Wednesday, February 12, 12:00-1:15 p.m. WMS 415 (from 4th floor elevator, turn L then R)
Oceanic Exchanges: Tracing Global Information Networks in Historical Newspaper Repositories, 1840-1914
For data and digital humanists, observing transnational and transcontinental news circulation offers a keen reminder that “news flow” is as much a function of intimate rhizomatic accidents and technological imagination as it is of telegram networks and modal distribution. This is particularly true when the flow occurred without the explicit use of digital tools, though the affordances of now-digital historical methods help to illuminate these accidents and networks in detail. Digital Scholars is pleased to welcome two scholars, Jana Keck and Paul Fyfe, to share Oceanic Exchanges, a series of projects that work toward uncovering the hidden strategies responsible for promoting the transcontinental flow of information about people, places, and global events between 1840–1914. During their virtual visit, Keck and Fyfe will offer stories of its exigence and development, and offer glimpses into how it is is designed to aggregate — in new ways — the vast but disparate linked open data that occurs in extant sources, such as Chronicling America and The Times Digital Archive. Among the many remarkable features of Oceanic Exchanges is its transcontinental construction. Led by Ryan Cordell and Lara Rose, and established to be an accomplished research collective, Oceanic Exchanges boasts a research team of scholars from seven countries in Europe and the Americas, and represents funded support from six national agencies.
Participants are encouraged to bring electronic tablets or laptops, and to read and browse the following resources in advance:
Mila Oiva, Asko Nivala, Hannu Salmi, Otto Latva, Marja Jalava, Jana Keck, Laura Martínez Domínguez & James Parker(2019). “Spreading News in 1904: The Media Coverage of Nikolay Bobrikov’s Shooting,”Media History,DOI: 10.1080/13688804.2019.1652090
Four years ago this month, Dr. David Johnson presented Digital Scholars with a paleographic tool still under development: “The Tremulator.” Nicknamed after the intricate “layering” of glossed manuscripts in the Middle Ages (such as those produced by the “Tremulous Hand of Worcester” in 13th-century England), this tool was remarkable in two ways: (1) It enabled paleographers to perform scrutinous analysis of medieval inscriptions on something as accessible as a touch-screen device; and (2) it enabled a kind of crowd-sourced cataloguing and visualizing of translative data, especially capturing their various signs of use. As the first speaker in our series on “Using the Humanist’s Tools,” Dr. Johnson will discuss and demonstrate the Tremulator in its current iteration, offering insight into what developers call the “server-side” or “back-end” functions of the tool. Participants are encouraged to bring electronic tablets or laptops, and to browse the following resources in advance:
Johnson, David F (2019). The Micro-Texts of the Tremulous Hand of Worcester: Genesis of a Vernacular liber exemplorum. In Ursula Lenker, Lucia Komexl (Eds.), Anglo-Saxon Micro-Texts (pp. 225-266). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110630961-012 [stable copy in Canvas org site]
Thorpe, Deborah E., and Jane E. Alty (2015). What type of tremor did the medieval ‘Tremulous Hand of Worcester’ have? Brain: A Journal of Neurology, vol. 10, pp. 3123-27. (open-access at Oxford Journals http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/138/10/3123)
Friday, January 17, 12:00-1:15 pm Williams 415 [immediate L off elevators, then R down hall to seminar room]
An Introduction to “Using the Humanist’s Tools”
For our first meeting of Spring 2020, we will identify lingering and observable tensions between institutional outcomes and institutional value where the humanities’ involvement in digital scholarship is concerned. We will do so by discussing three different proposals for achieving humanistic inquiry through appropriations of data: Christina Boyles’s 2018 argument for social-justice data curation as an intersectional approach to the digital humanities; Stephen Ramsey and Geoffrey Rockwell’s 2012 argument for a materialist ideology that demonstrates “building things” as legitimate theoretical work; and Lev Manovich’s 1998 argument for the database as an appropriately postmodern logic that harnesses the aesthetic capacities and technical motivations of Web 2.0.
These proposals are, by now, familiar and well circulating for many scholars and teachers of the digital humanities and related fields, yet publishing trends in the humanities show them to be largely unrealized at the institutional level. When we meet, we’ll question these as-yet unrealized goals. Do the proposals languish only within institutions that value external stakes more highly than internal outcomes (i.e., privileging big-data representations, tool development, and high-tech market applications over small-scale data representations or exploratory critical work)? Do they languish as a result of new (or recurring) systemic disagreements about the efficacy of materialist work? Or do they reflect more deeply embedded and conflicting assumptions about what is real in DH research?
While the January 17 meeting is primarily for graduate students enrolled in or regularly attending the group, all Digital Scholars participants are welcome to read and join us for conversation on any of the following:
“Developing Things: Notes toward an Epistemology of Building in the Digital Humanities,” by Stephen Ramsey and Geoffrey Rockwell. In Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Matthew K. Gold, 2012 (online version: http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/11)
I’m pleased to announce our schedule of topics and speakers for the culminating semester of Digital Scholars, on “using the humanist’s tools,” with all sessions inviting hands-on participation or offering a look into the architecture of particular projects. Please mark your calendars for the following dates:
[Ellie Marvin is a master’s student enrolled in the Digital Scholars reading group this semester.]
Today, I opened the Twitter app and was greeted with a small banner notifying me of upcoming changes to Twitter’s Terms and Conditions. An updated version of their terms will go into effect on January 1, 2020. I quickly dismissed the banner, swiping away to see the content I opened the app to see. After watching the most recent Digital Scholars webinar, however, I decided to investigate further.
During the webinar, Yuwei Lin discussed a recent project in which she asked her students to record themselves asking if people have read Terms and Conditions for many of the apps and devices they use every day. Unsurprisingly, most people confessed they had not read these often long and jargon-filled documents. Anais Nony later brought up the idea of the ubiquitous and deceptive “feeling of consent” which we tend to engage in as a society. We allow ourselves to feel as if we’ve consented to certain kinds of surveillance without fully considering the consequences and how far-reaching that surveillance may be. This blind and blissful ignorance lulls us into a false sense of feeling as though we have control over our data, despite rarely actually looking into where it goes and who owns it.
Twitter has historically been an important social media platform for the growth and development of digital humanities. Twitter is often used in a digital humanities context to spread important academic information, and also to rapidly and collaboratively disseminate and create knowledge. Since Twitter is such an important tool in my field, I feel compelled to use it—even if only to browse other users’ tweets—and should understand what data the app is tracking.
I was a bit upset (yet, still not surprised) to learn about how much data Twitter takes from me and all of its users. I do not like that it claims absolutely no responsibility for content its users post or any fallout from that content. I also do not appreciate the fact that, while Twitter takes no responsibility for this content, it is also able to remove content. Not only that, but Twitter retains a “worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute” any content posted on their site. This is a scary thought and an unpleasant one to have to consider.
One nice thing about Twitter, I will say, is its openness about advertising and the data which it will receive. I discovered a page which each logged-in user can access. The page will show users what data Twitter has gathered from them and what kind of advertisements have been tailored to them. The best part about this feature is that users have the option to turn it off. At any point, I can decide I would not like to have targeted ads and can simply subscribe to the same ads every other generic Twitter use could see.
With an upsurge in attention toward veillance and transparency practices since Edward Snowden’s 2013 interviews published by The Guardian, public conversations of data surveillance have lately centered on racist and cultural critique. Please join us for our final webinar in the continuing series on “People in Data II,” open to any members of the FSU, FAMU, and TCC communities, as well as greater Tallahassee, the state of Florida, and beyond. This discussion will focus on several aspects of surveillance, from sousveillance alternatives (Steve Mann, 2005) to technological supremacy.
WEBINAR: Friday, November 22 – 12:00-1:30 p.m. EST
“Data Surveillance” featuring
Attending and Connecting Webinar participants in Tallahassee are welcome to join us in person in the R&D Commons, basement level of Strozier Library, or to connect remotely via LiveStorm. Through the interactive features of our LiveStorm platform, all participants will have the opportunity to submit questions and participate in group chat.
Connection Requirements Remote participants should ensure or secure the following:
Web browser (Edge, Chrome, Firefox, Safari version 10 or greater)
Adobe Flash Player version 10.1 or greater
Internal or external speaker
(recommended: headsets or earbuds for optimum sound)
Connection Troubleshooting If your email host runs Proofpoint, you may experience some difficulty with the email-based link/button that Livestorm sends you to access the webinar. Should this happen, you can still access the webinar by copying/pasting the webinar url into your web browser, rather than clicking the link/button.
This webinar is made possible through the generous support of FSU’s Office of Research.
[Ellie Marvin is a master’s student enrolled in the Digital Scholars reading group this semester.]
In their chapter entitled “Augmented Realities,” Casey Boyle and Nathaniel A. Rivers write about their definition of the term ‘augmented’: “The language of “augmented realities” reflects the very etymology of the word augment (augmentare), which suggests an increase, not an addition. To augment, then, does not simply entail supplementing some base—a priori ontological substrate—but rather increasing, as in elaborating the real, increasing its dis/ connectivity” (88). They place this definition in relation to their conception of augmented publics. They go on to write, “Augmentation is not simply more, but instead the qualitative activity of tuning, of activating certain channels, certain broadcasts” (89) and “How can we understand, or better yet, come to know such qualitative change that augmentation (as an increasing activity) provides?” (90), further complicating their definition of augmented reality.
During Friday’s meeting, we split into groups again to discuss the reading. Our group was very concerned with the definition of augmented, the definition of reality, and where those two terms meet to create augmented reality as a digital tool. We grappled with the idea that Boyle and Rivers present of increasing reality. How is it done? In what context? We did not have enough time to come to concrete conclusions, so I would like to explore this idea more in this blog post.
Does augmented reality offer an increased reality? Boyle and Rivers also write, “We often think of the augmentation of physical space via digital overlays or augmented reality (AR) as supplements or additions to that physical space. For example, in widely available online dictionaries, augmentation (in the augmented reality definitions) often refers to “technology” that “’augments’ ( = adds to) that real-world image with extra layers of digital information” (“Augmented Reality” 2010)” (88). These ‘extra layers’ then provide more information—but is that an increased reality?
Boyle and Rivers used three case studies of locative augmented reality tools, including Pokémon GO and Google Maps. Pokémon GO is a popular app which allows users to catch Pokémon, 3D digitally rendered creatures, in an AR environment. Users played on maps which reflected their own real spaces and gave the app access to the camera in order to situate Pokémon into the real environments around users. Google Maps is a frequently used location tool which offers users maps of places and businesses. Google Maps has three modes: map view, satellite view, and street view (Fig. 1). Map view displays a typical cartographic view of the surrounding area; satellite view shows the same map but enhanced with satellite imagery; and street view places the user on the street and shows them the area around them from the perspective of a person walking along the street.
Our group was unable to reach a consensus of which of these three modes of Google Maps is augmented reality, which is reality, and which is a representation of reality. In terms of the definition which the authors deny, that augmented reality simply adds to reality, all three modes of Google Maps offer an augmented reality in that they all offer information about places and businesses in the area, something which is invisible without the aid of technology. (Pokémon GO also fits into this definition with its addition of Pokémon, Pokéstops, Pokéballs, and other features.) However, in terms of the definition which the authors offer (reiterated in the first paragraph of this post), it is unclear which of these technologies, if any, truly “increase” reality.
Some members of the group argued that the only mode of Google Maps which attempts to be augmented reality is the street view, as it places the user into what is typically viewed as an augmented reality environment. Yet both street view and satellite view, some argued, present reality more clearly because of their inclusion of photographs to create their digital landscape. Some claimed that map view is the only mode of Google Maps which does not augment reality, and that it is not even a representation of reality because it does not attempt to replicate the natural surroundings of an area in the same way that street view and satellite view do. I disagree with this stance. All three modes of Google Maps, I believe, augment reality, and all three are representations of reality. None of them attempt to replicate reality exactly, not in the same way that many augmented reality and virtual reality environments and technologies attempt.
Fundamentally, it is difficult to come to a deep understanding of Boyle and Rivers’ definition of augmented reality because they offer only a (albeit substantial) definition of augment, but not reality. I feel their case studies of Google Maps, Pokémon GO, and Ingress would have benefited from a clearer definition, though I understand that their primary focus was on augmented publics and not necessarily on defining augmented reality. Nevertheless, their working definition of augmented reality is hindered by their lack of an attempt to define reality and thoroughly explain how it can be augmented in their terms of increasing and “elaborating the real.” Our group would have been much better equipped to come to a conclusion if the authors were clearer on some of their terminology.