloud = {noTags: "No tag cloud created because there are no tags."};\n\nconfig.macros.tagCloud.handler = function(place,macroName,params) {\n \nvar tagCloudWrapper = createTiddlyElement(place,"div",null,"tagCloud",null);\n\nvar tags = store.getTags();\nvar tagsNoParams = new Array();\nfor (t=0; t<tags.length; t++) {\n var keepTag = true;\n for (p=0;p<params.length; p++) if (tags[t][0] == params[p]) tags[t][0] = "";\n// if (keepTag) tagsNoParams.push(tags[t][0]);\n}\n//tags = tagsNoParams;\n\n\n if(tags.length == 0) \n createTiddlyElement(tagCloudWrapper,"span",null,null,this.noTags);\n //Findout the maximum number of tags\n var mostTags = 0;\n for (t=0; t<tags.length; t++) {\n if (tags[t][1] > mostTags) mostTags = tags[t][1];\n }\n //divide the mostTags into 4 segments for the 4 different tagCloud sizes\n var tagSegment = mostTags / 4;\n\n for (t=0; t<tags.length; t++) {\n var tagCloudElement = createTiddlyElement(tagCloudWrapper,"span",null,null,null);\n tagCloudWrapper.appendChild(document.createTextNode(" "));\n var theTag = createTiddlyButton(tagCloudElement,tags[t][0],this.tooltip + tags[t][0],onClickTag,"tagCloudtag tagCloud" + (Math.round(tags[t][1]/tagSegment)+1));\n theTag.setAttribute("tag",tags[t][0]);\n }\n\n};\n\nsetStylesheet(".tagCloud li{height: 1.8em; float:left; margin: 3px; list-style: none;}.tagCloud1{font-size: 1.2em;}.tagCloud2{font-size: 1.4em;}.tagCloud3{font-size: 1.6em;}.tagCloud4{font-size: 1.8em;}.tagCloud5{font-size: 1.8em;font-weight: bold;}.clearer{clear:left;}#mainMenu .tagCloud{ font-size: .5em; margin: 0; padding: 0; font-weight: bold; } #mainMenu .tagCloudtag:hover{ text-decoration: underline; }","tagCloudsStyles");

[img[adventure|cyoa.png]]\n\nread as much or as little as you like, in whatever order you like. There is only one possible ending (mine), but its supposed to be about the journey, not the destination, right? so get there your own way.

// //''Name:'' Favicon\n// //''Author:'' AlanHecht\n// //''Type:'' SystemConfig\n\n// //''Description:'' favicon allows you to stipulate the location of a webpage icon (also known as a favorite icon or favicon) for your TiddlyWiki. The location of the icon is absolute (meaning that you need to give the full URL path, including the "http:"). This allows you to use any favicon icon that exists on the Web -- even if it is on a totally different server.\n\n// //''Directions:'' <<tiddler StartupBehaviorDirections>> \n// //Then, in the code section below, change the line beginning with {{{n.href}}} so that the value inside the quotation marks is the absolute URL for the icon file (usually named favicon.ico).\n\n// //''Notes:'' Many web browsers -- with the exception of Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) -- load favicons in the browser address bar automatically. However, IE users will not see your favicon unless they 1) have IE set as the computer's default browser, and 2) create a favorite (aka bookmark) for your site (and even then, IE sometimes still doesn't play nice).\n\n// //''Related Links:'' for more information on creating favicons, visit ''[[this page|http://www.chami.com/html-kit/services/favicon/]]'' which also has a tool to convert an image of your choice into a favicon file.\n\n// //''Revision History:''\n// // v0.1.0 (18 July 2005) - initial release\n\n// //''Code section:''\nversion.extensions.favicon = {major: 0, minor: 1, revision: 0, date: new Date("Jul 18, 2005")};\nvar n = document.createElement("link"); \nn.rel = "shortcut icon"; \nn.href = "http://www.tiddlywiki.com/favicon.ico"; \ndocument.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(n);

// //''Name:'' Collapse plugin\n// //''Author:'' Alan Hechts\n\n// // __Macro for the toolbar button__ \nconfig.views.wikified.toolbarCollapse = {text: "collapse", tooltip: "Collapse this tiddler", toggleText: "expand", toggleTooltip: "Expand this tiddler"};\n\nconfig.macros.toolbarCollapse = {};\n\nconfig.macros.toolbarCollapse.handler = function(place,macroName,params)\n{\n lingo = config.views.wikified;\n createTiddlyButton(place,lingo.toolbarCollapse.text,lingo.toolbarCollapse.tooltip,onClickToolbarCollapse);\n}\n\n// //__Event handler on toolbar button press__\nfunction onClickToolbarCollapse(e)\n{\n if (!e) var e = window.event;\n title = this.parentNode.id.substr(7);\n if(title)\n {\n var viewerStatus = document.getElementById("viewer" + title).style.display\n var displayStyle;\n var buttonText;\n var buttonTooltip;\n var lingo = config.views\n lingo = lingo.wikified;\n if(viewerStatus == "none")\n {\n displayStyle = "block";\n buttonText = lingo.toolbarCollapse.text;\n buttonTooltip = lingo.toolbarCollapse.tooltip;\n }\n else\n {\n displayStyle = "none";\n buttonText = lingo.toolbarCollapse.toggleText;\n buttonTooltip = lingo.toolbarCollapse.toggleTooltip;\n }\n document.getElementById("viewer" + title).style.display = displayStyle; \n document.getElementById("footer" + title).style.display = displayStyle; \n this.innerHTML = buttonText;\n this.title = buttonTooltip;\n }\n}

[img[http://www.flickr.com/apps/badge/badge_iframe.gne?zg_bg_color=ffffff&zg_person_id=41908066@N00]]\n\n<html>\n<a href="http://www.flickr.com" style="text-align:center;">www.<strong style="color:#3993ff">flick<span style="color:#ff1c92">r</span></strong>.com</a><br>\n<iframe style="background-color:#ffffff; border-color:#ffffff; border:none;" width="113" height="151" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.flickr.com/apps/badge/badge_iframe.gne?zg_bg_color=ffffff&zg_person_id=35468148136%40N01" title="Flickr Badge"></iframe>\n</html>

title: The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe\nurl: http://www.english.uga.edu/~hypertxt/eisenstein.html\nauthors: Elizabeth Eisenstein\ncitation: The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe\nyear: 1983

...from feminist methodology\ngilles\nothers...

Cognitive work analysis (CWA) is a turn in classification theory that follows the holistic nature of domain analysis while also providing it practical structure. Mai (Unpublished manuscript) provides a set of practices for employing domain analysis. Mai proposes CWA as a practical guide to domain analysis. He suggests that cognitive work analysis can reveal information-behavior constraints in different domains.

While [[user-centered design]] values the context of information and the capability of the user to form meaning themselves through their information activities, some scholars criticize its [[subjectivity]] and lack of [[practices]] ([[Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995]]; [[Mai,unpublished]]). Domain analysis has been proposed as a holistic approach to [[classification]]. [[Hjørland (2002)]] proposes eleven approaches to to [[domain analysis]] that he claims can produce domain-specific knowledge in information science. [[domain analysis]] incorporates results from research on [[indexing and retrieving]], [[bibliometric studies]], [[historical studies]], [[epistemological and critical studies]], and [[terminological studies]] to inform classification scheme design. These eleven approaches are a collection of [[classification]] approaches tied by their ability to inform each other in a way that can benefit a resulting classification scheme. [[domain analysis]] uses a particular community of practice or domain as its unit of analysis about which a cataloger should gather information - including information about the history of the field, users, producers, etc. - in order to best organize information for that community. [[Hjørland, 1995; Hjørland, 1998)]] also draws upon [[activity theorists]], highlighting the complex social aspect to [[meaning-making]] through action to frame his holistic approach to classification. Despite its holistic nature, [[domain analysis]] lacks clear [[practices]]. Hjørland outlines eleven approaches, but these are guiding principles at best, certainly not steps or practices for building or evaluating a categorization scheme. [[cognitive work analysis]] is an attempt to add practical structure to domain analysis.\n\n

Type the text for 'practices'

blogs, wikis, social tagging, syndication, aggregation, instant messaging, and group-forming tools are being used more and more within and to subvert traditional [[knowledge management]] systems because they get the job done. Different tools help break molds that can stymie information as it flows and evolves. Different tools also help create new relationships between people and information and between people themselves. These new tools recognize different interaction modes (synchronous and asynchronous) and different models (read, edit, comment, publish, bookmark, etc.) that are facilitate sense-making and use in many different context whether work, or otherwise. This emphasizes the importance of socially marking up data to create new layers of personal and group metadata that may be desirable or even required to facilitate sense-making.

some organizations that traditionally follow authority-driven [[knowledge management]] paradigms are incorporating participatory tools that enable users to contribute their own interpretations to the organization.\n\nCleveland\nPowerhouse\nPenn\nSteve\nTraumwerk\nMoma podcasting\n

This dissertation will examine the ability of non-specialist, decentralized groups to promote [[collective meaning-making]] and support preservation in cultural arenas. To explore this problematic challenge to authority, I will address three questions. The primary research question is (1) how can interactive tools change [[inclusive knowledge management]] and knowledge production? To open the black box of building interactive tools in scholarship and curation, I will ask two supplemental questions: (2) what is the role of the expert in [[preservation and meaning-making]]; and (3) what are the goals of [[curators and scholars]]? I will address these questions by triangulating [[interview]] responses, [[reflexive personal narratives]] about building [[interactive archiving tools]], and [[content analysis]] of user interaction with an interface for an [[online digital archive]] that I will design, build and implement.\n\n

\n ”...let us save what remains: not by vaults and locks which fence them from the public eye and use in consigning them to the waste of time, but by such a multiplication of copies, as shall place them beyond the reach of accident.”\nThomas Jefferson to Ebenezer Hazard, Philadelphia, February 18, 1791 ([[Eisenstein, 1983]]).

<<listTags methods title *>>

<<listTags methodology title *>>

\n* {\n margin: 0px;\n padding: 0px;\n font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;\n}\n\nbody {\n background-color: #fff; color: #333;\n}\n\n#header {\n color: #ff0084;\n padding: 20px 20px 10px 10px;\n height: auto;\n}\n\n#titleline{\n background-color: transparent;\n color: #0063dc;\n padding:0;\n}\n\n#displayArea {\n margin: 1em 13em 0em 16em;\n}\n\na {\n color: #e9e9e9;\n text-decoration: none;\n background: transparent;\n}\n\na:hover, a:active {\n color: #ff0084;\n text-decoration: none;\n}\n\n/* HEADER ========================================================== */\n\n#siteTitle {\n font-size: 30px;\n}\n\n#siteSubtitle {\n font-size: 13px;\n padding-left: 10px;\n color: #ff0084;\n}\n\n#titleLine a {\n color: #0063dc;\n}\n\n#titleLine a:hover {\n color: #ff0084;\n}\n\n/* SIDEBARS ========================================================== */\n\n#mainMenu{\n float: left;\n width: 175px;\n margin-top: -8px;\n}\n\n#mainMenu h1,#mainMenu h2,#mainMenu h3{\n color: #ff0084;\n font-weight: bold;\n padding: 2px 0px 2px 0px;\n font-size: 13px;\n letter-spacing: .1em;\n border-bottom: dotted 1px #ccc;\n background-color: transparent;\n display: block;\n}\n\n#mainMenu a.button,#mainMenu a.tiddlyLink {\n line-height: 1.75em;\n font-size: 12px;\n color: #0063dc;\n text-transform: none;\n}\n\n#mainMenu a.externalLink{\n display: block;\n float: left;\n margin: 0 0 1em 0;\n padding: 0;\n text-align: left;\n line-height: 1em;\n font-size: 11px;\n color: #999;\n text-decoration: none;\n}\n\n#mainMenu a.button:hover,#mainMenu a.tiddlyLink:hover, #mainMenu a.externalLink:hover {\n color: #ff0084;\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n#mainMenu input{\n display: block;\n margin:1em 0 0 auto;\n}\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#contentWrapper #mainMenu a.tab{\n border: dotted 1px #ccc ;\n border-bottom: 0;\n font-weight: bold;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #mainMenu a.tabSelected{\n padding-bottom: 4px;\n background-color: #fff;\n color: #ff0084;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #mainMenu a.tabUnselected{\n padding-bottom: 3px;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #mainMenu .tabset{\n border-bottom: dotted 1px #ccc;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #mainMenu .tabContents{\n font-size: 11px;\n background-color: transparent;\n border: 0;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #mainMenu .tabContents a{\n line-height: 1.5em;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #mainMenu .tabContents a:hover{\n color: #ff0084;\n}\n\n#mainMenu .sliderPanel{\n border: dotted 1px #ccc;\n margin: 3px;\n padding: 5px 5px 15px 5px;\n font-size: 11px;\n text-align: left;\n line-height: 1em;\n}\n\n#mainMenu .sliderPanel a{\n font-weight: normal;\n font-size: 11px;\n}\n\n#mainMenu .sliderPanel input{\n display: inline;\n}\n\n#optionsPanel {\n display: none;\n padding: 4px;\n font-size: 11px;\n border: dotted 1px #ccc;\n text-align: left;\n}\n\n#optionsPanel div{\n margin: 5px 0;\n}\n\n#optionsPanel a {\n display: inline;\n font-weight: normal;\n}\n\n#optionsPanel a:hover, #optionsPanel a:active {\n color: #ff0084;\n}\n\n#optionsPanel input {\n float: right;\n}\n\n#sidebar {\n float: right;\n width: 16em;\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n#sidebarOptions{\n display:none\n}\n\n#sidebarTabs{\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #sidebar a.tab {\n font-weight: bold;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #sidebar a.tabSelected {\n font-size: 16px;\n color: #ff0084 !important;\n background-color: #fff !important;\n padding: 2px 4px 4px 4px;\n border: 1px solid #e6e6e6;\n border-bottom: 0;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #sidebar a.tabUnselected {\n font-size: 14px;\n color: #0063dc !important;\n background-color: #e6e6e6 !important;\n padding: 2px 4px 2px 4px;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #sidebar a.tab:hover {\n color: #ff0084 !important;\n text-decoration: none;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #sidebar .tabContents{\n border: 1px solid #e6e6e6;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #sidebar .tabContents a{\n color: #0063dc;\n line-height: 1.6em;\n margin-left: -.5em;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #sidebar .tabContents a:hover{\n color: #ff0084;\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper #sidebar .tabContents a:before{\n color: #ff0084;\n font-weight: bold;\n content: "» ";\n margin-right: .5em;\n}\n\n#popup{\n color: #000;\n background-color: #eee;\n text-align: left;\n width: 180px;\n border-left:solid 1px #ccc;\n border-top:solid 1px #ccc;\n}\n\n#popup hr{\n border: 0;\n border-top: solid 1px #e6e6e6;\n height: 1px;\n color: #e6e6e6;\n width: 98%;\n\n}\n\n#popup a{\n color: #ff0084;\n background-color: #fff;\n}\n\n#popup a:hover{\n color: #0063dc;\n background-color: #fff;\n}\n\n/* SIDEBAR (RIGHT) =============================================================*/\n/* SIDEBAR (RIGHT) =============================================================*/\n/* SIDEBAR (RIGHT) =============================================================*/\n/* SIDEBAR (RIGHT) =============================================================*/\n\n\n#sidebarTabs {\n padding: 8px 0 0 10px;\n}\n\n#sidebarTabs a {\n/* color: #fff;*/\n padding: 2px 8px 1px 8px;\n height: 22px;\n}\n\n#sidebarTabs a:hover {\n}\n\n#sidebarContent {\n padding: 0 10px 10px 10px;\n font-size: 11px;\n clear: both;\n border-left: solid 1px #e6e6e6;\n}\n\n#sidebarContent br{\n display: none;\n}\n\n.sidebarSubHeading {\n padding: 8px 0 0 0;\n display: block;\n width: 100%;\n color: #000;\n}\n\n#sidebarContent a {\n display: block;\n margin: 5px 0 1px 12px;\n}\n\n#sidebarContent span.arrows {\n float: left;\n font-weight: bold;\n color: #ff0084;\n margin-top: 5px;\n}\n\n#sidebarContent a:hover {\n}\n\n/*===================================================================*/\n/*===================================================================*/\n/*===================================================================*/\n/*===================================================================*/\n/*===================================================================*/\n\n#contentWrapper a.tab {\n font-weight: normal;\n display: inline;\n margin: 0px 1px; \n}\n\n#contentWrapper a.tabSelected {\n background-color: #fff !important;\n padding: 2px 4px 2px 4px;\n border: 1px solid #999;\n border-bottom: 0;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper a.tabUnselected {\n background-color: #e6e6e6 !important;\n padding: 2px 4px 0px 4px;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .selectedTiddler a.tabSelected {\n color: #ff0084 !important;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .selectedTiddler a.tabUnselected {\n color: #0063dc !important;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .selectedTiddler a.tab:hover {\n color: #ff0084 !important;\n text-decoration: none;\n}\n\n/*===========================================================================================*/\n/*===========================================================================================*/\n#sidebarTabs{\n margin: 0;\n padding: 0;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .tabContents {\n background-color: transparent;\n border:1px solid #999;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .tabContents a.tiddlyLink, #contentWrapper .tabContents a.button{\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .tabContents a:hover{\n color: #b44;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .txtMoreTab a.tabUnselected {\n background-color: #f5d7b4 !important;\n padding: 2px 4px 0px 4px;\n color: #000;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .txtMoreTab a.tabSelected {\n background-color: #cf936c !important;\n padding: 2px 4px 2px 4px;\n color: #000;\n}\n\n.txtMoreTab .tabContents {\n background-color: #cf936c !important;\n border-bottom: solid #aaa 1px;\n color: #fff;\n}\n\n.txtMoreTab .tabContents a{\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n/* TIDDLER DISPLAY/EDIT SPACE ========================================================== */\n\n#contentWrapper .tiddler {\n margin: 0 0 10px 0;\n padding: 0 15px !important;\n border: dotted 1px #fff;\n color: #666;\n}\n\n.tiddler .title {\n background-color: #e9e9e9;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler {\n border: dotted 1px #ccc;\n margin: -1px;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler .viewer {\n color: #000;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler .viewer * {\n color: #000;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler .viewer h2, .selectedTiddler .viewer h4, .selectedTiddler .viewer h6, .selectedTiddler .viewer h3, .selectedTiddler .viewer h5 {\n color: #666 !important;\n}\n\n\n.selectedTiddler h1 {\n background-color: #e9e9e9 !important;\n color: #0063dc !important;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler h3 {\n color: #0063dc !important;\n}\n\n\n.selectedTiddler .viewer pre{\n color: #000;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler .title {\n color: #ff0084;\n background-color: #e9e9e9;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .selectedTiddler .viewer a {\n color: #5f5f5f;\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .selectedTiddler .viewer a:hover {\n color: #ff0084;\n \n}\n\n#messageArea {\n font-size: 13px;\n font-weight: bold;\n padding: 5px;\n margin: 10px 20px;\n color: #ff0084;\n border: dotted 1px #ccc;\n text-align: center;\n background: transparent;\n}\n\n#messageArea a {\n color: #5f5f5f !important;\n}\n\n#messageArea a:hover {\n color: #ff0084 !important;\n}\n\n#displayArea .tiddlyLinkExisting {\n font-weight: bold;\n text-decoration: none;\n}\n\n#displayArea .tiddlyLinkNonExisting {\n font-style: italic;\n text-decoration: none;\n}\n\n#displayArea .externalLink {\n text-decoration: underline;\n}\n\n.title {\n font-size: 1.3em;\n padding: 0 0 0 0;\n font-weight: bold;\n display: block;\n color: #0063dc;\n}\n\n.toolbar {\n font-weight: normal;\n font-size: 11px;\n visibility: hidden;\n text-align: right;\n padding: 0 0 5px 0;\n margin: -8px 0 0 0;\n}\n\n.toolbar a.button {\n padding: 1px 5px;\n color: #fff;\n text-decoration: none;\n border: 1px outset #0063dc;\n background: #0063dc;\n}\n\n.toolbar a.button:hover {\n color: #fff;\n background: #ff0084;\n border: 1px outset #ff0084;\n}\n\n.toolbar a.button:active {\n color: #fff;\n background: #ff0084;\n border: 1px inset #ff0084;\n}\n\n.tagLinks {\n padding-top: 5px;\n margin-top: 10px;\n border-top: 1px dotted #ccc;\n color: #aaa;\n}\n\n.tagLinks a {\n color: #aaa;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler .tagLinks a {\n color: #0063dc;\n}\n\n.tagLinks a:hover {\n color: #ff0084;\n}\n\n\n.viewer {\n line-height: 140%;\n color: #999;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .viewer a{\n font-weight: bold;\n color: #999;\n text-decoration: none;\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\n.viewer h1, .viewer h2 {\n background-color: transparent;\n color: #999;\n margin-bottom: .25em;\n padding-left: 1px !important;\n border-bottom: dotted 1px #ccc;\n}\n\n.viewer h3, .viewer h4, .viewer h5, .viewer h6{\n background-color: transparent;\n color: #999;\n margin-bottom: .25em;\n padding-left: 1px !important;\n}\n\n \n.viewer blockquote {\n border-left: 3px solid #777;\n margin: 5px;\n padding: 5px;\n}\n\n.viewer ul {\n padding-left: 30px;\n}\n\n.viewer ol {\n padding-left: 30px;\n}\n\nol\n{\n list-style-type: decimal;\n}\n\nol ol\n{\n list-style-type: lower-alpha;\n}\n\nol ol ol\n{\n list-style-type: lower-roman;\n}\n\n.viewer ul, .viewer ol, .viewer p {\n margin: 5px 0 12px 0;\n}\n\n.viewer li {\n margin: 3px 0;\n}\n\n.viewer pre{\n font-family: monspace;\n}\n\nh2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {\n font-weight: bold;\n}\n\n#contentWrapper .viewer *{\n color: #999;\n}\n\n\n.viewer h2 {\n font-size: 1.2em;\n}\n\n.viewer h3 {\n font-size: 1.1em;\n font-style: italic;\n}\n\n.viewer h4 {\n font-size: 1em;\n}\n\n.viewer h5 {\n font-size: .9em;\n font-style: italic;\n}\n\n.viewer h6 {\n font-size: .8em;\n}\n\n.viewer table {\n border-collapse: collapse;\n border: 2px solid #303030;\n font-size: 11px;\n margin: 10px 0;\n}\n\n.viewer th {\n background: #eee;\n border: 1px solid #aaa;\n padding: 3px;\n}\n\n.viewer td {\n border: 1px solid #aaa;\n padding: 3px;\n}\n\n.viewer caption {\n padding: 3px;\n}\n\n.viewer hr {\n border: none;\n border-top: dotted 1px #777;\n height: 1px;\n color: #fff;\n margin: 7px 0;\n}\n\n.body {\n margin: 5px 0 0px 0;\n padding: 5px 0;\n/* border-top: 1px dotted #ccc;*/\n}\n\n.highlight {\n color: #000;\n background: #ffe72f;\n}\n\n.editor {\n font-size: 8pt;\n color: #402c74;\n font-weight: normal;\n padding: 10px 0;\n}\n\n.editor input, .editor textarea {\n display: block;\n font: 13px/130% "Andale Mono", "Monaco", "Lucida Console", "Courier New", monospace;\n margin: 0 0 10px 0;\n border: 1px inset #333;\n padding: 2px 0;\n}\n\n.editor textarea {\n height: 500px;\n}\n\n.footer a.button,.editorFooter a.button{\n color: #e6e6e6;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler .footer a.button,\n.selectedTiddler .editorFooter a.button{\n color: #0063dc;\n}\n\n.selectedTiddler .footer a.button:hover,\n.selectedTiddler .editorFooter a.button:hover{\n color: #ff0084;\n background-color: transparent;\n}\n\ninput:focus, textarea:focus {\n background: #ffe;\n border: 1px solid #000 !important;\n}\n\n#storeArea, #copyright {\n display: none;\n}\n\n#floater {\n background: #9cf;\n border: 3px solid #0063DC;\n color: #9cf;\n position: absolute;\n left: -99999999px;\n top: -99999999px;\n width: 1px;\n display: none;\n}\n\n\n

Archiving the Web\n\nDocumentation and display are processes through which archives are ascribed meaning and thus contribute to knowledge production practices. These [[practices]] in [[digital scholarship]] and other curatorial work should be revised to keep abreast of the ideological, epistemological, practical and technological changes that are taking place in information or [[knowledge management]] and display fields. An opportunity exists for radical changes in not only the way [[archived digital objects]] are documented and displayed, but also the acceptance of a broader range of voices in interpretation. Information scholars' domain theories and communication scholars' consideration of computer network media ecologies, which both emphasize collective efforts, can influence the management, display and interpretation of archived digital objects. Archive directors, curators and scholars alike have the opportunity to make their digital collections more navigable and more accessible to a broader audience. \n\nThis dissertation provides a model by which scholars conducting digital scholarship may engage a broader audience as interpreters and contributors of narratives about archive objects by contributing personal experience to online archive documentation through democratic and open categorization, or ‘[[folksonomy]]’. \n\nDrawing on the processes and methods of Web archiving projects undertaken by [[Webarchivist.org|http://webarchivist.org]] and the scholarship of leading [[museum and information theorists]] and [[media ecologists]], this dissertation revisits acquisition, documentation and display processes in [[archiving and cultural preservation]] as functions of [[knowledge production]]. It proposes the incorporation of new principles, practices and structures that acknowledge (1) specially curated installations of Web archives as cultural objects in a broader sense as polysemic entities; (2) the meaning of narratives and classificatory systems as products of cultural, disciplinary, museum and curatorial opinion that are mediated through installations as interfaces or representations that produce knowledge for various viewers in various contexts; and (3) the roles of a diverse range of actors that engage in the cycle of knowledge production through Web archiving including the responsibility and value of curators, collections managers, and users as knowledge experts and [[knowledge brokers]]. \n\nThis dissertation urges the incorporation of the Web not only as tool, but also as cultural object worthy of preservation. Web archiving not only challenges the definition of culturally impactful objects worthy of preservation, but also challenges the mode of collection, documentation, display and interpretation by delivering these processes through computer networked tools that enable more actors to take part, and enable sociability to be built in to the process. This dissertation contends that online displays of digital collections are a means for cultural institutions to engage in post-structuralist practices for presenting and producing knowledge about Web and other born-digital objects as culturally impactful artifacts. A model for a new set of sociable techniques for digital archivists to experiment with knowledge production and display techniques for online digital scholarship and curation is proposed. \n

...\n\nprocess, workflow, security and control are all called on in the name of usability and information retrieval (search) but they have not solved the problems we face in usability and search. The more control there is, the more frustrated the user is when usability and search fail. \n\nif some level of control is given up, we may find that the result is not [[chaos]] - that meaning is finite, shared and socially constructed cooperatively.

In groups, people can be empowered to accomplish what they cannot do alone ([[Coldicutt & Streten, 2005]]; [[Noveck, 2005]]; [[Rheingold, 2002]]; [[Surweicki, 2004]]; [[Weiss, 2005]]). New social technologies are making it possible for people to make decisions and create meaning collectively, in stride with experts who create knowledge in institutional settings ([[Bearman et al., 2005]]). These technologies are enabling groups to create community and rules to govern their own social reality. This behavior shows a shift in [[authority]] where collectively made decisions about meaning, particularly meaning of [[digital objects]], is valued along with to the meaning made by an expert. This shift is problematic for the subject-specialist [[authority]] and the practices that validate meaning made in library, museum and scholarly fields through contextualizing acts of classification, exhibition and analysis. It generates tension between communities of practice.

This is a simple cheat sheet gleened from the [[TiddlyWiki Tutorial|http://www.blogjones.com/TiddlyWikiTutorial.html]]. It's also helpful when you are working on your StyleSheet.\n\n!Text formatting\n|!Example|>|>|!How|\n|''Bold Text''|' ' (without space)|words|' '|\n|==strikethrough text==| ==|words|==|\n|__underlined text__| __|words|__|\n|//italic text//| //|word|//|\n|^^superscript text^^| ^^|words|^^|\n|~~subscript text~~| ~~|words|~~|\n|@@color(green):colored text@@| @@|color(yourcolorhere):words|@@|\n|@@bgcolor(green):Background@@| @@|bgcolor(yourcolorhere):words|@@|\n|{{{Monospaced}}}| {{{|words|}}}|\n|~DewikifyAWikiWord| ~|~WikiLikeWord||\n|[[wikify a word]] | [[|non-wiki words|]]|\n\n!Monospaced block\n{{{\n {{{\n Just a silly example\n }}}\n}}}\n{{{\nJust a silly example\n}}}\n\n!Horizontal line\n{{{\n----\n}}}\n----\n\n!Lists and outlines\n{{{\n* Begin a list\n* List with subitems\n** Sub item 1\n** Sub item 2\n}}}\n* Begin a list\n* List with subitems\n** Sub item 1\n** Sub item 2\n\n!Numbered lists and outlines\n{{{\n# Begin a list\n# List with subitems\n## Sub item 1\n## Sub item 2\n}}}\n# Begin a list\n# List with subitems\n## Sub item 1\n## Sub item 2\n\n!External link\n{{{\n[[alternate text|image URL]]\n[[TiddlyWiki|http://tiddlywiki.com]]\n}}}\n[[TiddlyWiki|http://tiddlywiki.com]]\n\n!Embed image\n{{{\n[img[alternate text|image URL]]\n}}}\n\n!Tables\nYou can create a table by enclosing text in sets of vertical bars (||, or shift-backslash on your keyboard). \n{{{\n|!Headings: add an exclamation point (!) right after the vertical bar.|!Heading2|!Heading3|\n|Row 1, Column 1|Row 1, Column 2|Row 1, Column 3|\n|>|>|Have one row span multiple columns by using a >|\n|Have one column span multiple rows by using a ~|>| Use a space to right-align text in a cell|\n|~|>| Enclose text in a cell with spaces to center it |\n|>|>|bgcolor(green):Add color to a cell using bgcolor(yourcolorhere):|\n|Add a caption by ending the table with a vertical bar followed by a c|c\n}}}\n\n|!Headings: add an exclamation point (!) right after the vertical bar.|!Heading2|!Heading3|\n|Row 1, Column 1|Row 1, Column 2|Row 1, Column 3|\n|>|>|Have one row span multiple columns by using a >|\n|Have one column span multiple rows by using a ~|>| Use a space to right-align text in a cell|\n|~|>| Enclose text in a cell with spaces to center it |\n|>|>|bgcolor(green):Add color to a cell using bgcolor(yourcolorhere):|\n|Add a caption by ending the table with a vertical bar followed by a c|c\n\n!Block quotes\n{{{\n<<<\n"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!\nThe jaws that bite, the claws that catch!\nBeware the Jubjub bird, and shun\nThe frumious Bandersnatch!"\n<<<\n}}}\n<<<\n"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!\nThe jaws that bite, the claws that catch!\nBeware the Jubjub bird, and shun\nThe frumious Bandersnatch!"\n<<<\n\n!Headings\n{{{\n!Heading\n!!Sub-heading\n!!!Sub-heading 2\n!!!!Sub-heading 3\n!!!!!Sub-heading 4\n}}}\n!Heading\n!!Sub-heading\n!!!Sub-heading 2\n!!!!Sub-heading 3\n!!!!!Sub-heading 4

Contextual influence has been noted as an important in museum and library settings where large stores of objects and information are cataloged and displayed ([[Adams, Luke & Moussouri, 2004]]; [[Anderson, 2004]]; [[Besser, 1995]]; [[Besser, 2004]]; [[Cameron, 2003]]; [[Cameron, 2005]]; [[Coldicutt & Streten, 2005]]; [[Falk, 1992]]; [[Hein, 2000]]; [[Hudson, 2004]]; [[Kurin, 1997]]; [[Urry, 1996]]; [[Witcomb, 2003]]). Classification influences where objects are displayed and how they are described, which impacts the context in a more obvious way. If an object is classified as an Impressionist work of art it may be displayed and analyzed along with other Impressionist works, which will influence what the reader understands about the painting's meaning or the artist's statement. This will ultimately impact the viewer's appreciation of the work. How might a reader's understanding of an Impressionist work change if it were viewed amidst a display of Grecian urns, or compared to a Surrealist's work? \n\nI argue that it is this type of nonsensical, yet impactful, contextualization that takes place as users surf the Web, even as users surf [[a dynamically linked and topically bound archived subset of the Net]]. \nWeb users have begun to develop their own categorization schemes to make sense of objects they encounter while surfing the Net ([[Baronchelli, Felici, Caglioti, Loreto & Steels, 2005]]; [[Bearman et al., 2005]]; [[Filippini-Fantoni, Bowen & Numerico, 2005]]; [[Hammond, Hannay, Lund & Scott, 2005]]). I will show that the [[folksonomy]] - ad-hoc classification schemes generated by the people - that results challenges expert [[authority]] in [[communities of practice]] to be more [[inclusive and representative]]. Incorporating folksonomic, inclusive, representative or [[post-authoritative]] categorization schemes into the documentation strategies for digital archives can be a strategy for collecting user or patron experience. Collecting user experience and conceptualization of these objects, and sharing them with other users, enables us to conceive of our experience of media and its impact on our perceptions, values, thought and behavior as a cultural artifact. [[Collecting born-digital objects]] preserves not only the objects themselves, but also preserves the ever-advancing digital media that make experiencing these cultural objects possible.

See Sarah L. Barsness, Accumulations. Diego Rivera Gallery, San Francisco Art Institute. October 5-11, 2003.

!!!chapters\n[[abstract]]\n[[INTRODUCTION]]\n[[LITERATURE]]\n[[METHODOLOGY]]\n[[METHODS]]\n[[ANALYSIS]]\n[[CONCLUSIONS]]\n\n\n<<tiddler OptionsSideBar>>\n

<<listTags conclusions title *>>

<<listTags introduction title *>>

Digital documents, upon each opening, need to be reconstructed from ones and zeros that command place holders that are the content of the document. The mode of manufacture is always active in the world of digital documents, regardless of how invisible that action may be. Digital documents need a complicated system of hardware and software not only to create but to maintain presence and usefulness. The considerations involved in preserving paper and other documents are similar to the considerations involved in preserving digital documents. The additional consideration here is that preservation of digital documents is tied up with the production of digital documents, or the "technical environment" ([[Levy, 2001]]) surrounding the document - the technical mode of manufacture that is replayed with each instance of the digital document.\n\nSimilarly to this technical environment, there also exists a cultural environment that is also fluid. It is this type of context and environment that allow us to recognize documents and their uses. We use these environments to create genres into which we can categorize documents to account for their usefulness. The cultural changes -- focusing on museology and scholarly publication -- digital documents cultivate with the increasing accessibility of digital documentation. \n\nMeditate on the impressions people leave on surfaces in our daily activities. Evidence of past transactions, past and current states of affairs is left printed on paper, exposed on film, and etched into copper. From the most mundane to the most profound, people leave records of their activities, preferences, and behaviors. The marks we make and the impressions we leave are signifiers of our presence, and not only preserve meaning, but gain meaning when coupled with the object upon which we mark ([[Barsness, 2003]]). These impressions retell our stories to their viewers. Consider the surfaces upon which we leave impressions -- our papers, our computers -- all are documents of our existence, and each new medium expands our creative notions of documentation.

http://staff.washington.edu/mdocx1/dissertiddler.html

there is s difference between group behavior and individual behavior that is aggregated into group activity.

<<search>>\n\n!!!edit\n<<saveChanges>>\n<<closeAll>>\n<<permaview>>\nMainMenu\nOptionsSideBar\n<<slider chkSliderOptionsPanel OptionsPanel options "Change TiddlyWiki advanced options">>\n\n<<tabs txtSideBarTab\n"all tags" "all tags" TabTags\nuntagged "untagged tiddlers" TabMoreUntagged>>\n\n\n!!!using this wiki\nTiddlyTagWiki\nTiddlyTags\n\n\n\n\n[[TiddlyWiki is published by Jeremy Ruston at Osmosoft under a BSD open source license.|http://www.tiddlywiki.com/]]\n[[TiddlyTagWiki is a modification by Jonny LeRoy of ThoughtWorks under the same license terms.|http://www.digitaldimsum.co.uk/]]\n[[Thanks to Clint Checketts for making the style compatible with the latest versions.|http://15black.bluedepot.com/tiddlytagtiddlywiki.html]]\n

Luhmann and Deleuze

Luhmann and deleuze

In a world where publishing is cheap, putting something out there says nothing about its quality. It's what happens after it gets published that matters. If people don't point to it, other people won't read it. Filtering is done //after// publication.\n\nSimilarly, categorization is done after things are tagged is incredibly foreign to cataloguers. Much of the expense of existing catalog systems is in trying to prevent rarely-used categories. With tagging, rare tags can be used or ignored as the user likes. In a social system, a rarely used category can be ignored - users will see this category as not as valuable, or not as trustworthy, and generally not as authoritative as one that is more popular. In a [[contextual collection]] that is constantly changing, rarely used tags may become more popular over time, just as popular tags may grow stale.

Ontological and heirarchical categorization is for experts, although the audience is often lay-people. Even in a university library, a scholar in on field attempting to branch out into a new field to find literature to support a concept she is developing will find that she is nearly a lay-person when it comes to broad and vague categories.\n\nInternet researchers often write about the self-publication characteristics and the potential for audience changes on the Web. IF the Web can be a democratizing place in terms of creating and distributing content, why can't that be true of the Web as a place to digest content as well?

create multiple paths to things rather than focus on sorage and retrieval. more possibilities for finding connections that make sense and yeild new knowledge. \nPeter Morville's [[Ambient Findability|http://www.findability.org/]] is an attempt to change the knowledge ecology by favoring multiple paths, and generally, more information taken less seriously. but this skips over the more transparent portions of the process of knowledge production. not only is it important to FIND the information that is relevant and useful (and maybe some other things that are not relevant, but are surprisingly useful), but it is important to UNDERSTAND the information found. the structures that enable us to find (or not find) information, no matter how controlled or how participatory and social also provide a frame for interpreting that information. \n\nStructuring and restructuring information is an act of placing a frame on the information. Structures provide the user with a set view of the information, possibly constraining the uses of that information. Cataloging information may contribute to [[meaning-making]] or user knowledge construction in a way that may be (1) unintended by the producer of the information; (2) useless for a local application of the information; or (3) irrelevant to the user of the information.\n\nwhen those frames are limited, they are taken more seriously, and can prevent information from being interpreted in a way that is valuable to the user. When there are more frames, they can be taken less seriously and the user is free to interpret the information.

Collaborative filtering in trust-based networks is the way in which networked culture will deal with information overload.\n\nThe printed press' hallowed notion of 'genre' is under threat through the processes of user-generated metadata that describe Folksonomy.\n\nThe concept of DIY is less relevant to networked youth culture today as it was when we grew up (with movements like Hardcore). DIT - Do It Together - which finds it's roots in the Open Source movement's model of production, is a far more relevant paradigm today.\n\nroot structures will be replaced with rhizomes across the board\n\nI don't agree that top-down models engender social responsibility in any way. I would argue the opposite. Society engenders its own sense of responsibility.\n\nafter hearing from the user, rather than trying to predict in advance what it is you need to know. collabrative filtering or folksonomy allows for a degree of both. not necessarily based on predicting what you need to know as a user, but recording what you learn while looking and tagging for future use. definitions are loose enough that the user is able to learn from others, learn while doing, and relearn and learn anew with future iterations.

definition\n\nmethods of discovery in terms of cataloging efforts and small partitioned repsoitories (like small comissioned topically or temporally bound web archives).\n\nmethod of managing and viewing as primary function in large repositories. \n\nas means for understanding\nparticipatory democratic cataloging of collections that are limited by space/topic and time\n\nevolve fast enough to keep up with changing cultural norms. just in time classification as a complement to steadier broader taxonomy\n\nhttp://www.davidrdgratton.com/archives/2005/05/flickr_has_us_l.html\n\nhow does folksonomy begin to question the tie between [[authority]] and [[expertise]]?\n\nTheodor Adorno writes on the necessity to break from traditional language if one is to subvert the dominant cultural narrative.

Archiving the Web: Collection, Documentation, Display and Shifting Knowledge Production Paradigms \n@@color(grey):~~...a choose your own adventure dissertation, mdocx1 at gmail~~@@\n\n[<<newTiddler>>] [<<closeAll>>] [<<defaultView>>] [<<permaview>>] [ [[tagCloud]] ]\n\n----\n^^@@color(grey):this site is a [[tiddlywiki|http://www.tiddlywiki.com/]] - a reusable non-linear personal web notebook used to create self-contained hyperlinked microcontent documents that can be read in any order and rearranged to suit multiple paths through the content.@@^^ ^^@@color(grey):this dissertiddler is just getting started - check back later for a wicked tiddlyextravaganza.@@^^\n----

you can start reading anywhere. \n\nIf you want an overview to start, try the [[abstract]] below. If you are a first-to-last kind of person, try starting with one of the [[INTRODUCTION]] bits. if you are a chronological type of person, try starting with the timeline, although, I guarantee this will not help anyone make sense of anything but my erratic train of thought. If your are a category type of person, try the [[tagCloud]] to see what I am most busy with. you can even choose to start with [[LITERATURE]] or [[METHODS]] or even with the [[CONCLUSIONS]] when I get there.\n\nor, you can search if you already know what you are looking for.\n\nOnce you start reading, following the links from within the text, or open new content from the menus on the right and left. When you finish with a box, you can close it, or let them all pile up.\n\nunfortunately at this time, there is no way for you to contribute your understanding of this work, but I hope to make that change.

there is a fundamental difference between what i am talking about and what other people who study folksonomy talk about: organization v. knowledge construction. \n\npeople who study folksonomy from an information management perspective talk of: \ninformation retrieval\nlarge-scale info management\ncosts\n\ni am interested more in:\nauthority\nunderstanding\nsociability/sharing\nfluidity in meaning\n[[social construction]] of reality\n[[social construction]] of local knowledge\n[[preservation of the social construction of local knowledge]]\n\n

Knowledge is a construct, and increasingly with collaborative efforts and social software, a social construct. [[Ernst von Glasersfeld]], a radical constructionist describes the process similarly showing that knowledge construction is a cognitive process of the human brain. Since knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data, it is not possible to know the degree to which knowledge reflects upon an ontological reality. Constructed knowledge can only reflect social constructs of a given context.\n\nall things are social constructs in that we construct (often by social influence) what these things mean to society. things like DNA exist, but what these things ARE is largely dependent upon social interpretation. For example, is human DNA a sign of life and so should be treated as living human life, or is DNA the possibility for human life providing only a roadmap for human life? these definitions are dependent upon social constraints and context, local knowledge and local usage of the information.

The possibilities for digital interactive displays can be extended beyond the museum and into other knowledge production and management fields (such as scholarship and libraries) by using the Web to include a broader audience, and more meaningful interaction between users and objects, or users and information. This meaningful interaction can be a benefit for the knowledge producer and manager as well as the user as a new generation of digital collections grows to allow broad and meaningful interaction. New generations of digital collections can enable users to challenge documentation processes and insert meaningful interaction into collections by incorporating social bookmarking techniques into digital archive documentation, search and display.\n\nDigital scholarship strategies and tools could benefit from the inclusion of folksonomic tools and personalization that will engage the audience, give users ownership over the public space of the archived Web and the objects created/displayed there, and reinvigorate knowledge production by providing scholars with additional data to incorporate and by building a more immediate connection between scholarship and the public. \n\nThis democratic tagging systems will not be in itself a panacea; I will present this tool and my findings with potential drawbacks, particularly for information retrieval. With no one controlling the vocabulary, users are allowed to develop multiple terms for identical concepts. For example, users will be allowed, and are encouraged, to develop multiple, creative tags for the same category - upon searching for all archive objects categorized as reflecting content about Seattle, one may have to search for tags including "Seattle”, “seattle”, "Seattle, Wa", "Jet City", "Rain City", "Emerald City", etc. The use of synonyms and homonyms and whether each term is correct or incorrect invoke questions of trust. One may also encounter the inverse — users employing the same term for disparate concepts. The tag "Windows", for example, could indicate content about the popular operating system, or about home improvement. Also, sometimes the tagging is simply incorrect. In one popular online tagging system, CiteULike, the tag "Philosophy” is used to categorize entries on gender, art, and politics. This muddling of terms may be beneficial for a personal service or for use in a community of loosely knit members, but could be problematic for organization-wide document repositories serving specific and well-known needs of a small user base. While this democratic technique may bolster multiple understandings of an archive object, for the reasons described, it makes information retrieval more difficult. \n\nTo avoid some of the cataloging chaos caused by soliciting non-expert, user input the Art Museum Community Cataloging Project (http://steve.museum/index.html) uses catalog screeners to filter user-provided tags. Repeated words, nonsensical words, and clear mislabels are removed; project participants are still determining how to handle misspellings and derivatives (Bearman et al., 2005). Problems beyond syntax and misunderstanding, such as rogue users entering purposefully harmful data may arise. A recent event in the Wikipedia community, a popular user-generated and user-correcting online encyclopedia, challenged the level of trust needed to maintain a large social knowledge production community with no hierarchical authority. A user entered a false and potentially damaging biography into the encyclopedia, the subject of the biography found the entry, was offended and called into question the liability of Wikipedia providers, the author of the entry, and the value of an unchecked reference where anyone can alter an entry, for better or worse (Seelye, K., 2005). Trusting the information provided lies in trusting the community itself. Wikipedia and other social meaning-making sites have generated communities of users who care for the value of the knowledge produced by the community. While this type of seemingly playful, but ultimately hurtful act of purposefully entering false information is so easily executed, few instances of it are found in these self-correcting communities. Some reliance on community responsibility is required to mitigate the potential problems of democratic meaning-making. The potential of solutions such as self-correcting communities and responsibility will be discussed. \n

Interviewing a small number of experts can reveal “complex interconnections in social relationships; facilitate analysis, triangulation and validity checks; generate working hypotheses; and provide great utility for uncovering the subjective side of a phenomenon under investigation” (McMillan, 2000, p. 161). McMillan (2000) describes additional ontological and epistemological supports for the use of expert interview data – that expert knowledge is a meaningful way of understanding a social reality under investigation, and that a legitimate way to generate data about expert understanding is to interact with those experts. This method will enable me to “discover the subjectivity” of the concept of authority in preservation and meaning-making, “document its evolving nature”, and “quickly obtain large amounts of contextual data” (McMillan, 2000, p.162). McMillan (2000) describes that the collection of this type of data stems from a phenomenological view of the social construction of reality, which makes expert interview respondents well-suited to providing rich insight to what authority, and its changing nature in their field, is. \n\nTopics for questioning will include history of changing goals and subjectivity in interviewees' fields and communities of practice, details of their personal experiences and goals in their communities of practice, and questions guiding the interviewees' reflection on the meaning of their goals. Within each of these topics, questions about preservation, meaning-making, the role of the expert and the patron or reader, and strategies for reaching goals within epistemological paradigms discovered in the interview will be discussed. Questions will be guided by a review of related literature and self-reflection. Related literature will highlight problems and current strategies and solutions in the communities of practice being investigated. Self-reflection of my own position as scholar, developer and curator will help identify cultural categories and relationships and solidify a foundation from which I may enter the communities of practice I will investigate. Because interview questionnaires will be sent to respondents via email, interview schedules will be structured. Certainly, asynchronous, computer-mediated interviewing has its own set of problems including security and deception, but the benefits of time to phrase responses and follow-up questions and the physical limitations of time and place outweigh the drawbacks (Markham, 1998). An opportunity may exist for unstructured follow-up interviews via telephone; respondents will be queried about their willingness to take part in a telephone follow-up interview. (See Appendix A for a sample interview schedule). \n\nPreliminary investigation shows at least five folksonomy projects at various stages of implementation at major museums and several digital scholarship projects involving archiving and exhibition practices. I propose that I will interview the directors of these projects – at minimum five curators and five scholars, with potential for more. Interviews will take place via email and telephone when possible between the months of March and June, 2006.

Because interview questions will be guided by reflexive consideration of my own role in the communities of practice I will investigate, analysis must be reflexive as well. VanMaanen's (1988) "confessional style" will allow me to use my experience as curator and scholar to reveal problematic interpretations of interview data. Throughout the interview process, from developing questions to analysis of responses, I will keep "confessionals" as field notes in order to inform my analysis and collect reflexive data describing the tool design and development process. I will code the responses in an open coding style with themes developing from literature, responses and "confessionals."\n\nDesign, development and implementation of a folksonomic interface for Foot and Schneider's Web Campaigning digital installation produced for MIT Press will be completed to coincide with the publication of an accompanying book and the launch of the Web Campaigning digital installation in August 2006. When assessing the data users will enter into the folksonomic interface, it will be important to consider the development of the tool as an interface and representation of the archived objects. I will reflexively analyze the development process with personal narratives of compromises and changes I anticipate that I will write regularly throughout the process. Documenting autobiographical stories about my experience as scholar, developer, and shaper of knowledge will highlight the importance of and presence of subjectivity in representation systems, even at the tool development stage [(Denzin, 1989; Reinharz, 1979, 1992; Van Maanen, 1988, 1990). Beginning this research from my own experience will help explain my research, and provide personal knowledge to guide me through analysis of data gathered in interviews and in collected tag data.

Once the digital installation is launched and my interface is implemented, I will begin using the database tool to collect user data. There are risks in gathering data with a novel tool. As I begin collecting data, I will have to consider alternative ways of recruiting subjects if natural users are not drawn to the tool. Certainly, valuable conclusions may be drawn from a lack of users, but classroom recruitment through assignments or extra credit will be considered. Basic demographic information will also be gathered to frame generalizations drawn from the analysis of the tag data. In December 2006, I will begin analysis of the user data that will provide supplemental evidence. Based on open descriptive content analysis of the data supplied by users, I will offer conclusions about representations of and interfaces for archived Web objects available online for various users. Analyzing tag and annotation data supplied by users will highlight the differences between user supplied catalog data and cataloger supplied catalog data. The data supplied by users will be compared to catalog data that was supplied by trained coders. Comparing these sets of documentation will provide insight about how users experience archive objects and their documentation may enrich the understanding of archive objects. Open content analysis will also provide insight for answering my question of the role of the subject specialist in preservation and meaning-making.

!Coldicutt, R. and K. Streten, Democratize And Distribute: Achieving a many-to-many content model, in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.). Museums and the Web 2005: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 31, 2005 at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2005/papers/coldicutt/coldicutt.html \n\ncommunication and distribution models are used as the frame for understanding mass-particiaption and democratization.\n\nIs mass democratization of museum content the way to open our collections? What are the opportunities and dangers of allowing non-specialists to publish their ideas and theories in a many-to-many environment? How can partnering with the right media partner contribute to the development of mass distribution projects?\n\nNetworked and accessible information technology has made the role of the gatekeeper (as educator, cataloger, scholar, etc.) unsustainable. The technology enables a shift from a top-down hierarchy to something more democratic. This means that prior one-to-many paradigm, common in broadcasting, education, and other expert-based modes of validating and communicating, while still available on-line, can be easily subverted. The Internet can be a many-to-many, one-to-many, or one-to-one medium, a network of networks. "When a computer network connects people or organizations, it is a social network", capable of "creating a Web of group affiliations" ([[Garton, Haythornthwaite, and Wellman, 1997]]). This proliferation of connection of information, and of groups to recommend it, undermines the status of the traditional knowledge powerhouse: a singular didactic approach is less credible in a network regulated by peer review and exchange – this is not about a single voice intoning from the front of an auditorium: it's about a conversation between equals.\n\nThe authors (from the Victoria Albert Museum and from Channel 4, UK) introduce and critique the Victoria Albert Museum's //[[Every Object Tells a Story]]// - [[everyobject.net|http://www.everyobject.net/]] project.\n\n

<<listTags literature title *>>

the first multimedia systems built in museum environments were modeled closely after the static multimedia enviroments found prior to dynamic computer-mediated environments. These systems freeze museum and archive ideas in a static moment.

The preservation of a digital document is tied to its production. Every time you 'read' a digital document, it must be reproduced and reconstructed enirely - it must be rendered in a human-readable format. With [[born-digital]] documents, preservation is no longer a document-centric problem. The integrity of the technical environment surrounding the document must be preserved in addition to the integrity of the document.

Born-digital objects are objects that cannot be translated to analog media without losing some content or context - not simply objects that are created and rendered digitally, but could be translated to an analog form to preserve - like a digital photograph rendered digitally for display but that could be printed for documentation and preservation purposes.

ontological classification asks of an object, "What is it?" and places the object in a reality. Ontology examines what kinds of things exist and what kinds of relationships exist between them? when classifying real objects, things you can hold, physical things that are bound by time and place, the object can only reside in one place, it may have many paths to it, but ultimately it exists in only one place at a given time. Mulitple maths lead to confusion, so paths must be limited, or else all paths lead to all things. Not only do we ask of an object, "[[what is it?]]" we ask, "what is it about?" and it must be about one thing over others so it may be organized along with other objects. \nthis results in a heirarchical organization scheme. there is a main level category, and sub-levels under that, and so on. Ultimately, the suggestion to add sub-links is made. Sub-links are added to the structure by connecting a work to a co-author, contributor, etc. creating aliases, or shortcuts through the heirarchy.\n[[Tim Berners-Lee]] showed us that not only can we have links, but we can have lots of links, so many links, in fact, that the heirarchical structure disappears.\nlinking like this forgrounds the importance of the users patterns of thinking and organizing knowledge to produce new knowledge on a individual basis. Links without heirarchy preclude the notion that users want to view a world that has been organized in advance - potentially hiding relevant information in an obscure or unintuitive sub-level. \n\nontological classification makes sense when the collection is small, when the boundaries are clearly defined, and when entities in the collection are restricted and stable. If objects in the collection can break from boundaries of space and time (multiple copies can be used simultaneously), when objects can be fit too easily into multiple categories, search strategies are optimal over browsing strategies. Rather than pre-organize the collection in an attempt to predict how a user will use it, enable the user to find her way through the collection to find what suits her. If she can search in her own terms, this may be an advantage. \n\nthere are people involved in these schemes as well, expert catalogers, users, authoritative sources, and expert users. Expert cataloging requires high-level education. Users who are not experts do not have the background to guess well how an object they are looking for might be categorized by an expert.

It comes down ultimately to a question of philosophy. Does the world make sense or do we make sense of the world? If you believe the world makes sense, then anyone who tries to make sense of the world differently than you is presenting you with a situation that needs to be reconciled formally, because if you get it wrong, you're getting it wrong about the real world.\n\nIf, on the other hand, you believe that we make sense of the world, if we are, from a bunch of different points of view, applying some kind of sense to the world, then you can't privilege one top level of sense-making over the other. What you do instead is you try to find ways that the individual sense-making can roll up to something which is of value in aggregate, but you do it without an ontological goal. You do it without a goal of explicitly getting to or even closely matching some theoretically perfect view of the world. You can do it to reveal something about what sense we do make of the world at the current time. You can reveal how we borrow from each other, and how we are creative individually by how we follow each others categorizations and recommendations. We can reveal the structure of the __social__ construction of reality - how we work to collaboratively decide what is valuable and what it means. \n\nThe meaning of tags are in the users. The system cannot tell us whether two categories mean the same thing. This is also true of ontological classification is you subscribe to a "we make meaning of the world" philosophy. The system can only help recommend by recognizing that two categories are often used to describe the same objects. The system can now recommend the other word to the user. Exposure to the new word may change the meaning for the user, at least, it introduces a new perspective, and perhaps opens the user up to more content/objects that she may have ignored or never uncovered. the user has learned, and adjusted or maintained her meaning about the world. The users tag and aggregate accordig to their own views of the world, and can ultimately create value for each other by doing so. \n\nTag [[semantics]] are in the user, not the system. [[semiotics]] enables us to see these objects as different, similar or related based on what compells us, rather than on intentionality or [[ontology]].

Type the text for 'ontology'

The object-orientedness of activity theory is not the object-orientation of programming. Activity theory is object-oriented in that is takes a broad view of objectivity. Activity theory's object-orientedness states that human beings live in a reality that is broadly objective in that this reality that we have socially constructed is held as objective by socially and culturally established norms. \n\nThis broad objectivity enables humans to interact with each other and objects in the world with the same general orientation. Details and nuance in meaning may vary between subjects, technologies and times, but largely we experience objects similarly because we have agreed upon a set of definitions we hold as objective reality. \n\nIt is the details and nuance I want to understand. We all understand archived collections and their general function and purpose. We all understand Web sites and their general function and purpose. However, once we start interacting with them, the details of our activities may change and lead us to unique experiences with objects that may lead to differing definitions among users despite their shared objective social reality. Tracking those unique experiences may reveal moments in which social reality is negotiated.

Thanks A!\n\n[[Stewart Brand]]'s pace layering theory suggests that structures can be divided into layers dependent upon how fast that layer changes. In his book "[[How Buildings Learn|http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.11/streetcred.html]]," Brand describes six layers of buildings and the pace at which they change or ar updated: Site (eternal); Structure (30-300 years); Skin (20 years); Services (7-15 years); Space plan (3-30 years); Stuff (1 day - 1 month). \n\nThis layering shows that features change at different rates depending on the nature of the feature's durability, technology, functionality, and fashion. Isolating those things that change frequently from those things that are more stable is valuable to the long-term viability of any entity: be it a building, an information system, or a biological organism.\n\ncan't neglect maintenance and adaptation in any system. something - culture, local knowledge, etc - guides how we can help objects in a system evolve, but also constricts its shape, and carries knowledge about past and proven solutions for changing its shape.\n\n"Learning (fast) plus continuity (slow) equals robustness and adaptivity.(Brand, pp?). Slow layers provide stability, fast layers drive innovation. Slow aspects of information, such as [[heirarchy]] and ontological classification, provide a stable foundation. Fast changing aspects of information, such as local use and description, follow fashion. Tying the fast-changing elements too tightly to the slow-changing ones can be destructive to creativity and knowledge production (EXPLAIN MORE). It is important to let these layers change at their own pace. \n\n[[Peter morville]], in his article "[[The Speed of Information Architecture|http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000003.php]]"applies these ideas to IA; he refers to Stewart Brand's "Clock of the Long Now" description of pace which is a continuum of Nature, Culture, Governance, Infrastructure, Commerce, and Fasion & Art from slow to fast. He applies this notion of pacing and time to IA features: faceted classification schemes, embedded navigation system, enabling technologies, controlled vocabulary, adaptive finding tools, and content, services & interface from slow to fast. [[Campbell and Fast]] in their article, "From Pace Layering to Resilience Theory" (following Morville) suggest that this scheme can be applied to evaluate the role of folksonomy in classification. \n\nPace layering is a movement back and forth between the social/ontological and the technologycal/phenomenological.

CSCW - computer-supported cooperative work

Activity theory treats activity as the unit of analysis in a socio-technical system. Activity is directed at an object which motivates activity, giving it a specific direction. These actions are goal-driven, The constituents of activity are not fxed, rather they are dynamic and changeable according to conditions. \n\nActivity Theory emphasizes that human activity is mediated by tools in a broad sense. Tools are created and transformed during the development of the activity itself and carry with them a particular culture - historical remains from their development. So, the use of tools is an accumulation and transmission of social knowledge. Tool use influences the nature of external behavior and also the mental functioning of individuals.\n\nIn Activity Theory development is not only an object of study, it is also a general research methodology. The basic research method in Activity Theory is not traditional laboratory experiments but the formative experiment which combines active participation with monitoring of the developmental changes of the study participants. Ethnographic methods that track the history and development of a practice have also become important in recent work.\n\nartifact-mediated and object-oriented action (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 40). A human individual never reacts directly (or merely with inborn reflects) to environment. The relationship between human agent and objects of environment is mediated by cultural means, tools and signs.

Paul Marty argued that information infrastructures can be viewed as organic, evolving with society or the organization they support, defining it as much as they are defined by it. \n \ncited by Fiona Cameron.

a common critique of [[folksonomy]] is that it lacks authority and, worse, promotes [[chaos]]. In the hands of librarians, curators, and scholars, authority typically has strict criteria. Accuracy, objectivity, and currency of the source are judged. Who is the author? Who is the publisher? What are their qualifications? What is their reputation? Has the work been refereed or edited? Authority has also taken on a meaning of uniqueness in a cataloging setting - a file where the curator-chosen spelling or appearance of an object is set for use in that collection. This type of authority is great for search, but depending on the steps taken by the curator or librarian, may have no basis in accuracy - and does not support Morville's ambient findability aspirations. The goal is to avoid ambiguity not to produce or verify kowledge. \n\nIn the mix of social networking and social information management tools, authority became synonymous with popularity, power, trust, and relevance. \n\nAuthority is subjective and a measure ascribed by the user.\n\nArguing that this is a loss of quality in the definition of authority (as [[Peter morville]] seems to in his article [[Authority, Oct 11, 2005|http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000057.php]]) ignores that fact that these potentially less-exact synonyms have been a part of judging authority for quite a while. \n\n[[Wilson, 1983]] addressed questions of authority and user trust in classification systems. Wilson describes cognitive authority in classification systems as tied to knowledge production industries, profession and conformity. Document-centered approaches to classification have been criticized for de-contextualization and assumption of singular meaning as implied by the author. These assumptions inspire questions of authority and [[trust]]; if one meaning, devoid of context, is implied by the author, who can be trusted with the authority to derive it from the content? \n\nWhile these may all be valuable ways to describe authority, Morville makes a statement later in the article that gives structure to the evaluation of authority. He mentions that information architecture gives a system authority, and goes on to describe [[Wikipedia|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page]]\n<<<\nAuthority derives from the information architecture, visual design, governance, and brand of the Wikipedia, and from widespread faith in intellectual honesty and the power of collective intelligence.\n<<<\n[[collective intelligence]] is partially a conceptual solution, but it still relies on the notion that there should be one (or few) correct interpretations of an object. it ignores what we've learned from [[social constructivism]] and [[post-structuralism]] about negotiation, cooperation, and [[polysemy]]. rather, it forces a reversion back to [[objectivity]], undermining individual [[subjectivity]] as irrelevant.\n\nArchitecture does lends authority, but those architecture, if created by an unknown, must gain respect, credibility, qualifications and all the other measures we have for authority. Interfaces to collections of information enable or restrict us. Perhaps [[folksonomy]] is better defined as as tool for understanding rather than finding. Morville explains that folksonomies evolving from [[del.icio.us|http://del.icio.us]] and [[flickr|http://www.flickr.com]] "barely merit attention" when considered for findability and compared to other major serach engines. Morville places findability above all else. But, if we don't understand something, how will we know how ot searhc for it, of if we find it, how to use it or how to adapt it to our needs?\n\n\nPerhaps there is a time and place for authority as uniqueness, authority as accuracy, authority as relevance, and authority as popularity. Perhaps it is our job - as users of information - to know the difference

Post-structuralism, in turn, rejects binary opposition (which is famous within Structuralism) and concludes that meanings are unstable and always shifting.\nPost-structuralism has 3 main characteristics:\n1. Every critic must be able to theorize every position and critical practice to have an understanding. By studying different styles of theory, it creates an understanding of different meanings and interpretations thereby contributing to a greater understanding of the text and the shifting meaning.\n2. post-Structuralism questions the grounding of human beings by calling into question our perception. The post-structuralist view of subjectivity regards the “self” as being separated and illogical which makes us “Decentered.” This rejects the idea of the traditional view of a coherent identity. This has created many different view and standing points on what exactly a human being is.\n3. The importance has been shifted from the meaning of the author to the meaning of the reader interprets from the text. post-Structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having one purpose, one meaning or one singular existence. \n

Textual analysis, based on an intertextual notion of meaning, replaces the apparently scientific and objective approach of structuralism with an emphasis on the openness of the text (its meaning can never be fully captured or resolved) and the productive role of the reader of the text (each individual reader brings with them a specific and distinct if in no way unique relation to the “cultural text”). In textual analysis a text has meaning only when a reader activates the potential meanings intertextually “present” within it. A text, viewed intertextually, only exists in the act of reading.\n\nBarthes 'ideal text' is one that is reversible, or open to the greatest variety of independent interpretations and not restrictive in meaning. A text can be reversible by avoiding restrictive devices, such as strict timelines and exact definitions of events. He describes this as the difference between the writerly text, in which the reader is active in a creative process, and a readerly text in which they are restricted to just reading. The project helped Barthes identify what it was he sought in literature: an openness for interpretation.\n\nA readerly text is one wherein the reader need not "write" or "produce" his or her own meanings but one where one can find, by passive means, meaning "ready-made". In another variation upon the "readerly," Barthes writes that these sorts of text are "controlled by the principle of non-contradiction", that is, they do not disturb the "common sense" of the surrounding culture. \n\nWriterly texts "and ways of reading are, in short, an active rather than passive way of interacting with a culture and its texts that Barthes implies should never be accepted in its given forms and traditions. As opposed to the "readerly texts" as "product," the "Writerly text is ourselves writing, before the infinite play of the world is traversed, intersected, stopped, plasticized by some singular system (Ideology, Genus, Criticism) which reduces the plurality of entrances, the opening of networks, the infinity of languages". \n\n "The goal of literary work (of literature as a work) is to make the reader no longer a consumer but a producer of the text" p.4

The rethinking of collection management and multimedia delivery systems to provide effective access to multimedia contents will also have major implications on how collections information can be configured and interpreted ([[Scali and Tariffi, 2001]]). In addition, the emergence of more creative content environments, and the impact of games technologies, in particular 3D visualizations, will eventually be applied to museum automation systems in an online environment. These are expected to become cheaper and more pervasive, leading to the creation of complex cultural interpretations such as highly detailed and dynamic visualisations and navigation environments which have strong popular appeal.\n\nnext generation

//[[Every Object Tells a Story]]// is an [[interactive]] project that tries to put conversation at the center of object interpretation. The project includes 1600 digital images from the museum's collections, and invites members of the public to submit their own objects and stories. The project brings together everyday objects with national treasures, and expert opinion with personal anecdote. The online presentation of these objects is the same regardless of provenance, ensuring parity of esteem between stories and objects. The project enables all who visit the site to make their own contributions on their own terms. It creates a many-part conversation about the value of objects and the meanings that form around them.\n\n\nEvery Object Tells a Story is produced by the Victoria & Albert Museum, with Ultralab and Channel 4, and commissioned by [[Culture Online|http://www.cultureonline.gov.uk/]].

An architecture for participation eases communication and sharing of information and supports two basic concepts that networking was built to support. Connecting together [[social software]] tools such as [[blogs]] and [[wikis]] with [[social networking]] and [[social knowledge management/interpretation]] tools can create an [[information architecture]] that embraces [[participation]]. [[knowledge production]] can become a more [[transparent]] form of [[coproduction]], which would be closer to the [[values]] and norms present in [[social construction]] theory.

It should be acknowledged that there are dangers in encouraging a personal interpretation of objects. The first and most obvious is the danger of distortion, and the use of objects for erroneous personal justification.\n\nIndeed, it is this model of publication by the public that might be seen to increase the reputational risk of the project. In fact, the [[Wikipedia|http://en.wikipedia.org/]] article [[Criticism of Wikipedia|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia]] cites two examples of such reluctance to accept a move away from the top-down information hierarchy and towards a model of open publication:\n\n<<<\nThe main problem is lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, that all goes out the window. (librarian Philip Bradley)\n<<<\n\n<<<\nThe user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may obviously be dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly doesn't know is who has used the facilities before him. (Robert Mchenry, former editor in chief of Encyclopedia Britannica)\n<<<\n\nOne potential counter to this hierarchical approach and the mistrust of this format may be by presenting conflicting interpretations, and expert and amateur interpretations side-by-side, creating a format for conversation and debate that allows readers to engage with multiple narratives, thereby arriving at their own understanding – learning through the assimilation of varied information on their own terms, rather than simply accepting received wisdom.\n\nSuch disdain of public knowledge and contribution reinforces the model in which knowledge is owned by the few, to be distributed to the many.\nHoever, several opportunities can be created by this approach. The ability for people to add their own experiences with objects to a repository can tell us much about culture and memory. It enables opportunities for broader social inclusion, and contribution to cultural heritage, and it facilitates [[inclusive and representative]] social networks between members of the public and civic and cultural organizations to inspire civic involvement and investment. \n\nIn recognizing the contribution a reader can make and publishing it, folksonomic and socially interpretive projects create an emotional connection of validation with their users. This in turn creates their desire for the community to function effectively and to learn and enjoy the stories provided by curators and their peers. In fact it turns creators into peers, involved in active communication with one another.\n\nWhen creators and interpreters are peers, authority begins to take on the more elusive "networked information culture" definitions of popularity, trust, reputation and relevance. The public will learn to develop trust-based relationships, and more importantly, learn how to develop these types of relationships critically by weighing different information to make value judgements online. \n\nA little knowledge can be dangerous. But that does not mean that factual awareness is essential for an object to have meaning to an individual. Indeed, a multi-faceted approach to object interpretation (such as that found in //[[Every Object Tells a Story]]//) runs almost contrary to much [[curatorial research]]. While each museum object is presented with its [[catalogue information]] (showing information about attribution and materials), this is only part of the holistic method encouraged. Unusual items are represented in the Every Object collection including..., and a Star Wars At-At Fighter - described by the storyteller with painstaking affection, some twenty-odd years after his playing days have passed. The emotions and [[associations]] that these objects arouse may not be the traditional stuff of museum labels, and the stories they attract will be concerned with the dramas and passions aroused in everyday life by everyday things – and not, at a guess, tales of epochal moments in recent history. But while the tale of one little boy's (thwarted) ambition to become Luke Skywalker may be seen as banal submission to the demands of mass-media, it is nonetheless instructive with regard to childhood and memory, those lodestones of human [[experience]] that are common to us all.\n\nInterpreting objects through [[personal narrative]] relates directly to our understanding of other people and our selves. Indeed, one aim of this project is to convey a greater and more thorough understanding of objects and their significance by allowing [[multiple interpretations]] to co-exist: by combining the historic, cultural, material, personal, and inspirational aspects of an object, we hope to offer the reader a chance to develop a multi-faceted and fully rounded understanding of its importance and place within our society.

Not only is the idea of contextual influence not new, but has been explored in many disciplnes (museology, info sci, comm, art history, etc.) with many different epistemological perspectives ([[structuralism]], [[post-structuralism]], [[semiotics]], [[modernism]], [[postmodernism]], [[social constructivism]], etc.) - and although its been around as a well-explored concept, we still don't know how to incorporate it into our practices in many of the fields mentioned above – so much so that there is resistence to and even outright rejection of the idea that context matters. This resistence can be seen by the staltwart protection of the subject-specialist, and the general absence of solicitation of user interpretation. (there is [[plenty of evidence of encouraging users to develop their own interpretations]], but these are rarely folded into the archive/library/museum/scholarly view of the collection/data that it is never legitimated and gratifies the user little – little [[gratification]] because there is no interaction with others to compare ideas). The subject-object relationship found in structuralist epistemologies is adhered to even though the talk around the idea is explicitly said to the influenced by post-structuralist, [[rhizomatic]] epistemologies. \nIt is problematic that practice is not reflecting conceptual structures. We attempt to change structures in collection interpretation, however, we are doing so by attempting a direct change of the structures – our practices cannot keep up because they cannot be dictated (refer to [[Giddens]] [[structuration]] and [[Orlikowski]]) by structure alone – practices must evolve on their own. We are at an important juncture of structural change and practical change - people are conceptually ready to accept rhizomatic epistemologies; ready to incorporate them into our practices, but have not yet taken that leap in the current set of tools employed by librarians, curators, and scholars. We must look to the technologists who are building without particular end goals in mind – who are building with abandon without paying attention to the structural boundaries that can constrain larger institutions.

describe agency in a way that recognizes that sociability in information organizing is essential eliciting and sharing local knowledge. \n\nmeaning-making as a step in ACCESS - its not just letting people in.\n\ncontext, cultural use and meaning. if standard classification can restrict audiences or limit the range of ways to inteact with objects, it should be reasonable to create combination systems that include standard efficiancy-driven ontological categorization AND emergent contextual and local interpretations. \n\npreserving these interpretations along with the objects can help us understand how local knowledges evolve in small ephemeral communities online.

[[Preserving]] the experience of the individual and enabling individuals to share their unique experiences could serve an alternative kind of preservation function that enables us to “save what remains” and take into account [[social context]]. This preserves not only the object, but also [[social metadata]] for contextualizing objects long into the future. Social metadata, or a multiplication of contexts and [[interpretations]], may place these objects beyond the accident of misinterpretation as well as destruction or other loss.\n\n\nThis project will create a formal space for open public contribution to ephemeral digital culture. In this Web space, users will be enabled to discuss and digest their own and others' experiences of Web culture. This group discussion will take place between users, digital culture scholars and curators. This space will incorporate social scholar's research, curator's stewardship, and user's vernacular language to help us all discuss and understand digital culture, and lend a hand in its complex [[preservation]]. The goals and values of [[communities of practice]] inspiring the space will be explored.

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari used the term "rhizome" to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation. In A Thousand Plateaus, they opposed it to an arborescent conception of knowledge, which is a term they developed to describe thinking that favors dualist categories and binary choices. A rhizome works with horizontal and trans-species connections, while an arborescent model works with vertical and linear, heirarchical connections.\nsee [[Jeff Vail|http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/08/rhizome-communication-and-our-one-time.html]]\n

human decision-making, and sense-making processes are based on pattern matching. rather than traversing a complex heirarchical database to rule in and rule out options through careful analysis until we find the object or decision we seek. We consider or sense a large range of options then determine the best fit. [[Dave Snowden]] apparently made a remark (i'm not sure where, although it might have been at [[David Gurteen's Making Knowledge Work conference|http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/L001182/]]) about the nature of sense-making:\n<<<\n"The only humans who analyse all the data and then make a rational choice are autistic, but economists insist this is the way we all work."\n<<<\npattern-matching is dangerous when the same patterns are applied repeatedly. individuals are able to recognize paradigm shifts to adjust, but organizations aren't as adept and can easily become locked into a way of doing things. introducing some sort of different stimulus can show how an organization may be trained to apply similar patterns, and can offer new data to enter the system to inspire new patterns. \n

Social software, as used in this project, refers to modes of computer-mediated communication that results in community formation (whether close-knit and small, or large and dispersed), rather than referring ot one particular type of software. Social software combine one-to-one (email and instant messaging), one-to-many ([[blogs]] and Web pages), and many-to-many ([[wikis]]) communication modes to enable collaborative work environments and 'bottom-up' community development. Social software are primarily communication and interaction tools. Communication tools manage the storage, capture and presentation of communication. Interaction tools facilitate exchange between people communicating in different modes. \n

"Because of their differences in physical and symbolic form, the resulting differences in their intellectual, emotional, temporal, spatial, political, social, metaphysical, and content biases, different media have different epistemological biases." -Christine Nystrom\ncited as personal correspondence in \nZimmer, Michael T. (2005) Media Ecology and Value Sensitive Design: A combined approach to understanding the biases of media technology. Presentecd at the 6th Annual Media Ecology Association Conference, New York, NY, June 22-26.\n\nGenerally, there are three theories about how media and tehcnologies have biases: embodied, exogenous, and interactional. \n\nThe embodied theory explains that technologies embody the biases of their inventors. Following a deterministic paradigm, the technologies, once embedded in society determine how people may behave and interact, and thus determine society's biases as well. The most frequently cited example of embodied bias is provided by Langdon Winner (1996). Winner tells the story of Robert Moses, the urban planner responsible fo rmuch of modern New York City, and the design of the Long Island Highway. The overpasses of the highway we built only nine feet high, allowing only single-family automobiles to navigate the parkway. The city's poor and minority families, who were largely dependent on public busses for transportation were essentially blocked from accessing the beachfront destinations to which the highway lead. This theory explains that certain biases are designed into technologies, the resutling artifact determines human behavior and cultural effects. Similarly to technological determinism thesis, the embodied theory posits that social, cultural, political and economic aspects of human life are, to a large degree, determined by technology. While technological determinism also holds that technology is an autonomous force evolving along a linear and inevitable path regardless of social or cultural context, the embodied theory does not go this far. \n\nExogenous theories of technology argue that outside forces significantly shape how technology is designed, diffused and used. Tehcnological bias emerges as a result of social shaping of the technology, often beyond the control of the original designer. The [[social construction]] of technology (SCOT) is an exogenous theory held by several theorists (CITE SCOT SCHOALRS). Exogenous theories explain that technologies are constructed through a process of strategic negotiation between different social groups, each pursuing their own interests. Social arrangements create, shape, and determine the design of technologies, how they are used and the biases they display. Pinch and Bjiker (2987) explain how early bicyles developed to illustrate the exogenous forces workign ot shape technology. Initially, there was great flexibility in bicyle design. Many alternative technologies were being developed, each with their own technological bias (favoring speed, safety, aggressiveness, etc.), each appealing to different constituiencies. Over time, selection and narrowing of various styles took place and large constituencies (called relevant social groups by Pinch and Bjiker) agreed on a purpose, meaning and physical form of the bicycle. The bicycles we see today are a limited set of alternative of this design that emerged through the interaction between sociocultural influences. Exogenous theories of technological bias focus on the sociocultural interaction that determines the development of a technology which ultimately resolves in a stable design for the artifact. This is a subtle distinction that separates it from the interactional theory.\n\nInteractional theories of technological bias posit that bias results from a technology's //use//. The goals and biases of the people using a technology determine its biases. The interactional theory recognizes that technologies rarely reach a state of closure, rather it changes over time through human interaction. Technologies may be designed for a particular use, but are repeatedly appropriated and redesigned, and appropriated and redesigned, etc. The bias of a technology results from the technology in practice, or the interactions between the technologies and the users. Those biases can then be resisted and reformulated through those very interactions. The most common example of bias developed through interaction is the development, adoption and use of the Internet. The Internet was originally designed as a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense - the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). While the projects goals were military, and research oriented (to create a data communications network that would withstand loss of large portions of the underlying network, and to link mainframe computers at large universities and labs across the country so researchers could share computer resources), it was largely maintained by graduate students. Once taken out of the hands of the original developers, the usage changed. For the graduate students who interacted with the technology on a dialy basis, it became a communication technology. Email and chat evolved quickly. the original bias toward resource sharing and government communcation was quickly transformed to favor human interpersonal and other interaction. \nThese interactions take a primary position in determining how we understand the development of technologies. This interactional activity is the key to the developmental processes of the subject and object - of the user, the technology, and the objects to which the technology provides access. Activity theory analysis can provide us with an understanding of the develpmental process, and also help us develop means by which developmental progress might be easier and more transparent. \n\nThese three perspectives represent only three of many theories about technology. these three are related in a Hegelain dialectic consisting of a thesis, antithesis and synthesis. It is the synthesis that I will focus on in this dissertation. \n

is the experience of reading a web site an individual experience, like when reading a book? is it a social experience like when visiting a movie theater? is it both? is it beneficial to be both?

this environment that dictates how the object is exoerienced is an agent of change - a change in how we negotiate meaning about reality. the next step in post-structural ontology.

documentation and preservation\nLevy sets a receipt in space and time, ascribing to it a weight that challenges the readers' everyday sensibilities. He describes the receipt's cultural role of documentarian of myriad transactions. He explains that this receipt also challenges notions of literacy. It assumes that readers of the receipt can understand the meaning of the information printed on it, which explains that it is a record of a financial transaction. The receipt also implicates entire industries in the presentation of its information -- the Federal Reserve, cash register manufacturers, graphic designers, shopkeepers, bread bakers, tuna canners, etc. And although, as Levy explains, the content the receipt presents is "less outwardly noble" than other more "artistic" documents, it performs the same duty of preservation. With this lighthearted, yet poignant description of such a seemingly inconsequential item as a receipt, Levy places historical, structural, and cultural weight on the shoulders of documents. \n\nLevy stresses the point that the definition of a document not only lies in its form and function (although those features certainly do add to our understanding of a given document and how to get information from it), but also in the ecology within which the document was created, exists, and is read. He reminds his readers of his receipt, which in its efforts to preserve and translate information about a transaction, relies on entire industries of buying, selling, and manufacturing in order to translate its message. He asks his readers to make a switch from defining documents not by their form, but by their function. Levy defines documents as those things that are delegated the work of speaking for us, be that in the form of the written word on paper, paint on canvas, emulsion on film, or ones and zeros on a disc. \n\nLevy asks his readers to consider various versions of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass. He takes a shallow dive into the ecology of mediated messages, hinting that, although his many versions of Leaves of Grass -- different print editions and an online version -- have substantial textual differences, reading the work in different forms changes the meanings of the content. Each version has its benefits and drawbacks, and each version can reliably repeat its own version of the information it was created to transmit. Taken together, a reader can potentially develop a much richer version of the information. He uses this example to justify the [["fluidity" of documents]]. To perform their duties, they must be reliably repeatable, but they also can hold -- no matter how fluid or static the medium -- a great ability to document change and its significance. \n\nLevy explores how we consume the information in these forms of documents. How do we read books? How is this different from the information-gathering we do in digital documents? He covers the histories of reading, from monastic spoken reading to the silent, solitary act of reading we know today. He compares the experience one has while silently reading a book to the experience one has while manipulating digital documents and navigates through the morass of digital information that exists in this digital age. And of what is to come of the book and the ebook? Levy leaves his readers with a list of questions, but offers this: books and ebooks both have a place in culture. He continues his mediation of threats posed by technology with the threat digital documentation poses to libraries. He reflects on the meaning of collections and digital collections, libraries and digital libraries. He questions the need for "brick and mortar libraries" when confronted with digital collections. Yet he still highlights the importance of having access to each type; each type of collection is important when one considers the experience of using a brick and mortar collection versus a digital collection. \n\nLevy changes course in chapter eight from the experiences of different document types to discuss the function of digital documents. As he writes earlier, the primary function of documents in culture is to speak for us, to convey some message reliably. He spends a significant amount of paper discussing just how digital documents convey messages. He marvels over their ability to do so reliably but in a medium that is not perceivable to the human senses: "you can't see the bits. You can't see them, you can't touch them, you can't smell them" (138). He goes on to describe the evolution of electronic and digital communication at a distance, and how these "inaccessible" signals have been stored and re-embodied into forms we can access through translation and copying. In this way, he sees digital documents, to an extent, as "generators." He reminds his readers here of the context in which documents are produced. The cash register receipt tells a story not only of a financial transaction involving a tuna sandwich, but it also tells a story of paper manufacturing, cash register manufacturing, etc. Once an event is documented -- in the form of a book, an office memo, or other tangible form -- he suggests that that tangible document largely severs its ties with its mode of production. The book, although a reminder of the bindery, does not need to be bound every time a reader would like to open it. However, digital documents, upon each opening, need to be reconstructed from ones and zeros that command place holders that are the content of the document. The mode of manufacture is always active in the world of digital documents, regardless of how invisible that action may be. Digital documents need a complicated system of hardware and software not only to create but to maintain presence and usefulness. He compares this to other mediated documents -- film, audio recordings, etc. And with this discussion of context and history, Levy discusses preservation. The considerations involved in preserving paper and other documents are similar to the considerations involved in [[preserving digital documents]]. The additional consideration here is that preservation of digital documents is tied up with the production of digital documents, or what Levy calls the "technical environment" surrounding the document. \n\n\nthe computer is slowly becoming an important cultural heritage operator.

In a library setting, cataloging behavior serves the end goal of search - cataloging information enables a user to find it again easily and, depending upon the classification strategy and the user, intuitively. \nThese strategies are useful when the searcher knows precisely what she is looking for, but if she wants to browse beyond the immediate field, she may be left with limited guidance – in the form of broad subject categories. If she wants to expand her browsing to include other fields with which she is not familiar, yet wants to narrow that browsing to how her particular search query realtes to other fields, she is at the mercy of the catalogers and their ability to make wide-ranging connections within their cataloging strategy. While this approach remains faithful to what the object //is//, it may not, and from the perspective of the catalogers workload and workflow, cannot include what the object might mean given myriad perspectives from which to evaluate the object. \n\nThis type of ontological classification is primarily interested in what is and what is possible, and the existing and potential relationships between things that are or may be. But "What is it?" is becoming less and less relevant especially when we are creating more and more objects on the Web - all which merge and [[remediate]] at a rapid pace. And "what is it about?" is a question that, in a world of links, and multiple interpretive paths all taken easily at the click of a button, and a world of automatically generated recommendations (Amazon, etc.) and social networks where users join forces to create, find and understand, has become highly dependent on context and individual use. \nWe can predict broad categorizations of objects, but why bother if we can get more from emergent classification or [[folksonomy]]? the "more" i refer to here is a level of social preservation and a level of transparency for [[social construction]] of reality and knowledge. \n\nGilles Deleuze holds that concepts are not solutions to problems, but constructions that define a range of thinking. Instead of asking, "is it true?" or "what is it?", Deleuze proposes that better questions would be "what does it do?" or "how does it work?"\n\n What is it about? there are narrative relationships between objects from which a multiplication of contexts can be derived. once we see the new environment and see how we can view and understand content differently, we can see new relationships between objects.

A knowledge ecology that begins from management, control, process and security results in expensive enterprise systems with concerns on email and storage.\n\nA participatory, [[inclusive and representative]] knowledge ecology can achieve what [[Knowledge Management]] has failed to do. Social tools and open source platforms provide viable alternatives to expensive authoritative systems that derive their management from strict process, workflow, security and control (although there are other perspectives like [[Domain Analysis]] which take a holistic approach). The restrictions that arise from authoritative management of knowledge can be avoided wiht the particiaptory, [[inclusive and representative]] knowledge ecology that is fostered by social and open tools. \n\nParticipatory knowledge ecology is adaptable, cheap, socially conscious by including voices and interpretations that are normally marginalized, and valuable by providing more of a "take-home" for the user who feels she has contributed. A participatory ecology also accounts for changes in interpretation over time, negotiation of interpretation, and possibilities for including new interpretations. \n\nProcess, workflow, security and control are still important issues in many knowledge-based enviromments (collections, archives, libraries, museums, scholarship). [[Some organizations]] are branching out from this paradigm by incorporating more inclusive and participatory tools. This is a good first step, but [[practices]] could be advanced to be more inclusive, to catch up to the [[post-structural knowledge production]] paradigms that they are influenced by. \n\n\nSocial knowledge production as the step beyond post-structuralism - trace a path where authority moves from author to reader to a negotiation between readerS.

A research methodology which has its roots in philosophy and which focuses on the lived experience of individuals. The tradition is critical of claims that external causal processes operate to generate social reality. The social world is seen as a social construction, and an achievement of people. Closely associated with Constructionism and opposed to Realism and Positivism\n\nThis approach is based on philosophy and it studies conscious awareness of the world as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view.

What is it?\nAn inductive form of qualitative research, introduced by [[Glaser and Strauss]], where data collection and analysis are conducted together. Constant comparison and theoretical sampling are used to support the systematic discovery of theory from the data. Thus theories remain grounded in the observations rather than generated in the abstract. Sampling of cases, settings or respondents is guided by the need to test the limits of developing explanations which are constantly grounded in the data being analysed.\n\nGrounded theory is an approach that develops the theory from the data collected. Rather than applying a theory to the data. This can be a popular approach for people exploring a new area of research. The theory developed from the data can then be tested by further research.\n\nStrauss and Corbin (1990) suggest there are 3 stages in analysis in grounded theory: open coding, axial coding and selective coding. During open coding the researcher reads the text and asks questions to identify codes that are theoretical or analytical. What is going on behind what the person interviewed says rather than just coding literally what is said.\n\nConstant comparison\n\nThis involves various methods of constant comparison. Previously coded text also needs to be checked to see if the new codes created are relevant. Constant comparison is a central part of grounded theory. Newly gathered data are continually compared with previously collected data and their coding in order to refine the development of theoretical categories. The purpose is to test emerging ideas that might take the research in new and fruitful directions.\n\nCoding Line-by-line\n\nAnother approach used in grounded theory is line-by-line coding. Which literally means coding each line of an interview. This approach is intended to keep the researcher close to the data while forcing them to be analytical. This means the researcher is really having to think about what the person being interviewed is saying and hopefully stop their analysis being influenced by their preconceived ideas or just accepting the point of view the interviewee.\n\nThe next step is to check the codes against the text again and see how they can be improved. The codes are also linked with each other and with more general codes.\n\nThe next step after this initial line-by-line coding is to refine the actual codes and to link code together in a meaningful way according their importance. So there may be main code with sub-codes relating to that topic.

Research tradition established by Harold [[Garfinkel]] and others, that emphasises the methods and procedures employed by people when they define and interpret everyday life through talk and interaction. It is the study of commonsense knowledge, its creation and use in natural settings. It involves the systematic study of the ways in which people produce orderly social interaction on a routine, everyday basis and use social interaction to make sense of their situation and create their 'reality'. Ethnomethodology rejects social structural accounts of social order and is keen to show how such 'fictions' are maintained and deployed in everyday life.

is there a faction of social construction theory that matches the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis that can be found in theories about technology (i.e., determinism-scot-interaction that I describe in [[epistemology and technology]]?\n\nThis approach looks at the systems people create to interpret the world around them and their experiences. It can also be refeferred to as social constructionism. The epistemological view that the phenomena of the social and cultural world and their meanings are not objective but are created in human social interaction, that is, they are socially constructed. The approach often, though not exclusively, draws on idealist philosophy. Some writers distinguish Social Constructivism as a more radical version of social constructionism, but often the terms are used interchangeably.

In Illustrator CS\n1. Select your line graphing tool 2. Option click the tool on your page to get a dialog box to specify the size of your graph. 3. Enter all your data in one column. (You can also import data from Excel or any other text file) 4. Once all data is entered, click the checkmark in the upper right of your data table. 5. This will generate your graph. 6. Then, ungroup the graph table. (Note: this will disconnect the data from the graph, so you will not be able to adjust numbers after doing this) 7. Select the Indicator bars to leave just the line. 8. Now you have a true Sparkline that is accurate data. 9. Re-scale, keeping the integrity of the data. 10. Color or add any additional identifiers as well as your text.\n\nmacro for tiddlywiki\n{{{\n<<sparkline 163 218 ... 1328 1611>>\n}}}\n\nshows\n<<sparkline 163 218 345 459 506 629 702 823 953 1032 218 345 459 1143 1254 1328 1423 1512 1611 1423 1143 1254 218 345 459>>

What would happen if we applied what we know of the [[semantic web]], [[search strategies]], [[swarming]] and [[linking theories]] to museum activities of cataloging and exhibition, and muselogical and scholarly ambitions of [[post-structural knowledge production]]? Would we cease to consider that the meaningfulness of art and culture requires a [[collective understanding]]? I contend a truly [[transparent]] process for [[social construction]] of reality would emerge and [[challenge authority]] of [[expert]] knowledge producers in a way that could equalize opportunities to [[engage in sense-making]].\n\nthe interpretation of cultural objects and behaviors is an endeavor that is organic, incomplete, and necessarily the collaborative work of a host of interpreters and sense-makers including scholars, readers, curators, gallery patrons, librarians, researchers, etc. We are all [[knowledge brokers]]. Sense-making ([[meaning-making]]) must be cooperative to create common understanding.

Whether browsing on the internet, in a store, in a gallery, or through a web archive, you should always bring a friend, and you should always ask a stranger. The friend will remind you of who you are, what you think, and remind you that you will never wear that ugly sweater. the stranger offers other advice. The stranger might suggest something you never would have considered. The stranger will open your eyes to new possibilities - even if it was the stranger who suggested that ugly sweater. With a stranger's suggestion, you can put away a bit of yourself for a moment and entertain other possibilities, maybe see the world a little differently, maybe even change your views on something. There are many reasons to be social - Adam Smith's: people need to meet strangers so they can trade. Second, there is Claude Levi-Strauss's: people need to form social units larger than the family because they mustn't have sex with their sister. Trading ideas and developing new relationships help us understnad the world in new ways - it helps us move forward. \n\n

The public space that will be developed in this dissertation experiments with sociable knowledge management techniques in the realm of digital scholarship to test the limits of specialist-produced knowledge and possibilities for engagement with the public. I will design, develop and implement an interface for Kirsten Foot's and Steve Schneider's Web Campaigning digital installation hosted on the MIT Press Web site. The digital installation will include an archive of materials created for and distributed on the Web and exhibits of those archived materials. I will create a secondary site that provides an interactive and folksonomic interface for the installation Foot and Schneider are creating with MIT Press. Through this secondary site, users will be able to tag and annotate objects in the digital archive, and draw together personalized exhibits based on their tags and annotations to share with others. \n\nFoot and Schneider, as co-founders of Webarchivist.org have developed collection and display practices for archiving Web objects. Webarchivist.org, as described by its mission statement, is a research and software development group based at the University of Washington and the SUNY Institute of Technology that works with scholars, librarians and archivists interested in preserving and analyzing materials created for and distributed on the Web. Webarchivist.org has begun to develop a display model - called Webscapes - for illustrative examples of digital scholarship. Webscapes are virtual exhibits that engage the reader and describe, with visual queues, concepts and general patterns discussed in scholarship supported by Web archives. Webscapes can be used as a way to display and describe examples of patterns and meaning made about archived objects. Webscapes can be expanded to resemble an interactive museum exhibit with general cultural appeal, beyond academic audiences.\n\n As a researcher for Webarchivist.org, I have been involved in developing strategies for collecting, archiving and analyzing. As a curator for Webarchivist.org, I have experimented with the Webscape format, and will be creating Webscapes for the Web Campaigning digital installation. For this dissertation project, I will build a secondary site that provides alternative access to this installation, and will enable users to create accounts, tag and annotate objects in the archive, and draw together Webscapes (or personalized exhibits based on their tags, annotations and experiences of the Web archive) to share with others. With this design, development and implementation, I will expand the scope of the Webarchivist.org mission to include exhibition, which, at this point, is something the organization has only experimented with. Broadening Webarchivist.org's mission to include exhibition will cause my role in the organization to straddle the responsibilities of scholars and curators, and blur distinctions between the two communities of practice. \n\n\nWe can take advantage of new mediated environments to make new interfaces that exploit this activity-based and interactional relationship subjects have with objects rendered through technology.

Interpreting objects in Web archives can be an organic and evolving process. Scholars, curators, librarians, and researchers all contribute - but what about individual visitors? We are all knowledge brokers: Wayfinder is a tool to create common understanding through individuals' exploration of Web archives.\n\nBegin by creating your own account where you'll tag and annotate objects from the Web Campaigning collection, hosted by MIT Press. Lend your ideas about the collection by tagging and annotating objects. Learn from other archive visitors by browsing their notes. Add other users to your personal contacts list so you can see what friends and colleagues have commented on recently. See what they've viewed before, and how that affects what they view next. Use the discussion board to start a conversation about groups of objects or themes you find in the collections.\n\nWayfinder is an exhibit aid, a teaching tool, and a research tool. Group and regroup your objects so different interpretations can emerge. Collection visitors can become curators, exploring and organizing an archive to build their own ideas and interests. With Wayfinder, you can browse and tag the archive to build your own representations and find your way through others' ideas.\n

Wayfinder is a personalized entry into a Web archive or a collection\nof archived Websites. You'll create a personal account where you can\nbrowse a larger collection, tag and annotate objects from that\ncollection to populate your own subset - My Collection. Currently the\nWeb collection to which Wayfinder provides access is Kirsten's and\nSteve's Web Campaigning collection. Their Web Campaigning Digital\nInstallation (the tiddlywiki) provides deep description of objects in\ncontext, and later webscapes will display these objects in small\ncurated exhibits. Wayfinder provides an alternate entry to this\ncollection.\n\nWith Wayfinder, you can access the objects in the collection directly\n(instead of through endnotes in a larger text, or in context in an\nexhibit), and assign personal tags and write notes for each note. You\nmay also view other users' activities - what has Joey looked at\nrecently, what objects has he written notes for? And if you decide\nyou like what another user has viewed in the collection, or like his\nnote-taking style, you can add him to your personal contact list so\nyou may quickly access a list of objects he has recently viewed.\n\nYou can start by browsing the collection one object at a time, you\nbegin with your collection (My Collection keeps track of objects\nyou've recently viewed whether you've tagged them or not, and objects\nyou've recently noted), or you can search. Search from any page in\nWayfinder for tags, or use the advanced search page to look for\ncatalog information such as title or producer type.\n\nWayfinder puts the emphasis on the objects, rather than the user's\ntags. When you view an object you see tags and notes of other users\nfor that object (you can't view a tag cloud of Joey's tags, for\nexample). This is because I am interested in how people interact with\nobjects based on what they've viewed before, and how what they are\nviewing now effects what they view next. I want people to be focused\non the content of the objects rather than on their tag lists. I want\nto see how people categorize objects rather than how they organize\ntheir categorizational schemes. I also want to see how people\ninfluence each other online. how are communities formed around\narchives? To that end, there is a disucssion board where I hope users\nwill create discussions about objects, or themes, etc.

\nUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON\nINFORMATION FORM\nOnline Experiment\nInvestigator: \nMeghan Dougherty, Doctoral candidate under the supervision of Kirsten Foot, Department of Communication, University of Washington, modcx1@u.washignton.edu Please note that we cannot ensure the confidentiality of information sent via e-mail.\n\nInvestigators' statement\n\nI am asking you to be in a research study. The purpose of this information form is to give you the information you will need to help you decide whether or not to be in the study. Please read the form carefully. You may ask questions about the purpose of the research, what we would ask you to do, the possible risks and benefits, your rights as a volunteer, and anything else about the research or this form that is not clear. When all your questions have been answered, you can decide if you want to be in the study or not. This process is called ‘informed consent.’\nPURPOSE OF THE STUDY\nI am conducting a research study to examine the use of online technology in museums and in scholarship to enable non-expert, decentralized groups to participate in collective meaning-making and preservation in digital culture. I ask that you visit and interact with a Web site that will give you access to a published Web archive on Web Campaigning.\nPROCEDURES\nIf you choose to be in this study, I would like you to use an online tool called Wayfinder - a tagging (keywording) and annotating interface for Web archives available at www.archivefilter.net/wayfinder. At this site, you will gain access to Kirsten Foot's and Steve Schneider's Web Campaigning digital installation hosted by MIT Press. You will be able to tag and annotate objects in the installation, or click through to visit specially curated exhibits about objects in the installation. You will be given the opportunity to enter keywords describing installation objects, to view descriptions other participants have entered, or to view catalog information supplied by the installation’s cataloger. You are not required to enter information to view other participant’s input, or to view the installation. You will not be asked to supply identifying information. \n\nRISKS, STRESS, OR DISCOMFORT\nSome people feel that providing information for research is an invasion of privacy. Some people feel that political content on the Web is offensive. \nBENEFITS OF THE STUDY\nI hope that the results of this study will better help people who are developing strategies for collecting documenting and exhibiting digital cultural ephemera in the future. You may not directly benefit from this study.\nOTHER INFORMATION\nBeing in this study is voluntary. You can stop at any time. The results of the research study may be published or used in future comparative studies. Your participation may take as much or as little time as you like, whenever you like. The site and your data will remain accessible after data is harvested for analysis in February 2007, at least until the study is complete or until June 2007. The information you enter may not be available to view immediately – all entries will pass through a moderator to exclude automated entries and executable files. Once your tags and annotations are available, they are available to all who use the site. \n \nGovernment or university staffs sometimes review studies such as this one to make sure they are being done safely and legally. If a review of this study takes place, your records may be examined. The reviewers will protect your privacy. The study records will not be used to put you at legal risk of harm.\nIf you have any questions, you can ask me now or later. If you have any questions about your rights as a research subjects, you can call the University of Washington Human Subjects Division (206) 543-0098.\n\nSubject’s statement\nThis study has been explained to me. I volunteer to take part in this research. I have had a chance to ask questions. If I have questions later about the research, I can ask one of the researchers listed above. If I have questions about my rights, I can call the Human Subjects Division at (206) 543-0098. \n\nPlease use Wayfinder only if you can agree with all of the following statements:\nI am over the age of 18. \nI am legally competent to provide consent.\nI am not currently a prisoner.\n

Concept\nOn the Web, people have their own experiences; they surf the net - discovering sites, reading text, looking at images, and playing with tools and games - on their own - coming to different Web artifacts following their own, but sometimes similar paths. Each of these Web artifacts exists within multiple contexts -- the context of the media environment, the substantive context, and the social context. The meaning visitors make of these artifacts and find new artifacts to broaden their understanding depends upon their path, their prior experiences, their epistemology, their intake of others’ experiences, and their ability to share the experience they have had.\n \n\nExample\nCreate a personal account to browse a Web archive. Tag and annotate objects from that collection to populate your own subset - My Collection. Wayfinder provides access to Kirsten Foot’s and Steve Schneider’s Web Campaigning collection hosted by MIT Press. Wayfinder is a personalizable interface for this collection where you can observe archive objects with your own lens and interact with others browsing archive objects.\n\nStart by browsing the collection one object at a time. Begin with My Collection where objects you’ve recently viewed are saved, or search the collection for something specific. Search from any page in Wayfinder for tags, or use the advanced search page to look for catalog information such as title or producer type.

Concept \n[[Wayfinder]] is a model for engagement between users and producers resulting in a method for preserving individual interaction with Web objects, and interaction between users to build understanding of Web objects. The thick descriptions of ethnographers about users’ interaction with the Web can be recursively tagged and rearranged by the participants and scholars together to co-produce knowledge about Web objects and the activities within which users engage with those objects. Not only can ethnographers gather more data about how people understand objects on the Web, they can open their data up to participants for new concepts for understanding activity and engagement on the Web.\n\nExample\nLearn from other archive readers by browsing their notes about objects referenced in the Web Campaigning text; add them to your Contacts list to share ideas. Browse, tag and note to build your own representations and find your way through other’s ideas.\n\n\n\n

Concept\n[[Wayfinder]] provides opportunities for experience - not simply access - where users can experience exhibits of archived Web artifacts, and supply their own experiences of the objects in the online digital collection. This is a space for users to co-produce ethnographic work, construct personal meaning through experience and zextend that meaning to the world by sharing it with other users, thus creating more platforms for new meaning. Wayfinder enables scholars conducting virtual ethnography and curators designing online digital exhibits to engage broader audiences as interpreters and contributors of narratives about archive objects. They contribute personal experience to documentation through open categorization, or ‘folksonomy’ – a way for groups of people spontaneously organize objects into categories that are not formal or prescribed.\nedit collect\n\nExample\nTag and annotate objects from the collection to create individual subsets - My Collection. Wayfinder offers participants an opportunity to catalog in their own terms, take notes and share ideas with scholars, friends, or colleagues. Objects you view and tag are kept in a list for you so you can look back at objects you have viewed previously and think about how that affects what you’ll view next. Collection visitors can become curators, exploring and organizing a collection to build their own ideas and interests. \n

\nWe can take advantage of new mediated environments to make new interfaces that exploit this activity-based and interactional relationship subjects have with each other and with objects rendered through technology.\n\n\n\nwayfinder is ... tagging to help you find your way through the archive. \n\nWAYFINDER\nis your personalized entry into an exhibit of archived Web sites. Take a look through the Web installation to get a guided tour through the archived sites, or just browse through the sites on your own. When you find a site that interests you, tag it to keep it marked, share your tags with others, and see what others have tagged. Explore and enjoy!\n\nWith wayfinder, you can:\n\n Explore the exhibit on your own or with help from a curator. (“help from a curator” links to the WC installation wiki)\n Collect pages from the exhibit by tagging them with descriptions that make sense to you. Describe it in a word and find it quickly later.\n Connect with others who want to share their stories about what they have found. Share your view of the installation and learn from others’ views.\n\n\nwebscaping as a next step for wayfinder. you can use your tags - your own collected understanding of the archive objects - to group objects together to create your own personal curated exhibit of archive objects. You be the curator. \n\nOpen archive creation - users can submit suggestions for sites to add to the collection. this collection is entirely yours. make your own meaning, read scholarly work on the archive, view others' tags, view others' exhibits, submit new sites to be added to the collection. \n\n\nbring together annotations of installation objects with the live web to archive and make social exhibits.\n\n

Wayfinder is a model for display and engagement that takes advantage of the connecting and engaging capabilities of networked digital media. Wayfinder is a personalizable interface for Web archives where users can tag and annotate artifacts interpreting and understanding through their individual exploration. It demonstrates the incorporation of new principles, practices and structures that value (1) cultural objects in a broader sense as polysemic entities; (2) the meaning of narratives and classificatory systems as products of cultural, disciplinary, curatorial, and individual opinion; and (3) the roles of diverse actors in knowledge production including ethnographic scholars and participants as knowledge brokers to equalize opportunities for sense-making.\n\nWayfinder is an exhibit aid, a teaching tool, and a research tool that provides access to an expertly annotated collection of archived Web objects, and opens the collection up to non-expert interpretation. It works in conjunction with the Web Campaigning Digital Installation by Kirsten Foot and Steve Schneider, hosted by MIT Press. While the Web Campaigning Digital Installation presents expert annotations of archived Web objects, Wayfinder’s visitors create their own (meta)annotations about these objects and about the experts’ annotations.\nCollection visitors create and share their own interpretative lenses among members of the Wayfinder community. Participants leave traces of their own lenses, and challenge others’ narratives to generate multiple interpretations for the same collection of notes and artifacts. \n\nIn its current form, I will use Wayfinder to study the visitors as annotators themselves in relation to their individual narratives about the installation and interactions with artifacts, expert annotations and each other.\n\n\n

Archiving the Web maps the nascent field of digital cultural heritage – the legacy of cybercultural artifacts found on the World Wide Web. I present core concepts of the field, and I present an interface tool developed show a relationship between experts, users and evolving practices. I use interaction history and social navigation as conceptual motivation for the tool, which is to be used as an interface for Web archives, and a prompt to include a broader range of actors as knowledge brokers and catalysts for cultural preservation. \n\nDigital information often lacks history, texture and depth. Compared to a used book or a lived-in house, digital artifacts lack the rich marks made by previous users that serve as pointers that can help us make better use of information, spaces, and cultural heritage. By using traces left by past users, current users can find and understand digital cultural heritage. Traces left by previous users also alter the history of the object in question, either by changing the object itself or changing the use or meaning of the object over time. These traces, when considered as significant for the preservation of cultural heritage, enable the history, texture and depth that digital objects currently lack. \n\nThis project ties interaction history directly to digital cultural preservation by foregrounding social navigation and collaborative meaning-making in a prototype interface to archives of Web artifacts. \n\nMy research questions as written in my accepted proposal read as follows:\n\nTo explore this problematic challenge to authority, I will address three questions. The primary research question is (1) how can interactive tools change inclusive knowledge management and knowledge production? To open the black box of building interactive tools in scholarship and curation, I will ask two supplemental questions: (2) what is the role of the expert in preservation and meaning-making; and (3) what are the goals of curators and scholars?\n\nMy experience in building the Wayfinder tool, my pre-production research, and other ethnographic experiences such as participant observation (attending conferences, working with developers and designers), and conducting interviews have shown that people working in this field do not yet recognize it for what it is – a legitimate field with unique core concepts and defining practices. Before questions about specific roles and goals of these experts and their users can be answered fully, the field must first be defined, and possibilities explored.\n\nTo adjust for the lack of definition observed in the field, I have moved my research question up a level of abstraction. With my revised questions, I focus on possibilities for defining the field and articulating core concepts rather than pinpointing the roles and goals of those involved in building interactive tools in this yet undefined field. \n\nMy research questions for this reframed version of this dissertation are as follows:\nHow can network technology be used to transform interpretation and preservation for digital cultural heritage?\nI ask this question in order to define a developing field, and to determine paths for the evolution of certain practices in this field. To focus on this goal, I ask:\nWhat core concepts define the field of digital cultural heritage?\nWhat possible meaning-making and preservation roles and relationships exist for experts and users of digital cultural heritage?\nHow can these roles and relationships be incorporated into interfaces to collections of digital cultural artifacts in order to inspire inclusive knowledge management, production and stewardship of digital cultural heritage?\n\nTo answer these questions and to articulate the problem addressed by this project, I address the possible effects of network technology on digital communication heritage. There has been little work done to articulate the concepts, scope, or practices for the field of digital cultural heritage. My response to this question opens possibilities for new preservation, interpretation, and representation practices. \n\nA networked and communicative frame for responding to these questions is central. The production of digital cultural heritage involves ongoing interpretation, the accumulation of communicative traces, reinterpreting and regrouping (cognitive wandering) to make meaning. The networked nature of these communicative acts makes the medium social. My solution to the problem draws on social navigation (where people personalize, filter and refer to each other for help making meaning) and interaction history (the traces people leave behind after/because of interacting with objects) to redefine preservation and interpretation in cultural heritage. This redefinition opens possibilities for stewardship of digital cultural heritage. \n\nMy explanation of the field focuses on interfaces to digital cultural heritage. By beginning with the interfaces to digital cultural heritage, we can see more clearly the transformation preservation and interpretation practices go through when translated from tangible cultural heritage to digitized cultural heritage to artifacts mediated through networked technology. I address the potential for the interface to affect new relationships between experts and non-experts by including a wide range of knowledge brokers, and so I address the interface not only as a point of access but as a point of meaning making relevant both to interpretation and preservation of digital artifacts. \n\nInclusive and social interfaces to digital artifacts frame Web archives as cultural objects that are polysemic entities. The meanings of narratives and classificatory systems used to describe them are products of cultural, disciplinary, museum and curatorial opinion. These opinions are mediated through installations as interfaces or representations that produce knowledge for various viewers in various contexts. In these various contexts, a diverse range of actors engage in the cycle of knowledge production. Through interfaces to Web archives, curators, collections managers, and users alike take on roles as knowledge experts and knowledge brokers. By extending these concepts of redefined authority and polysemy to preservation, artifacts of networked culture can be preserved as history-rich objects showing accumulated audience and user interaction and interpretation. \n\nAs an example of how an interface might incorporate the core concepts defining the digital cultural heritage, I introduce Wayfinder – a personalizable interface for Web archives. Wayfinder highlights unique concerns for digital preservation and interpretation, including social intentions from producers of Web artifacts and social possibilities for stewardship in digital cultural heritage. I also rely on observations in the field gathered while producing Wayfinder, and while interacting and corresponding with experts in similar cultural heritage fields.\n\nThis dissertation is based on two central arguments that I anticipate the collected observations will reflect. First, social technologies will enable more effective forms of collective meaning construction. This is particularly true of the emerging tools for "collective tagging" which is profoundly reshaping the ability of people to organize, find and make meaning of objects and experiences, own and make use of knowledge, and maintain public discourse about the social construction of reality, transparently, together. From this argument I will derive a second normative claim. We should explore ways to structure knowledge production to reach beyond the academy or the museum to include, and make reliable and valid, decentralized, social meaning-making of and by the people so that multiple voices may be included in the stewardship of digital culture. \n\nI make four contributions with this project:\n1. I make a compelling case for digital cultural heritage as a unique and worthy field beyond the digitization of cultural heritage for preservation – I map the field by articulating core concepts to show why it is deserving of its own preservation and interpretation practices. \n2. I show how the application of interaction history and social navigation can change curation, display, and preservation of cultural heritage stewardship when applied to digital cultural artifacts.\n3. I define the roles of a diverse range of actors to engage in the cycle of knowledge production within Web archives - including curators, collections managers, and users as knowledge experts and knowledge brokers.\n4. I contribute a tool that others can use to make sense of a particular collection or license to create access to other digital collections.\n

[[start here]]\n[[extreme reading]]\n[[abstract]]\n[[Digital cultural heritage]]