@Anouk: Yes, I’ve been following this “just a tool” conversation on Humanist. The conversation seems misguided to me though. I do believe this type of theorization is important, but it must be based on practice. The problem right now is that not enough humanists know how to program, so we must first build them tools so we can observe what they do with them. I think the “Spatial Humanities” (http://spatial.scholarslab.org/) project at Scholars Lab is a great example of this.

The problem with the “just a tool” discussion is that we are human beings who have a tendency to become emotionally involved with our tools. It is the pathetic fallacy of toolship, so-to-speak. Of course the computer is just a tool–the complicated part is our emotional and intellectual involvement with it. Apple Computer knows this. This is why they make such beautiful products. They make “tools” that make us forget we are actually using tools. They design things in which the hardware gets out of the way so that our imaginations may take over.

Your comment on the “proper input” is good. What I mean by proper input is that librarians have already figured out storage methods and practices. We do not need to reinvent the wheel there. What I mean by proper input is that the input will conform to those archival standards widely accepted by librarians. We need to think of ourselves as cultural producers, and the only way our productions can last is if we practice the safest archival procedures possible. Using Fedora Commons instead of a closed, proprietary system is just one example I could give here. Thank you so much for your thoughts. I look forward to continuing this discussion here and at DHSI!

This is an intriguing idea, especially in light of discussions that have been going on recently on Humanist, about the extent to which the computer can be conceptualized as “just a tool”. If a Turbotax-like front end has the power to change the way scholars work together, then it becomes part of the infrastructure that scaffolds critical practice and that shapes the way knowledge is constructed (which are things that are usually quite difficult to recuperate). So, another example of how far digital technology exceeds the idea of being “just a tool”. I can also imagine people objecting strenuously to–and deliberately resisting–the ideas of others about what constitutes “proper input” for a digital repository or digital edition, so the technical side of things might actually be simpler than getting the wetware to work …

(On Omeka: Is it possible to hope for a little demo in the EMiC strand at DHSI this June? I would love to use Omeka for student projects, and can imagine that it might lend itself nicely to showcasing various bits of EMiC data without creating impassable technical barriers to entry. But I realize there is only a limited amount of time in that course, so it may not be possible.)

Anouk