Comments on: Oh, the Irony!

By: afletcher

afletcher — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:31:44 +0000

Thanks for that great tip! The SVN sounds like exactly what I’m thinking of. I’d love to see the system at DHSI this year.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:08:46 +0000

Hi Alana,
The HCMC at the University of Victoria uses a Version Control System called SVN which records every edit of every file in the system. I think you might find this a useful tool for your work. There’s a bunch of work being done right now in this field (it’s a question we’re working with at the Modernist Versions Project too). If you’re coming to DHSI this year, I’ll show you the system. But basically, you’re looking for a Version Control System like SubVersioN.

By: afletcher

afletcher — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:04:49 +0000

Thanks Anouk! I was thinking exactly of something like the “View History” tab. There must be some way that changes can be recorded digitally (as their traces are recorded on paper), so that we need not make extensive notes each time we make an editorial choice, but our individual changes would leave a record for future scholars to puzzle out. As well as providing a basis or historical collaboration, I think this would even help scholars to distinguish their work from previous editions, as the editorial choices would be clearly available to agree with or refute, and these specifics could be brought up in a book proposal.

By: Anouk

Anouk — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:25:24 +0000

Hello Alana,

I think these are excellent points, and they make me think that we need something for editorial projects like Wikipedia’s “View History” tab where it’s possible to see all the changes that have been made, by who, and for what reason. Editors do explain some of their choices in forewords/prefaces and footnotes, but obviously can’t go into detail on every tiny thing or the editorial apparatus would be far larger than the text itself. But of course it is the tiny things that become enormously important when you are working on an edition, and to know the rationale behind previous editors’ decisions would be extremely helpful.

I agree that the fact that we don’t have this kind of protocol set up is due to siloing, but I think is probably also due in no small part to the way that the academy is set up as a competition. Scholars are motivated to present a piece of work, eg. a scholarly edition, as something entirely new and groundbreaking compared to the last edition (eg. in book proposals – otherwise why would a press bother spending money publishing something that is not wildly different from the last edition?). Whereas the model you set out is much more collaborative, in seeking to build on previous work rather than distinguish oneself from it sharply. I think it’s a tribute to DH as a field that it poses so many challenges to the way academic institutions operate, and one of these is the way that it seeks to foster, and value, collaborative ways of working.

Anouk