hace 2 días · b4f8488c90
--- a/web/app/create.py
+++ b/web/app/create.py
@@ -64,11 +64,7 @@ def create_resource():
        elif request.form.get('resource_type') == 'practice':
            type = 'practice'
            name = request.form.get('practice_name')
            description = request.form.get('description')
            longDescription = request.form.get('longDescription')
            experimental = request.form.get('experimental')
            considerations = request.form.get('considerations')
            references = request.form.get('references')
            practice_markdown = request.form.get('practice_markdown')

            if not name:
                flash('Name is required!')
@@ -80,12 +76,13 @@ def create_resource():
                    return redirect(url_for('create.create_resource',_external=True,_scheme=os.environ.get('SSL_SCHEME')))

                # create a new practice with the form data
                new_practice = Resource(type=type, name=name, description=description, longDescription=longDescription, experimental=experimental, considerations=considerations, references=references)

                new_practice = Resource(type=type, name=name)
                # add the new practice to the database
                db.session.add(new_practice)
                db.session.commit()

                write_practice_markdown(name, practice_markdown)

                if request.form.getlist('linked_tools') or request.form.getlist('linked_books'):
                    linked_resources = request.form.getlist('linked_tools') + request.form.getlist('linked_books')
                    for linked_resource in linked_resources:
--- a/web/app/practice.py
+++ b/web/app/practice.py
@@ -74,18 +74,18 @@ def edit_practice(practice_id):
    resource_dropdown = Resource.query.order_by(Resource.name)
    existing_relationships = get_relationships(practice_id)

    practice_markdown = get_practice_markdown(practice.name, 'markdown')

    if request.method == 'POST':
        if not request.form['name']:
            flash('Name is required!')
        else:
            practice = Resource.query.get(practice_id)
            practice.name = request.form['name']
            practice.description = request.form['description']
            practice.longDescription = request.form['longDescription']
            practice.experimental = request.form['experimental']
            practice.considerations = request.form['considerations']
            practice.references = request.form['references']
            db.session.commit()

            write_practice_markdown(request.form['name'], request.form['practice_markdown'])

            linked_resources = request.form.getlist('linked_tools') + request.form.getlist('linked_books')
            remove_linked_resources = request.form.getlist('remove_linked_resources')

@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ def edit_practice(practice_id):

            return redirect(url_for('practice.get_practices',_external=True,_scheme=os.environ.get('SSL_SCHEME')))

    return render_template('edit.html', resource=practice, resource_dropdown=resource_dropdown, relationships=existing_relationships)
    return render_template('edit.html', resource=practice, practice_markdown=practice_markdown, resource_dropdown=resource_dropdown, relationships=existing_relationships)

 # route for function to delete a single practice from the edit page
@practice.route('/practices/<int:practice_id>/delete', methods=('POST',))
--- a/web/app/resources.py
+++ b/web/app/resources.py
@@ -39,12 +39,20 @@ def get_full_resource(resource_id):
    return resource

 # function to get practice from Markdown file
 def get_practice_markdown(practice_name):
    with open(f'content/practices/{practice_name}.md', 'r') as f:
 def get_practice_markdown(practice_name, option='html'):
    file_name = practice_name.replace(" ", "_")
    with open(f'content/practices/{file_name}.md', 'r') as f:
        practice_text = f.read()
        practice_text = markdown.markdown(practice_text)
        if option == 'html':
            practice_text = markdown.markdown(practice_text)
    return practice_text

 # function to write new or edited practice to Markdown file
 def write_practice_markdown(practice_name, markdown):
    practice_name = practice_name.replace(" ", "_")
    with open(f'content/practices/{practice_name}.md', 'w+') as f:
        f.write(markdown)

 # function to retrieve data about a curated list of resources
 def get_curated_resources(resource_ids):
    resources = Resource.query.filter(Resource.id.in_(resource_ids)).order_by(func.random()).all()
--- a/web/app/templates/base.html
+++ b/web/app/templates/base.html
@@ -289,9 +289,11 @@
    </div>
    {% endif %}

    {% if resource['description'] %}
    <div class="{% if size==1 %} big-text {% else %} small-text {% endif %} mb-[1em]">
        {{ resource['description'] | truncate(150) | striptags }}
    </div>
    {% endif %}

    {% if resource.status == 'no longer maintained' %}
    <div class="mt-4 mb-8">(No longer maintained)</div>
--- a/web/app/templates/create.html
+++ b/web/app/templates/create.html
@@ -101,24 +101,8 @@
                    <input class="form-control" type="text" name="practice_name" placeholder="Practice name" autofocus="">
                </div>
                <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
                    <label for="description">Description</label>
                    <textarea class="form-control" rows="4" type="text" name="description" placeholder="Description" autofocus=""></textarea>
                </div>
                <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
                    <label for="longDescription">Full description</label>
                    <textarea class="form-control" rows="4" type="text" name="longDescription" placeholder="Full description" autofocus=""></textarea>
                </div>
                <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
                    <label for="experimental">Experimental uses</label>
                    <textarea class="form-control" rows="4" type="text" name="experimental" placeholder="Experimental uses" autofocus=""></textarea>
                </div>
                <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
                    <label for="considerations">Considerations</label>
                    <textarea class="form-control" rows="4" type="text" name="considerations" placeholder="Considerations" autofocus=""></textarea>
                </div>
                <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
                    <label for="references">Further reading</label>
                    <textarea class="form-control" rows="4" type="text" name="references" placeholder="Further reading" autofocus=""></textarea>
                    <label for="practice_markdown">Markdown text</label>
                    <textarea class="form-control" rows="4" type="text" name="practice_markdown" placeholder="Markdown text" autofocus=""></textarea>
                </div>
                <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
                    <label for="linked_tools">Add tools relationship(s) (hold Ctrl to select multiple options)</label>
--- a/web/app/templates/edit.html
+++ b/web/app/templates/edit.html
@@ -13,13 +13,13 @@
        </input>
    </div>

    {% if resource['type'] == 'tool' %}
    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
        <label for="description">Description</label>
        <textarea name="description" placeholder="Description"
                  class="form-control">{{ request.form['description'] or resource['description'] }}</textarea>
      <label for="description">Description</label>
      <textarea name="description" placeholder="Description"
                class="form-control">{{ request.form['description'] or resource['description'] }}</textarea>
    </div>

    {% if resource['type'] == 'tool' %}
    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
        <label for="developer">Developer</label>
        <input type="text" name="developer" placeholder="Developer"
@@ -139,24 +139,9 @@

    {% elif resource['type'] == 'practice' %}
    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
      <label for="longDescription">Full description</label>
      <textarea name="longDescription" placeholder="Full description"
                class="form-control">{{ request.form['longDescription'] or resource['longDescription'] }}</textarea>
    </div>
    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
      <label for="experimental">Experimental uses</label>
      <textarea name="experimental" placeholder="Experimental uses"
                class="form-control">{{ request.form['experimental'] or resource['experimental'] }}</textarea>
    </div>
    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
      <label for="considerations">Considerations</label>
      <textarea name="considerations" placeholder="Considerations"
                class="form-control">{{ request.form['considerations'] or resource['considerations'] }}</textarea>
    </div>
    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
      <label for="references">Further reading</label>
      <textarea name="references" placeholder="Further reading"
                class="form-control">{{ request.form['references'] or resource['references'] }}</textarea>
      <label for="practice_markdown">Markdown text</label>
      <textarea name="practice_markdown" placeholder="Markdown text"
                class="form-control">{{ request.form['practice_markdown'] or practice_markdown }}</textarea>
    </div>
    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
      <label for="linked_tools">Add tools relationship(s) (hold Ctrl to select multiple options)</label>
@@ -192,6 +177,12 @@
    </div>

    {% elif resource['type'] == 'book' %}
    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
      <label for="description">Description</label>
      <textarea name="description" placeholder="Description"
                class="form-control">{{ request.form['description'] or resource['description'] }}</textarea>
    </div>

    <div class="mb-3 mt-3">
      <label for="author">Author</label>
      <input type="text" name="author" placeholder="Author"
--- a/web/app/templates/resources.html
+++ b/web/app/templates/resources.html
@@ -97,13 +97,13 @@

  <div>
    {% if view == 'list' %}
    {% for resource in resources %}
    {{ resource_list(resource, loop) }}
    {% endfor %}
      {% for resource in resources %}
        {{ resource_list(resource, loop) }}
      {% endfor %}
    {% else %}
    {% for resource in resources %}
    {{ resource_with_related(resource, loop) }}
    {% endfor %}
      {% for resource in resources %}
        {{ resource_with_related(resource, loop) }}
      {% endfor %}
    {% endif %}
  </div>

--- a/web/content/practices/Collaborative_writing.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Collaborative_writing.md
@@ -1,20 +1,20 @@
 Short Description
 ### Description

 Academic publishing and reward structures are set up to reproduce individualised, liberal humanist forms of authorship. Experiments with more collaborative forms of book authoring and knowledge production try to challenge the myth of the single author. In doing so they highlight the myriad relationalities involved in the production of research and how the publication of books has always involved collaborations between different human and machinic agencies.

 Full Description
 ### Full description

 The growth in online platforms and tools dedicated to collaborative writing has helped trigger more collaborative forms of authoring in academic contexts. For example, scholars are increasingly using Google Docs to draft anything from abstracts to articles and funding calls, and a new culture of collaborative writing and editing has been developing around so-called 'pads' (e.g. EtherPad, CodiMD/HedgeDoc, Cryptpad). Collaborative writing can be seen to facilitate dialogue and has the potential to incorporate different voices and multiple audiences. Collaborations around and even on texts in the case of openly editable or community authored books, are also increasingly acknowledged as forms of distributed authorship and are expanding ideas of what counts as authorship on texts. For example, with respect to openly editable wiki-books: "wiki-communication can enable us to produce a multiplicitous academic and publishing network, one with a far more complex, fluid, antagonistic, distributed, and decentred structure, with a variety of singular and plural, human and non-human actants and agents" [(Hall, 2009)](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6091-728-8_3). This also emphasises the different roles and relationalities that come with multimodal and experimental publishing, where scholars instead of standing at the centre of a work or its development, often work together with "designers, developers, editors, and librarians to start new projects, not merely to finish them" [(Maxwell, Bordini, and Shamash, 2017)](https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0020.101). 

 It is important to also highlight non-human media and machinic agency in these processes and how collaborative writing involves machines. Online book publishing platforms such as Omeka, Scalar, and Mukurtu actively shape the way a book is produced, perceived, and interacted with in a quite visible way—notwithstanding the fact that print as a medium has always already done the same. In this sense "the reader as receiver or consumer is only one role to consider. […] [R]eal-time collaborative text editors–GDocs, Fidus Writer, Etherpad, Ethertoff–change the skill set of the user, change the interface of the publication from read only to read/write, and so intervene in the intimacy of the act of authoring" [(Worthington, 2015)](https://research.consortium.io/docs/book_liberation_manifesto/Book_Liberation_Manifesto.html). However, in these kinds of narratives, collaborative authorship still focuses mainly on extending (e.g. to include alt-ac and machinic contributors) forms of individual authorship and credit to a larger group, instead of critiquing fundamentally the notions that individual humanist authorship is based upon. Strategies such as anonymous authorship, which has a long history in academic writing (e.g. to avoid censorship, or as a shield from political and religious prosecution), have more recently been applied specifically in the context of criticism of the individual ownership and originality of works and the ongoing quantification of research into commodified outputs.

 Experimenting with Collaborative Writing
 ### Experimental uses

 Experiments with collaborative writing of books have amongst others focused on making books or book drafts openly editable by readers and audiences in an attempt to extend the collaborators on a book project and break down simple distinctions between authors and readers. Open Humanities Press *Living Books about Life* series of open access books was a trendsetter in this context, were all the books in this series were published online on an open source wiki platform, meaning they are themselves 'living' or "open on a read/write basis for users to help compose, edit, annotate, translate and remix" (Hall, 2012). Bringing collaborative writing more to the forefront of the book creation process, the Multigraph Collective, a team of twenty-two international scholars, collaboratively wrote *Interacting with Print*, published by the University of Chicago Press, which they describe as "a jointly authored book that would draw on everyone’s research interests, with writing and editing undertaken electronically, via wiki software. Anyone would be able to write or revise, insert or delete, expound or qualify" [(Miller, 2018)](https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/may-2018/the-story-of-the-multigraph-collective). Various platforms, such as PubPub, and publishers, such as Mattering Press, have also been experimenting with crediting the various agencies and roles involved in knowledge production (from typesetters to developers and designers) on covers and colophons and in contributor and byline attribution fields in online publications. Another focus has been to utilise collaborative authoring as a means of speeding up the process of book production, for example as part of a so-called *booksprint*, which is a method of writing a book collaboratively in a short period of time. Montgomery et al.’s [*Open Knowledge Institutions*](https://wip.mitpress.mit.edu/oki), published by MIT Press, is a book that was co-authored by 13 scholars as part of a book sprint that lasted 5 days. They experimented with the collaborative book sprint method to "socialize the process of knowledge creation" and to facilitate a "collaborative process that captures the knowledge of a group of experts in a single book". 

 Perhaps even more radical critiques of our established academic authorship models have come from anonymously published books. In 2013, Duke University Press published *Speculate This!* a manifesto in book form that has been written collaboratively by an anonymous collective going by the name uncertain commons. The uncertain commons collective define themselves as "an open and non-finite group," their main reasons for choosing anonymous authorship being to "challenge the current norms of evaluating, commodifying, and institutionalizing intellectual labor" [(uncertain commons, 2013)](https://www.dukeupress.edu/Speculate-This/). punctum books more recently published the *Book of Anonymity*, authored by the Anon Collective and written in the tradition of author-less texts, which includes contributions by artists, anthropologists, sociologists, media scholars, and art historians. This experiment in anonymity speaks to, as the Collective state, "the aggressive valuation regimes shaping contemporary artistic and academic knowledge productions alike", while also exploring whether "an ethics of anonymity can engender the kind of care that individualised practices arguably strive for yet undermine" [(Anon Collective, 2021)](https://doi.org/10.21983/P3.0315.1.00).

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 Scholars are increasingly assessed (for hiring, funding, career development) according to the weight of their individual authorial outputs. At the same time with the rise of digital tools and platforms for online writing, discourses related to collaboration and networking are feeding into notions of humanities authorship, where co-authoring is not the norm. Multiauthorship practices in the sciences (e.g. hyperauthorship in high-energy physics), have further led to a questioning of the romantic humanist discourse of single authorship. Yet notwithstanding efforts from within the digital humanities to promote collaborative authorship through statements such as the [Collaborators’ Bill of Rights](http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/mvar-kj35), single authorship remains predominant here [(Nyhan and Duke-Williams, 2014](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/09/10/joint-authorship-digital-humanities-collaboration/). This fetishisation of scholarly authorship in relation to the individual author-genius remains hard to break down in the humanities, even though authorship has always been collaborative and distributed here too. 

--- a/web/content/practices/Computational_publishing.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Computational_publishing.md
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 Short description
 ### Description

 Computational publishing broadly refers to publishing a book using techniques or processes from software development. This can include software development practices like forking, versioning, or programming and can produce books which incorporate computational elements alongside human-readable text such as executable code blocks, interactive visualisations, or browsable data repositories. 

 Long description
 ### Full description

 'Computational publishing' is an umbrella term for a number of experimental publishing techniques and practices linked to the processes of software development. Broadly defined, it refers to publishing a book using techniques or processes from software development. 

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Specialist software development practices like forking, versioning, or computer

 Since computational publishing is derived from the world of software development, a computational book will often contain computational elements within the publication itself. The computational functionality in computational books is distinguished from more basic computational functionality of e.g. hyperlinks by the extent to which it requires the use of techniques from software development such as writing in a programming language or automatically retrieving data or media objects through an API (application programming interface: a type of interface to allow two computer programs to communicate with one another and exchange data).

 Experimental aspects
 ### Experimental uses

 Computational book publications will generally combine human-readable text with computational functionality and generally use computational functionality in one of two ways.  

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ Some examples of these kinds of publications include [Simon Ganahl’s (2022) *C

 While some computational publishing software tools may make it easy to fetch or embed these kinds of computational media objects, they may also require the use of software development techniques to write code that expresses the object or to write code to retrieve the object from another source via an API.

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 A major consideration for computational publishing is the specialist skills required. Since definitionally computational publishing uses techniques or processes from software development, then some familiarity is required not only with those techniques or processes but with the knowledge to understand how such software development processes interact. Software development is a specialist skill set and there’s a high technical complexity overhead in either contracting a developer to work on a computational publishing project or in learning the skills required to use specialist software. 

@@ -45,31 +45,10 @@ Another consideration specific to computational publishing is reproducibility an

 Issues around preservation are complicated in the case of computational books by the issue of who is responsible for preserving external or remote content. [Adema (2023)](https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.2af49d16) discusses how dynamically bringing in content hosted by a third party creates the potential for link rot and content disappearing. Adema notes that Open Book Publishers has taken on responsibility for preserving URLs as Handles but not all publishers will either want to or be able to take on that kind of preservation work for third-party content.

 Further reading
 ### Further reading

 Bowie, S. (2022). What is computational publishing? *Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)*. [https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.af466093](https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.af466093)

 Odewahn, A. (2017). Computational Publishing with Jupyter. In *GitHub*. [https://github.com/odewahn/computational-publishing](https://github.com/odewahn/computational-publishing)

 Victor, B. (2011). Explorable Explanations. [http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/](http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/)




 References (included here for posterity, not for publication)
  
 Bauch, N. (2016). Enchanting the Desert: A Pattern Language for the Production of Space. Stanford University Press. http://www.enchantingthedesert.com/home/

 Bowie, S. (2022). What is computational publishing? Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM). https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.af466093

 Ganahl, S. (2022). Campus Medius: Digital Mapping in Cultural and Media Studies. Transcript Publishing. https://campusmedius.net/ 

 Juhasz, A. (2011). Learning From YouTube. The MIT Press. http://vectors.usc.edu/projects/learningfromyoutube/ 

 Odewahn, A. (2017). Computational Publishing with Jupyter. In GitHub. https://github.com/odewahn/computational-publishing

 Odewarn, A. (2015). Patterns of Code as Media. http://odewahn.github.io/patterns-of-code-as-media/www/introduction.html 

 Soon, W., & Cox, G. (2020). Aesthetic Programming: A Handbook of Software Studies. Open Humanites Press. http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/aesthetic-programming/

 Victor, B. (2011). 'Explorable Explanations'. http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/ 
 Victor, B. (2011). Explorable Explanations. [http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/](http://worrydream.com/ExplorableExplanations/)
--- a/web/content/practices/Forking.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Forking.md
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 Short description
 ### Description

 Forking is a form of computational publishing that involves creating a derivative version of a previously published text or book to make revisions to it or customise it to a different context. Like versioning, it is derived from practices in software development and can even involve the same kind of tools.

 Long description
 ### Full description

 Similar to versioning, forking is originally derived from the practices of software development. In software development, forking refers to taking a copy of a software’s source code and developing it to take the software in a new direction akin to taking a fork in the road to end up on a different path. There are many examples but a famous example is when the original developers of [MySQL](https://www.mysql.com/), the relational database management system, forked the open source code into [MariaDB](https://mariadb.org/) due to their [ethical concerns with Oracle Corporation acquiring Sun Microsystems](https://www2.computerworld.com.au/article/457551/dead_database_walking_mysql_creator_why_future_belongs_mariadb/) and therefore the rights to MySQL. MariaDB has a very similar interface and backend to MySQL but has developed slightly different features as a fork of the original. 

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ In an experimental publishing context, forking refers to the creation of a deriv

 Forking may be done by taking a digital copy of the original text or more systematically by using the same tools as software development. For a text stored in a data repository on GitLab or GitHub like [Soon and Cox’s (2020) *Aesthetic Programming*](https://aesthetic-programming.net/), a fork can be created instantly using the inbuilt forking function. 

 Experimental aspects
 ### Experimental uses

 [Aslan Neferler Tim (2013)](http://toc.oreilly.com/2013/01/forking-the-book.html) refers to forking as an example of "what can happen when books embrace their natural unstable state." He contrasts books and websites with books perceived as stable because of the traditional publishing paradigms of the printing press and he goes on to argue that digital formats like ePub return books to a state of instability whereby they can be copied instantly and mixed through practices like forking. He points to [*The CryptoParty Handbook*](https://www.cryptoparty.in/learn/handbook) which was created in Berlin during a 3-day booksprint and combined two existing Creative Commons-licensed books, *How to Bypass Internet Censorship* and [*Basic Internet Security*](http://basicinternetsecurity.org/) which had both also been created during booksprints. 

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Another fork of Soon and Cox’s *Aesthetic Programming* is focusing on translat

 Syllabi for courses may also be forked. Heidi Ellis contributed a chapter to The Open Organization Guide for Educators on how she "invited her students to collaborate in the co-construction of important course documents" by forking the course syllabus on GitHub and making their own changes [(The Open Organization, 2019)](https://github.com/open-organization/open-org-educators-guide/issues/10). 

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 Despite its apparent simplicity, forking is not as simple as copying a text. [Aslan Neferler Tim (2013)](http://toc.oreilly.com/2013/01/forking-the-book.html) highlights the economies in action in forking and the skill involved in curating new text, shaping it alongside existing text, using expertise to fill in new text, and the facilitation and curation skills of reaching a new audience with the forked text. 

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Forking a book also has a different social and emotional connotation to reviewin

 Forking may also have a high technical complexity overhead. Heidi Ellis notes that when she asked her students to fork their course syllabus to make changes, only a very small number of students contributed to the collaborative process [(The Open Organization, 2019)](https://github.com/open-organization/open-org-educators-guide/issues/10). She suggests that the complexity of the technology and the high learning threshold of Git and GitHub may have contributed to this. Forking may require a higher degree of technical knowledge of software development practices than other authorial remixing practices. 

 Further reading
 ### Further reading

 Nyman, L. (2015). *Understanding Code Forking in Open Source Software: An Examination of Code Forking, Its Effect on Open Source Software, and How It Is Viewed and Practiced by Developers*. Hanken School of Economics. [http://hdl.handle.net/10138/153135](http://hdl.handle.net/10138/153135)

--- a/web/content/practices/Licensing.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Licensing.md
@@ -1,26 +1,26 @@
 Short Description
 ### Description

 Copyright licensing determines the rights for the publication, distribution, and use of research  on a spectrum from completely closed fully copyrighted works, to open commons-based licenses. Yet within this spectrum various experiments have been taking place with copyright and licensing, both in how it is applied, conceptualised, and performed (for example in relation to experimental books) and how it is taken up by users and readers.

 Full Description
 ### Full description

 In academic publishing, authors have tended to transfer the copyright for their research works to publishers for their works to subsequently be published all rights reserved with limited opportunities for reader reuse or interaction. The move to digital and OA publishing of books led to experiments with new forms of licensing, often also allowing authors to retain copyright. Within a legal context the terminology used most often is open licensing, which includes modifications, derivatives, fair use, or transformative use of texts, data, and resources. There are various reasons why open licensing might be beneficial for humanities research. For one it can lead to a wider uptake of research, for example through translations of works [(Vézina, 2020)](https://creativecommons.org/2020/04/21/academic-publications-under-no-derivatives-licenses-is-misguided/). Open licenses, therefore are a good way to enable interaction with book content and to create amenable conditions for engagement by signalling what kinds of reuse and interaction with a book are permitted without having to reach out to the publisher or rights owner to ask for permission to do so. Creative Commons (CC) licenses are one of thea ways to express different permission levels. Less restrictive licences tend to be most amenable to fostering reuse. Yet, as Martin Eve highlights, the argument for open licensing is different within the humanities than it is for example in computer science—less about freedom of information and code, and more about the fact that existing copyright provisions (e.g., fair use) are not adequate to accommodate existing humanities research practices [(Eve, 2014)](https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316161012). Yet beyond current copyright legislation not covering existing (collaborative and digital) research practices, many researchers also experiment with reuse and remix as a critical practice exactly to challenge existing liberal humanist copyright regimes and established ways of doing and publishing research and the connotations of individual authorship, originality, and the ownership of research that comes with them. This includes critique of CC licenses, which as Gary Hall argues are “also extremely individualistic and liberal, providing a range of licenses for sovereign human authors to freely select from, as we say, rather than advocating for a collective agreement or philosophy” [(Hall, 2023)](https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-documentation-copyright-licences-post6).

 Experimenting with licensing
 ### Experimental uses

 As Hall has also outlined, other open licenses take a different approach, for example the Collective Conditions for Reuse (CC4r) license, developed by Constant, a Brussels-based non-profit organisation, “is endeavouring to move Free Culture in a direction where authorship and creativity are understood as being always-already collective, collaborative and situated, and as involving ‘human-machine collaborations and other-than-human contributions’ – rather than being ‘derived from individual genius’ as they are for conventional copyright“ [(Hall, 2023)](https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-documentation-copyright-licences-post6). Understood as a critique on conceptions of property and copyright of the neoliberal system, CC4r is a reimagined copyleft license specifically geared towards reuse or remix scenarios in which collaborators do not want to “contribute to oppressive arrangements of power, privilege and difference” [(Constant, 2023)](https://constantvzw.org/site/Collective-Conditions-for-Re-Use-CC4r,3483.html?lang=en?w=https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html). It is based on the Free Art License and inspired by other licensing projects such as the (Cooperative) Non-Violent Public License and the Decolonial Media license [(Constant, 2023)](https://constantvzw.org/site/Collective-Conditions-for-Re-Use-CC4r,3483.html?lang=en?w=https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html). CC4r is already used by Open Humanities Press to publish *Volumetric Regimes*, edited by Jara Rocha and Femke Snelting, published in its *DATA Browser* book series. CC4r is representative of alternative ways to license research works more critical of traditional conceptions of copyright, such as CopyLeft and CopyFarLeft licenses. Copyleft licenses have evolved out of Free, Libre and Open Software (FLOSS) advocacy and related licenses, such as the GPL, and the Copyleft project has a concise guide on the many aspects of copyleft licensing. The publisher Minor Compositions makes use of a tailored variant of a copy(far)left license for their books, including for Stevphen Shukaitis book *Combination Acts: Notes of Collective Practice in the Undercommons*. Copyfair licenses comprise a particular subclass that focuses on equitable sharing of resources. Most notably among those is the Peer Production License which has been conceived in the context of the Open Cooperativism movement as a derivative of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons license. The Institute of Network Cultures’ book series *Network Notebooks* has been published under a Peer Production License, see for example Dmytri Kleiner's *The Telekommunist Manifesto*. Other approaches to copyleft licensing that focus on fair distribution of value include the CopyFair License and the Fair Source License. Copyleft licenses that are usually found in software development such as MIT & GPL3 have also been applied to OA books, see the Berlin-based *Mute Magazine*’s Open Mute Press collaboration with Open Humanities Press on *After.Video*, a video book consisting of a paperback book and video stored on a Raspberry Pi computer packaged in a VHS case. 

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 Related to the above, a complication with open licensing is in cases where it concerns the reuse of indigenous or community knowledge, for example in anthropological settings, where “questions of ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) of intellectual property and cultural materials are key considerations for Indigenous communities, who since the time of contact with settler populations have seen their cultural content stolen, misappropriated, and misrepresented” [(Cullen and Bell, 2018)](https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.2.193). In addition to this, traditional and indigenous knowledge often has its own cultural and access protocols, determining if and how that knowledge can be (re)used and circulated, by whom, and under which conditions, which also further complicates common open-closed binaries [(Christen, 2012)](https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1618). As Bell and Cullen point out, the publishing process, with its focus on copyright, single authorship, and the bound book (which implies knowledge is not always easily available for further remix by the community) often doesn’t accommodate collaboration with diverse knowledge communities. What is important in this context, as Okune et al. have outlined, is that clear research contracts with indigenous communities are set-up and co-designed with the communities “to define when, where and how their community knowledge is used by external researchers” [(Okune, Hillyer, Chan, Albornoz, & Posada, 2019)](http://books.openedition.org/oep/9072).

 Inspired by CC, Traditional Knowledge (TK) licences seek to address the diversity of Indigenous needs to retain control of their cultural heritage and resources. TK “embraces the content of knowledge itself as well as traditional cultural expressions, including distinctive signs and symbols associated with TK” and are “a tool for Indigenous communities to add existing local protocols for access and use to recorded cultural heritage that is digitally circulating outside community contexts. The TK Labels help non-community users of this cultural heritage understand its importance and significance to the communities from where it derives and continues to have meaning” [(Program for Open Scholarship and Education, 2021)](https://pose.open.ubc.ca/open-access/author-rights/traditional-knowledge/). The University of British Columbia provides further details on the uses of TK licenses and Cullen and Bell explain how the books they are publishing at UBC Press, which draw upon indigenous resources or databases, can, through the use of TK licenses, be accessed, shared, and repurposed while respecting cultural protocols and different understandings of OCAP of intellectual property and cultural materials. For them, even though the books and the collections they draw upon remain separate, it proved essential to link the books back to the project or materials they were researching, to ensure the books themselves again become part of the indigenous commons: “It was critical to the research teams, however, that the books remain a part of the project’s full suite of outcomes and resources” [(Cullen and Bell, 2018)](https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.2.193). The open access publication *As I Remember It*, a collaboration between Elder Elsie Page, Davis McKenzie, Paige Raibmon, and Harmony Johnson published by RavenSpace, makes use of TK Labels.
 Inspired by CC, Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels seek to address the diversity of Indigenous needs to retain control of their cultural heritage and resources. TK “embraces the content of knowledge itself as well as traditional cultural expressions, including distinctive signs and symbols associated with TK” and are “a tool for Indigenous communities to add existing local protocols for access and use to recorded cultural heritage that is digitally circulating outside community contexts. The TK Labels help non-community users of this cultural heritage understand its importance and significance to the communities from where it derives and continues to have meaning” [(Program for Open Scholarship and Education, 2021)](https://pose.open.ubc.ca/open-access/author-rights/traditional-knowledge/). The University of British Columbia provides further details on the uses of TK Labels and Cullen and Bell explain how the books they are publishing at UBC Press, which draw upon indigenous resources or databases, can, through the use of TK Labels, be accessed, shared, and repurposed while respecting cultural protocols and different understandings of OCAP of intellectual property and cultural materials. For them, even though the books and the collections they draw upon remain separate, it proved essential to link the books back to the project or materials they were researching, to ensure the books themselves again become part of the indigenous commons: “It was critical to the research teams, however, that the books remain a part of the project’s full suite of outcomes and resources” [(Cullen and Bell, 2018)](https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.2.193). The open access publication *As I Remember It*, a collaboration between Elder Elsie Page, Davis McKenzie, Paige Raibmon, and Harmony Johnson published by RavenSpace, makes use of TK Labels.

 One of the main critiques put forward by humanities scholars towards reuse and remix practices and open licensing is that they interfere with the academic integrity of their works, especially in cases where these practices concern perceived misuse of research (e.g., libel, plagiarism, false attribution, piracy). Yet as Vézina argues, copyright and open licensing in general are not the best frameworks to address issues of misuse of research, as this is mainly addressed through institutional and social norms and moral codes of conduct around plagiarism and misappropriation [(Vézina, 2020)](https://creativecommons.org/2020/04/21/academic-publications-under-no-derivatives-licenses-is-misguided/). Neither traditional copyright, nor open licensing protect against research misuse. Yet others go even further in their critique. The historian Peter Mandler outlines how any remixing or reusing of humanities texts is problematic where he stands by the unique originality of our words as researchers. Many similar objections to reuse arise in the literature around CC licenses, particularly CC BY, that provide blanket permission to reuse scholarship (if attribution is provided). Mandler fears as he states the ‘booby-traps’ that are embedded with the CC BY licence, particularly the ability to remix content in ways of which the original author does not approve [(Mandler, 2014)](https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.89). Such scepticism of CC BY is common within the humanities, particularly in response to policy consultations that mandate CC BY as the default licence for OA ([Kingsley, 2016]([https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555), [The British Academy, 2018](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/83/British_Academy_paper_on_Open_access_and_monographs-May_2018.pdf), [Arts and Humanities Alliance, 2019](http://artsandhums.org/news-2/plan-s-consultation-response/)). The reuse of resources included in books also remains an issue in relation to third-party rights, for example in the case of images, and/or musical, or choreographical scores included within books. In many arts and humanities disciplines the rights to research materials are owned by others who need to provide permission for their reproduction. This has made it more difficult to attach open licenses to books as a whole.

 A further complication might be that the libre OA strategy (making a work available online free of price and permission barriers) has in most settings combined commercial reuse with the right to derivatives and modifications (i.e. a focus on the CC BY license), where for example in the context of much publishing in Latin-America where, different national and regional contexts notwithstanding, the focus is predominantly on non-commercial scholarship and publishing—there is a distrust of CC BY’s focus on commercial reuse [(Lujano, 2017)](https://blog.doaj.org/2017/01/17/challenges-of-the-latin-american-open-access-publishing-model/). Hall interrogates the scepticism with CC BY from an alternative perspective stating that it affords too much control to the original author by requiring attribution and thus associating the work as property of the author. This works against reuse by preventing the creation of a ‘common stock’ of digital materials to be used and reused by whomever wants to do so. Instead, CC BY presumes that the digital material is the author’s ‘property’ and so offers merely a reformist take on intellectual property instead of a fundamental critique of it [(Hall, 2016: 5)](https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262034401/pirate-philosophy/). For Hall, then, the kinds of reuse and remix encouraged (but not completely supported) by CC BY would thus depend on the dismantling of the “unified, sovereign, proprietorial subject” [(Hall, 2016: 9)](https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262034401/pirate-philosophy/).  

 Further Reading
 ### Further reading

 Constant (2023). Collective Conditions for Re-Use (CC4r). 
 [https://constantvzw.org/site/Collective-Conditions-for-Re-Use-CC4r,3483.html?lang=en?w=https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html](https://constantvzw.org/site/Collective-Conditions-for-Re-Use-CC4r,3483.html?lang=en?w=https://constantvzw.org/wefts/cc4r.en.html)
--- a/web/content/practices/Preserving.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Preserving.md
@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 Short Description
 ### Description
  
 Preservation aims to keep valuable objects safe from harm. Experiment, by contrast, implies potential failure and the possibility that value is tentative and relational. In publishing, the tension between keeping things safe and experimental practices gains renewed urgency with the move from print preservation, concerned with safeguarding bounded objects, to the notoriously challenging task of maintaining complex digital publications. 
  
 Long Description
 ### Full description
  
 Experimental books often challenge prevalent archiving and preservation practices because they rarely fit infrastructural categories designed to hold more or less standardised publications. Conventional books, consisting of static text and images, are submitted to repositories for digital preservation in a package containing the original manuscript files and the associated metadata file. Digital publishing experiments explode the notion of a self-contained book object because they frequently include distributed, versioned files, annotation, comments, backlinks, dynamic computation, non-linear interaction and third-party data (such as streaming videos or large databases) that do not fit into a neat package. Reflecting on this development [Greenberg, Hanson, and Verhoff (2021: 2)](https://doi.org/10.33682/0dvh-dvr2) note in their report on preserving new forms of scholarship that “publications may evolve in ways that present a serious challenge to preserving or even sustaining them in the long term.” Deborah Thorpe, Research Data Steward at the UCC Library, flags that preservation of online scholarship is an urgent concern because (important scholarly publications have vanished from the internet)[https://theriverside.ucc.ie/2023/11/02/preservation-online-publications/].
 
 Besides the preservation of experimental publications, preservation also offers a rich field for experimentation. The politics, ethics, and practices of preservation are rife with tension. Among these tensions are the rarely problematised (digital) fantasy that everything can be preserved or the question of whose knowledge is or isn’t preserved that is central to feminist and decolonial archival work. In his essay on Experimental Preservation, [Jorge Otero-Pailos (2016)](https://doi.org/10.22269/160913) suggests that preservation is a way of testing objects’ (social) reality. His suggestion that preservation can be understood as a social litmus test for what is considered real and by whom, resembles Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Lee-Star’s observation that disrupting established infrastructures exposes the underlying political and practical considerations that are usually rendered invisible [(2000)](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001). In this sense, experimental publication that do not fit established preservation procedures can reveal assumptions about what constitutes good preservation, inviting authors, publishers and archivists to consider which realities, pasts and futures are preserved within publications and within the archives, catalogues, and libraries that hold them. 

 Experimental Aspects 
 ### Experimental uses
  
 Our colleagues at COPIM’s [Archiving and Digital Preservation Group](https://copim.pubpub.org/archiving-and-digital-preservation) note that “[t]he very nature of experimental publishing presents various challenges to the concept of digital preservation.” [(Barnes et al., 2023, p. 95)](https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7876048), because “authors and publishers are actively experimenting with possibilities […], which means there are no set standards or workflows.” For the purposes of preservation, Barnes differentiates between enhanced publications that augment a more or less classic book codex with additional media content and complex born-digital publications that cannot be replicated in print form because they rely on “multimodal content and the web’s interactive nature.” Many publishing experiments fall into the category of complex born-digital books, which creates issues for book preservation traditionally tasked with safekeeping distinct artefacts. Digital preservationists Greenberg, Hanson and Verhoff conclude that “[t]hese publications present formidable challenges for long-term preservation.” Their [Report on Enhancing Services to Preserve New Forms of Scholarship (2021)](https://doi.org/10.33682/0dvh-dvr2) sets out to “guide publishers to create digital publications that are more likely to be preservable.” The reports and blog posts of COPIM’s [Archiving and Digital Preservation Group](https://copim.pubpub.org/archiving-and-digital-preservation), and the [Digital Preservation Handbook](https://www.dpconline.org/handbook) provide further resources. Adding to these broader reports, the Experimental Publishing Group’s blog posts on preservation provide case studies of what the preservation of experimental [Computational Books], and (https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.2af49d16), [Combinatorial Books](https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-documentation-preservation-post8) entails in practice. 

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Otero-Pailos (2016) points out that preservation tests whose realities are consi

 Experimenting with the categories that are used to catalog books for preservation can expose the underlying politics and assumptions. Every publisher, for example, must assign a place of publication. punctum books are queering the territorial demand that books must originate in a place by publishing their books on Earth, Milky Way. Anonymous authorship or using specific control characters like $ are other ways of questioning cataloguers’ ability to categorise books for preservation.

 Considerations 
 ### Considerations 

 #### Planning

@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Automatic preservation workflows save labour and cost. On the downside, automati

 The intertwined practical, technical, and conceptual challenges of preserving experimental digital publications long-term remind us that forgetting and deleting are essential functions of preservation. [Greenberg, Hanson, and Verhoff (2021)](https://doi.org/10.33682/0dvh-dvr2) recommend establishing “For each work […] what readers need in order to perceive the authors’ intellectual and rhetorical contributions, acknowledging that the current form of the publication may not be available in the future with changing technologies and social frameworks”. Acknowledging the impossibility of preserving all aspects of experimental digital publications challenges authors and publishers to question why and what to archive, rendering preservation an essentially experimental practice. 
  
 Further Reading
 ### Further reading
  
 Adema, J. (2023). Conversations on Archiving and Preserving Computational Books. Copim. [https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.2af49d16](https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.2af49d16)

@@ -62,30 +62,4 @@ Barnes, M., Bell, E., Cole, G., Fry, J., Gatti, R., & Stone, G. (2022). WP7 Scop
  
 Greenberg, Jonathan, Karen Hanson, and Deb Verhoff. ‘Report on Enhancing Services to Preserve New Forms of Scholarship’. 0 ed. New York, NY: New York University. [https://doi.org/10.33682/0dvh-dvr2](https://doi.org/10.33682/0dvh-dvr2)
  
 Kiesewetter, R. (2023). Preserving Combinatorial Books. Copim. [https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-documentation-preservation-post8](https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-documentation-preservation-post8)
  


 Links/TOOLS
  
 https://figshare.com
 a home for papers, FAIR data and non-traditional research outputs that is easy to use and ready now.
  
 https://www.portico.org
 Portico is a community-supported preservation archive that safeguards access to e-journals, e-books, and digital collections. Our unique, trusted process ensures that the content we preserve will remain accessible and usable for researchers, scholars, and students in the future.
  
 https://www.eaasi.info
 EaaSI provides emulation technology and support services to enable access to digital resources, such as digital experimental books.
  
 https://www.softwarepreservationnetwork.org/emulation-as-a-service-infrastructure/
 SPN aims to emulate software to allow continued access to digital data, and because software has intrinsic cultural value due to its mediating role as critical information infrastructure.
  
 https://www.docnow.io
 Documenting the Now develops open-source tools and community-centred practices that support the ethical collection, use, and preservation of publicly available content shared on the web and social media. Documenting the Now responds to the public's use of social media for chronicling historically significant events as well as demand from scholars, students, and archivists, among others, seeking a user-friendly means of collecting and preserving this type of digital content.

 https://www.oapen.org/home
 The OAPEN platform helps open-access book publishers access preservation services. OAPEN offers to preserve titles held in OAPEN via their partnership with Portico. 

 https://clockss.org
 CLOCKSS is a collaboration between world-leading research libraries and academic publishers. As a financially secure, independent non-profit organization, governed by its Board of libraries and publishers, CLOCKSS provides digital preservation services. 
  
 Kiesewetter, R. (2023). Preserving Combinatorial Books. Copim. [https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-documentation-preservation-post8](https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-documentation-preservation-post8)
--- a/web/content/practices/Referencing.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Referencing.md
@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 Short description
 ### Description

 Referencing, citing, crediting, and acknowledging are crucial practices to make connections to previous research, to support argumentation, and to further advance the scholarly conversation while crediting those who our scholarship builds upon. At the same time references and citations play a significant role in the academic value and merit system and their growing importance reflects the ongoing metrification of scholarship.

 Full description
 ### Full description

 Citation and referencing practices differ per field and research context yet citing sources is a well-established and highly codified academic practice that can help readers to fact check evidence and identify further reading. It also serves to authorise arguments, validate positions, naturalise statements as fact, and build economies of visibility that tend to amplify the reach and resources of already established cliques and writers while rendering the labour of others invisible. The politics of citation, as an essential aspect of how value (and with that impact, relevance, esteem, and credibility) is determined within academic communities, has led to forms of structural marginalisation and silencing of certain groups, with consequences for hiring, career progression, and the evaluation of performance. Failure to cite already marginalised groups has created further inequity within scholarship and has resulted in the exclusion of certain voices from the scholarly conversation alongside the often uncritical reproduction and of mostly white, male, heteronormative thought from the Global North [(Mott and Cockayne, 2017)](https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1339022). As a result, disciplines and fields tend to reproduce themselves in exclusionary ways [(12 Women Scholars, 2021)](https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/08/27/entrenched-inequity-not-appropriately-citing-scholarship-women-and-people-color). 

 For many scholars therefore, citational practices have become a potential site of resistance to create more equitable knowledge practices and infrastructures within academia [(Itchuaqiyaq and Frith, 2022)](https://doi.org/10.1145/3507870.3507872). As Max Liboiron writes in reference to citations as 'screening techniques', "citing the knowledges of Black, Indigenous, poc, women, lgbtqai+, two-spirit, and young thinkers is one small part of an anticolonial methodology that refuses to reproduce the myth that knowledge, and particularly science, is the domain of pale, male, and stale gatekeepers" [(Liboiron, 2021, viii)](https://www.dukeupress.edu/pollution-is-colonialism). Yet at the same time it has been argued that a focus on more inclusivity should not come at the expense of a rethinking and reperforming of how our citational practices are currently and have historically been set up and normalised, especially also in relation to citation counting, the ongoing metrification of scholarship, and the reproduction of established hierarchies in knowledge production (Calderón, 2022; [Mott and Cockayne, 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1339022); [McKittrick, 2021](https://www.dukeupress.edu/dear-science-and-other-stories)). 

 Experimental uses
 ### Experimental uses

 More experimental uses of referencing in academic books have therefore focused on highlighting the relationalities and engagements that referencing creates, as well as the community-forming potential that alternative forms of referencing can afford (Maddrell, 2015; [Mott and Cockayne, 2017](https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1339022)). Some examples of more equitable forms of citation and referencing include the citation policy Sara Ahmed describes in her book *Living a Feminist Life*: "Citation is how we acknowledge our debt to those who came before; those who helped us find our way when the way was obscured because we deviated from the paths we were told to follow. In this book, I cite feminists of color who have contributed to the project of naming and dismantling the institutions of patriarchal whiteness" [(Ahmed, 2017, 15-16)](https://www.dukeupress.edu/living-a-feminist-life) and D’Ignazio and Klein’s (updatable) addendums (which include both a self-audit and an external audit) to their book *Data Feminism*, in which they reflect on their own aims and values in relation to citational practices and metrics, including their aim to "listen and give priority in the text to voices who speak from marginalized perspectives, whether because of their gender, ability, race, class, colonial status, or other aspects of their identity" [(D’Ignazio and Klein, 2020)](https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/). Katherine McKittrick in *Dear Science and Other Stories* (itself a book that experiments with foregrounding footnotes and references in an ongoing conversation with the main text) highlights how the practice of citation is a practice of sharing how we know. As she states, "I am not interested in citations as quotable value. I want to reference other possibilities such as, citations as learning, as counsel, as sharing" [(McKittrick, 2021, 26)](https://www.dukeupress.edu/dear-science-and-other-stories). As McKittrick argues, the work of citation, specifically also for black feminists, is not about claiming something known as something that is owned, but it is about sharing how to live, sharing ideas about how to struggle against oppression and how to do the work of liberation. Further guides to more equitable citation practices and to start to cite in a more conscious and thoughtful way include projects such as Cite Black Women and the FEM (Female Empowerment Maastricht University network) citation guide. 

@@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ Further experimental work in the (digital) humanities looks at the semantic uses

 Creating stable URLs and clear practices around data and tool citation is seen as crucial in this context. Leveraging the principles of open data through PIDs and Semantic Web (Linked Open Data) technologies, OpenCitations seeks to collect citation data to create semantic, machine-readable networks that link citations and references across individual research outputs. Implementing OpenCitation standards in one’s monograph creation workflow can be another way to improve and invite re-use of original content, as machine-readable, standardised metadata promises to make proper attribution of sources more readily available. As the provision of open reference lists plays an important part in the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), this practice will surely see even wider-spread uptake across HE institutions and publishers against the backdrop of the larger move towards facilitating uptake of practices on the spectrum of open sciences and scholarship. For a very recent discussion of the benefits and obstacles regarding OpenCitations, see e.g. [Ayers & Klein, 2021](https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.5af8c64c).

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 While the practice of using open references and citations in one’s output is seeing considerable uptake particularly in the STEM fields (see e.g. [Hutchins, 2021](https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00138)), an adaptation of workflows that make reference and citation datasets openly available is still lagging behind in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Similarly, academic referencing and metadata systems and infrastructures are often closed and not interoperable and tend to have been set up in a highly formalised, standardised, and normative ways that do not easily invite experimentation with different forms of referencing as part of our publishing practices. Similarly print books and their digital equivalents in PDF format still heavily rely on print-based systems to add references and notes as part of standardised publishing workflows.

 Further readings
 ### Further readings

 Ayers, P. and Klein, S. (2021). The Invisible Citation Commons. *Commonplace*, 1(1). [https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.5af8c64c](https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.5af8c64c). 

--- a/web/content/practices/Remixing.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Remixing.md
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 Short Description
 ### Description

 Remix includes creating derivatives of 'original' works through reuse, adaptation, transformation, and modification. Remix practices in academia—from combining different media in innovative ways to collaboratively (re)mixing fragments of texts in new contexts—can complicate the idea of the proprietorial author creating original works while simultaneously exploring the interconnected relationship of scholarly texts. Much of this is predicated on openly licensed research objects that enable reuse of scholarly publications.

 Full Description
 ### Full description

 Remix in academia is practised in various ways and known under different terms and concepts, from adaptation and appropriation in an art and literature context to open licensing in a legal context—capturing modifications, derivatives, fair use, and transformative uses of texts, data, and resources. Scholars tend to be familiar with remix in connection to Creative Commons licenses that allow (commercial) reuse or derivatives within academic publishing. In the context of open access publishing, reuse falls under the distinction between gratis and libre openness, capturing a positive connotation (describing kinds of access rather than kinds of access barriers) in relation to the removal of price and permission barriers. But the focus on reuse rights ultimately derives from computer science and the open software movement, where the gratis/libre distinction concerns software or code.

@@ -10,20 +10,20 @@ Remix and reuse lie at the basis of the research and writing process as scholars

 The benefits of academic reuse range from wider uptake of research to increased accessibility. Due to technological advancements, data mining and technologies such as visualisation and re-use of large electronic text collections are now within reach of most humanities scholars. Importantly, with open licensing reuse is possible without needing to request permission from the publisher or right owner, which can put researchers off from legitimate forms of reuse. Similarly, with legislation differing worldwide, clear open licensing (see Creative Commons) supports further uptake of academic remix practices. Current copyright legislation doesn’t always cover collaborative and digital research practices, hence why many researchers experiment with remix as a critical practice to challenge existing liberal humanist copyright regimes and established ways of doing and publishing research and the connotations of individual authorship, originality, and the ownership of research that comes with them.

 Experimenting with remixing
 ### Experimental uses

 One often-cited example of reuse and remix is the *[Living Books About Life](http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/series/liquid-books/)* book series published by Open Humanities Press (OHP). This series 'repackaged' previously published open access content into curated edited collections. The books in this series are 'living' in the sense that they are "open to ongoing collaborative processes of writing, editing, updating, remixing and commenting by readers". This series shows the ability of reuse to deconstruct some of our preconceptions of what a book actually is, where the project displays a "continued theoretical reflection on issues of fixity, authorship and authority, both by its editors and by its contributors in various spaces connected to the project" [(Adema, 2021)](https://livingbooks.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/dp81vgde/). Inspired by this the [*Combinatorial Books: Gathering Flowers*](https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-gathering-flowers-part-i/release/1?readingCollection=1bb570ed) book series encourages the rewriting of books within OHP’s catalogue as a means of generating radical new responses to them. It is based on a publishing workflow that enables the creation of new combinatorial books out of existing open access books (or collections of books) available for reuse. For its [first iteration](https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/combinatorial-books-gathering-flowers-part-iii/release/1?readingCollection=1bb570ed), a group of Mexican scholars and technologists has rewritten *The Chernobyl Herbarium* by Marder and Tondeur "through disappropriation as much as appropriation", where the authors envisioned re-writing (following Rivera Garza) as "exposing the incomplete, processual nature of any text". Another publisher who has experimented with reusing their collection is Open Book Publishers, who run [OBP Customise](https://www.openbookpublishers.com/obp-customise), allowing one to mix, match, and personalise a publication. Chapters or whole books can be selected from OBP’s published list to make a special edition, a new anthology, or a coursepack (produced as paperback and downloadable PDF). Third-party content can also be included to create a new, composite book, complete with cover and introduction. Remix from text into different media is visible in Mark Amerika’s *remixthebook* (University of Minnesota Press), which is accompanied by the [*remixthebook.com*](https://www.remixthebook.com/) website with digital remixes of the theories generated in the print book. It features the work of 25 artists, creative writers, and scholars for whom the practice and theory of remix is central to their research interests. They sampled from *remixthebook* and manipulated the selected source material through their own artistic and theoretical filters.

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 The adoption of remix practices within the humanities can be frustrated by researcher inhibitions perpetuated by institutional structures. This includes the fear that remix interferes with the academic integrity of works, especially where these practices concern perceived misuse of research (e.g. libel, plagiarism, false attribution, piracy). Yet copyright is not the best framework to address issues of research misuse, which is mainly addressed through institutional and social norms and codes. Neither copyright, nor open licensing can protect against this [(Vézina, 2020)](https://creativecommons.org/2020/04/21/academic-publications-under-no-derivatives-licenses-is-misguided/). Many objections to reuse relate to the CC BY license, which provides blanket permission to reuse scholarship (with attribution). In practice though, many humanities scholars find remix of their books problematic as it interferes with their propriety and sense of ownership. This isn’t surprising given how authorship functions within academia, where single authored, original publications are preferred, and remix, reuse, and collaborative forms of research (e.g. creating databases) aren’t readily acknowledged as research. 

 Another complication concerns the reuse of indigenous or community knowledge, where "questions of ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) of intellectual property and cultural materials are key considerations for Indigenous communities, who since the time of contact with settler populations have seen their cultural content stolen, misappropriated, and misrepresented" [(Cullen and Bell, 2018)](https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.2.193). Traditional and indigenous knowledge often has its own cultural and access protocols, determining if and how that knowledge can be (re)used and circulated, by whom, and under which conditions, which also further complicates common open-closed binaries [(Christen, 2012)](https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1618). At UBC Press, books which draw upon indigenous resources or databases, can, through open licensing (they use [Traditional Knowledge Licenses](https://localcontexts.org/licenses/traditional-knowledge-licenses/)) be accessed, shared, and repurposed while respecting cultural protocols and different understandings of OCAP. The reuse of resources in books also remains an issue in relation to third-party rights in the case of images, and/or musical, or choreographical scores within books. This has made it more difficult to attach open licenses to books as a whole. Other inhibitions towards reuse include technical considerations around software design and implementation. As reuse tends to occur after a work has been published, workflows for iterative publishing need to adopt a more holistic approach that recognises different starting points within a publishing process (where the 'end point' of one publication may be the beginning of another [(Kasprzak and Smyre, 2017)](https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.48.2.90)). 

 End with academic references/further readings?
 ### Further reading

 Adema, J. (2021). *Living Books: Experiments in the Posthumanities*. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

 Amerika, M. (2011). *Remixthebook*. U of Minnesota Press. [http://www.remixthebook.com/](http://www.remixthebook.com/)

 Navas, E. (2023) *Remix Theory: The Aesthetics of Sampling*. Springer.
 Navas, E. (2023) *Remix Theory: The Aesthetics of Sampling*. Springer.
--- a/web/content/practices/Reviewing.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Reviewing.md
@@ -1,24 +1,24 @@
 Short Description
 ### Description

 Evaluation of research by the scholarly community is essential to conducting and publishing research. In response to changing publication formats and to promote more relational forms of knowledge production, scholarly communities have started to reconsider blind peer review which has increasingly become the de facto standard for evaluating academic books. For example, scholars have turned to open and community review while developing new methods of assessing works in progress, digital multimodal research, and experimental academic books.

 Full Description
 ### Full description

 Although (blind) peer review is currently the gold standard for most humanities book-based research, the term itself is quite recent. Introduced in the 60s and 70s, it developed hand in hand with systems of metrics to control the measurement of academic prestige. Initially, scholarly communities maintained various academic refereeing systems as a form of self-governance. Once outsourced to commercial publishers, it was rebranded as peer review and incorporated as an audit and regulatory tool ([Fyfe et al., 2017](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100), [Ross-Hellauer and Derrick, 2019](https://ressh2019.webs.upv.es/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ressh_2019_paper_2.pdf)). Critique of the double-blind model includes that it closes the author out of the conversation around the work, overrates the anonymity of authors and reviewers, and that it has "the effect of giving reviewers power without responsibility" ([Godlee, 2000](http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/coventry/detail.action?docID=3318111); [Fitzpatrick, 2011](https://mcpress.media-commons.org/plannedobsolescence/)). This 'veil of anonymity' and the assessment of research by only a select group of experts contributes to "the black box nature of blind peer review" and its lack of transparency and accountability [(Ross-Hellauer, 2017)](https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2). Although often idealised as impartial and objective concerning gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or language, it doesn’t necessarily protect against reviewer bias, as the system has been ineffective in masking authorial identity. The digital environment has offered opportunities to improve research evaluation, leading to various experiments with online and open peer review that focus on discussing the research under review. Beyond evaluation, quality control, and gatekeeping practices, review practices in the humanities have predominantly focused on the "collaborative improvement of research," on constructive review and community knowledge production [(Knöchelmann, 2019)](https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040065). Scholarly communities are conducting various experiments with new forms of peer review that contribute to the co-production of knowledge and adapt our evaluation systems to accommodate the myriad of forms and formats of book-based research.

 Experiments with Reviewing
 ### Experimental uses

 Open peer review is one of the more popular alternative assessment methods. Different and sometimes contrasting notions of open peer review are united by the ambition to rethink how we evaluate research in line with the ethos of open science. This, for example, includes "making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process" [(Ross-Hellauer, 2017)](https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2). Open peer review can stimulate interaction with books when it takes place on the book’s publication platform, or when it involves review on a more granular paragraph or sentence level. Open forms of peer review can be facilitated through a variety of means, many of which make use of commenting, annotation, or versioning, depending on the chosen mode of interaction with the book under review. More traditional forms of peer review maintain a separation between review and book, e.g. by using structured review forms, or book reviews published post publication. Digital annotation enables reviewers to write directly in or on the book under review, creating a more immediate and interactive experience. One notable example of open review is [Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s *Planned Obsolescence* (2011)](https://mcpress.media-commons.org/plannedobsolescence/), a book published and reviewed online on the [MediaCommons platform](https://mcpress.media-commons.org/plannedobsolescence/) that allows line-by-line public annotation of texts using the CommentPress Wordpress plugin. One recent example using this plugin is Mattering Press’s [*The Ethnographic Case*](https://www.matteringpress.org/books/the-ethnographic-case (2017)) edited by Emily Yates-Doerr and Christine Labuski, which is an experimental, online, open access book, that invited reader interaction in a process of [post-publication peer review](https://processing.matteringpress.org/ethnographiccase/). In this context Fitzpatrick talks about alternative forms of "community-based authorisation" or crowdsourced review, that happen after publication instead of before. This opens review up beyond the opinions of a small selection of often senior scholars—which also runs the risk of being a system that breeds conservatism (e.g., towards emerging forms of knowledge)—and "lays bare" the mechanisms of review, making it more transparent, including about who the reviewers are [(Fitzpatrick and Rowe, 2010)](https://doi.org/10.1163/095796511X560024). An additional benefit is that readers and authors are placed in a conversation, further "deepening the relationship between the text and its audience" [(Fitzpatrick, 2012)](https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0046). Open peer review can help build communities around a book in a way that starts to elide the difference between author, reviewer, and reader. This asks for more collegiate approaches to review. Editors can facilitate this, supporting open conversations between author and reviewer as a collaborative process rather than one grounded in antagonism or gatekeeping. This was also MIT Press’s experience using [collaborative community review](https://notes.knowledgefutures.org/pub/ek9zpak0/) on the PubPub platform [(Staines, 2019)](https://notes.knowledgefutures.org/pub/ek9zpak0). The HIRMEOS project implemented the hypothes.is plugin as an annotation service on the OpenEdition Books platform to conduct open post-publication peer review to create a space for conversation around publications and to stimulate new forms of peer review. In this well-documented project publishers were involved directly to act as moderators, write guidelines, and suggest reviewers ([Bertino and Staines, 2019](https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020041); [Dandieu & HIRMEOS Consortium, 2019](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3275651)).

 Increasingly guidelines to evaluate digital multimodal scholarship are established within different fields. These guidelines focus on evaluating works on their own merits, in the media they are produced, in an ongoing manner, and include technical, design, computational, and interface elements in their evaluation—from digital humanities projects, to archives, tools, and resources ([Anderson and McPherson, 2011](https://doi.org/10.1632/prof.2011.2011.1.136); [Guiliano and Risam, 2019](https://doi.org/10.21428/3e88f64f.941f9859); [Nyhan, 2020](https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0192.07)). Digital scholarship necessitates a reassessment of review practices as it differs from traditional single-author work, being "often collaborative," "rarely finished," and "frequently public," meaning that new assessment methods may be needed and appropriate [(Risam, 2014)](https://doi.org/10.7264/n3wq0220). Our common linear publishing and evaluation workflows might need to be adapted to accommodate versioned and processual books, which would involve less assessment, validation, or gatekeeping, and more feedback to roll into the digital project’s next phase. 

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 In the sciences open peer review has really taken off, yet in humanities book publishing we haven’t seen a similar development. One of the main drawbacks of open peer review is the tension between anonymity and openness. Open peer review can lead to the introduction of bias (e.g. gender bias) and self-censorship, as reviewers might blunt their critique in an open setting. There is also a power imbalance in open peer review. The anonymity in double-blind review can provide a protective function for early-career reviewers and authors in open forums. Another clear problem is creating a sufficiently large community around a book. There is a general reticence to partake in open peer review due to time-restraints, having to familiarise oneself with new technologies, and the lack of acknowledgement in reward and evaluation systems. Yet at the same time open peer review can make the academic labour and service work that is actually done by reviewers to support their fields more visible. In general however, a more substantial cultural switch might be needed, in which we start to focus more on seeing review as a contribution to collective knowledge production.

 A challenge that also needs to be taken into consideration is the amount of editorial labour that comes into play with setting up open peer review systems, bringing together a community and moderating this process. The takeaways of the HIRMEOS project include the importance of community outreach activities (involving both publishers and authors) and the formulation of clear guidelines, user guides, and rules of good conduct. Workload (and whether it was part of their mission as publishers) was one of the biggest inhibitions to take part for publishers, where similarly 'lack of time' was the main reason for reviewers. 

 Academic references/further readings
 ### Further reading

 Dandieu, C. and HIRMEOS Consortium (2019) *Report on Post-Publication Open Peer Review Experiment*. [https://zenodo.org/record/3275651](https://zenodo.org/record/3275651)

--- a/web/content/practices/Rewriting.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Rewriting.md
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 Short Description
 ### Description

 Rewriting involves the practice of re-envisioning an already existing text without (necessarily) intervening into the original source text. It engages with the production of text and language and the way individuals and communities are created (and create themselves) through text and language. As an experimental practice, rewriting can act critically as a way to intervene into dominant paradigms in scholarly knowledge production (for example, singular and possessive authorship, the stability and authority of written text) and to perform them differently.

 Full Description
 ### Full description

 Depending on the type of open licence, open access publications allow for practices such as the reuse, remix, and rewriting of already published texts and books as long as the source text is acknowledged. 

@@ -10,18 +10,18 @@ Conceptually, rewriting is closely related with practices of critical reading (o

 Rewriting has a long tradition in academia and literary production. With reference to its performative and interventionist aspect, rewriting – especially in feminist, queer, and decolonial individual and collaborative practice – has been used to expose established power structures inherent in narrative creation and representation and to perform these differently focusing on marginalised voices, their historical erasure, as well as the complex interrelation between text, memory, identity, and body. Adrienne Rich considers rewriting as a form of re-visioning. For her, rewriting, "the act of looking back, of seeing with fresh eyes, of entering an old text from a new critical direction—is for women more than a chapter in cultural history: it is an act of survival" ([1972:18](https://doi.org/10.2307/375215)). In [*Borderlands / La Frontera* (1987)](https://www.auntlute.com/borderlands-la-frontera-ce) Gloria Anzaldúa explores writing as a subjectivation practice, as a way of enabling new modes of being and becoming through writing (or storytelling) that have been suppressed in the way indigenous, queer, and female life, as well as the life of people-of-colour has been objectified within dominant modes of writing. Sylvia Wynter emphasises the relationship between interventionalist uses of writing and notions of embodiment through this writing. For her, rewriting – "[w]ords made flesh, muscle and bone animated by hope and desire" [(1995:35)](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.cttq93rp.5) – is an existential task, as the category of the human itself has been under duress within western and patriarchal knowledge systems and with that conceptions of what it means to be human. Wynter’s proposition for (re)writing thus is "the possibility of undoing and unsettling […] Western conceptions of what it means to be human" [(McKittrick, 2015)](https://www.dukeupress.edu/sylvia-wynter). She emphasises that departing from these conceptions would require a collective engagement with the "rewriting of knowledge as we know it […] without falling into the traps laid down by our present system of knowledge" [(McKittrick, 2015: 2)](https://www.dukeupress.edu/sylvia-wynter). Cristina Rivera Garza ([2013](https://www.consonni.org/es/publicacion/los-muertos-ind%C3%B3ciles-necroescritura-y-desapropiaci%C3%B3n), [2020](https://www.vanderbiltuniversitypress.com/9780826501219/the-restless-dead/)) emphasises the importance of collaboration in her concept of rewriting as *disappropriation* geared at disengagement from all-encompassing global capitalism. In this concept, she suggests to restore the plural, collaborative roots of writing which, according to her, is often overshadowed by myths such as the individual and possessive author that large parts of academia and the book industry depend upon. Scholars such as [Denise Ferreira de Silva (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.2014.11413690) and [Joan Retallack (2004)](https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520218413/the-poethical-wager) have emphasised the importance of not positioning rewriting in a pre-decided oppositional politics, concerning its ethics and morals. Instead, they have suggested that rewriting can take the function of "a poetics of conscious risk, of letting go of control, of placing our inherited conceptions of ethics and politics at risk, and of questioning them, experimenting with them" [(Adema 2018, 21)](http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6DN3ZV67).

 Experiments with Rewriting
 ### Experimental uses

 Experiments with rewriting of books have amongst others focused on making books openly editable for readers in an attempt to highlight the inherently collaborative nature of all textual production, to extend the range of collaborators on a book project; and to break down simple distinctions between the practices of authoring, editing, and reading. In this vein, all books in the Open Humanities Press (OHP) [*Living Books about Life*](https://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/) series have been published online on an open source wiki platform, meaning they are themselves 'living' or open on a read/write basis for users to help compose, edit, annotate, rewrite, and remix the books of this series. 
 Similarly, [*The Rewrite Collaborative Framework*](https://criticalmedialab.ch/projects/the-rewrite/) – a digital learning framework built around annotation as a collective practice – has aimed to support collaborative reading, writing and meaning-negotiation practices as enabling dialogue and action on urgent global challenges. Through workshops, teaching formats, and open courseware documentation, the digital learning framework aims to reach beyond the classroom, to build a growing community of learners, readers and publics interested in tackling environmental, social, and political issues. Among the resources and publications emerging from The Rewrite Collaborative Framework are [The Rewrite Collaborative Framework Browser Extension](https://irf.fhnw.ch/entities/publication/14503ab8-7df0-43fa-bff9-1c03c83b6cb6) that is based on the open source collaborative web-annotation software hypothes.is and the publication *Rewriting as Practice* ([Bruder, Sobecka, & Halpern, 2022](https://www.anthropocene-curriculum.org/courses/communicating/rewriting-as-practice)).

 Another example of experimenting with collaborative rewriting is the bilingual (Spanish and English) publication [*Ecological Rewriting: Situated Engagements with The Chernobyl Herbarium*](https://ecologicalrewritings.pubpub.org/), the first book in the Combinatorial Books: Gathering Flowers series published by Open Humanities Press (OHP). Supported by the COPIM project, it is the creation of a collective of researchers, students and technologists from the Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City. Led by Gabriela Méndez Cota, this group of nine (re)writers first annotated an open access online version of *The Chernobyl Herbarium: Fragments of an Exploded Consciousness* by the philosopher Michael Marder and the artist Anaïs Tondeur provided on OHP’s website using the collaborative web-annotation software hypothes.is. In a shared writing pad (on HedgeDoc) they then ordered and categorised their annotations using tags and started to write out their annotations into a larger response to produce what is a new book in its own right – albeit one that comments upon and engages with the original. As [Méndez Cota et al (2023)](https://doi.org/10.21428/9ca7392d.07cdfb82) remark in the book: "rather than being pre-planned as a critical programme, our articulation of a situated reuse and rewriting of *The Chernobyl Herbarium* materialized gradually through the collaborative process of becoming experimental writers or 'rewriters'. At the same time, while we may have decided not to apply any pre-given method or strategy of artistic disruption or critical appropriation to a work we had chosen because it invited us to attune affectively with the fundamental fragility of existence, we nevertheless tried to reuse and rewrite it in a way that conveyed our respect and appreciation for the work of the others involved."

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 Rewriting activities bear the danger of reproducing dominant knowledge systems and related discourses and practices they aim to challenge. For example, [Liedeke Plate (2008)](https://doi.org/10.1086/521054) and Cristina Rivera Garza ([2013](https://www.consonni.org/es/publicacion/los-muertos-ind%C3%B3ciles-necroescritura-y-desapropiaci%C3%B3n), [2020](https://www.vanderbiltuniversitypress.com/9780826501219/the-restless-dead/)) remark that, under the dominant market-driven and individualising logics of both contemporary academia and the literary scene, the critical re-writer risks to reperform the traditional Western, humanist idea of the an individual and authoritative author-genius competing, through rewriting, for reputational and financial reward. Additionally, counter-discursive practices – such as the rewriting of already existing texts –run the risk of situating the re-written text in an oppositional relation to an 'original' one. This is problematic in so far that, as [Anna Louise Keating (2013)](https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p079399) remarks, as soon as a dichotomous framework defines reality "the collaborative negotiation and building of new or other opinions and truths" (6) becomes impossible. What might be needed to mitigate these risks at least partially, is that scholars, through rewriting, engage in a more fundamental, self-critical reconsideration of the dominant research cultures, including an awareness of their own involvement with them. This self-reflexivity might imply taking the responsibility and the risk of deviating from conventional knowledges, ways of knowing, or from what is considered and appraised as an academically valid output. Furthermore, it involves critically reflecting on the new potential closures enacted through (experimental) publishing undertakings.

 Further Readings
 ### Further Readings
  
 Ferreira da Silva, Denise. 2014. Toward a Black Feminist Poethics. *The Black Scholar*, 44(2): 81–97. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.2014.11413690](https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.2014.11413690)

--- a/web/content/practices/Translating.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Translating.md
@@ -1,10 +1,8 @@
 # Translating

 ### Short description
 ### Description

 Translating is inherently experimental because it requires the approximation of meaning through trial and error. Translating experiments have the potential to make explicit what is lost and gained when moving languages, texts, words and debates from one situated context to another.

 ### Description
 ### Full description

 There is a vast literature on the politics, aesthetics and ethics of translating. Joel Scott’s book *Translation and Experimental Writing* provides useful points of departure, informed by translation theory and empirical case studies. In line with the observation that translating is inherently experimental, Scott invites readers to reconsider translation as an experimental writing practice [(2018)](https://www.waterstones.com/book/translation-and-experimental-writing/joel-scott/9781138672956). Noting that translating is experimental at the core grants the question of what is at stake when the experimental character of translating is made explicit.

@@ -14,7 +12,7 @@ Drawing on feminist and postcolonial scholarship, Robert-Foley understands trans

 In the introduction to the special issue [(*Words to Think with*)](https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120905452), the science and technology scholars Anne-Maire Mol and John Law consider the political, ethical and ontological effects of normalising English as the default of scholarly communication. Noting that in the social sciences, in 2005, three-quarters of all papers were published globally in English, they point out that English, despite its dominance, is not a lingua franca because, unlike with Medieval Latin, for example, there are English native speakers, and those who have to go the extra mile to speak and write in English, creating patterns of exclusion. Mol and Law flag that enforcing *one* version of proper global (scholarly) English is missing out on a wealth of analytical possibilities. Understanding that language cannot meaningfully be separated from places, practices and concerns, Mol and Law warn that the hegemony of academic English mutes debates, subjects and issues that do not translate into globalised English academic language, which in turn severely undermines the relevance of scholarly work in non-English dominated context. Translation, understood from the perspective of situated practice, is not the circulation of universal texts but the work of re-situating text, words and issues.

 ### Experimental aspects
 ### Experimental uses

 Situated understandings of translation that conceive of reading, writing, editing, reviewing, forking and publishing as acts of translation entangled in particular concerns and power relations invite us to attend to and play with what is lost and gained when moving between languages, texts, words and debates. Against the background of the dominance of academic English and continuous feminist and postcolonial critique of hegemonic discourses, scholarly writers explore the potential of working *inter-linguistically.*

@@ -62,14 +60,4 @@ Law, John, and Annemarie Mol. 2020. 'Words to Think with: An Introduction'. *The

 Robert-Foley, Lily. 2021. 'The Politics of Experimental Translation: Potentialities and Preoccupations'. *Journal of the English Association* 69 (267): 401–19. <[https://doi.org/10.1093/english/efaa032](https://doi.org/10.1093/english/efaa032)>.

 Scott, Joel. 2018. *Translation and Experimental Writing* : Routledge

 ### Book examples

 Soon, Winnie. 2022. Translating Aesthetic Programming. In *CSS Working Group* <https://wg.criticalcodestudies.com/index.php?p=/discussion/132/week-4-translating-aesthetic-programming>

 Diderot, Denis. 2016. Denis Diderot Rameau’s Nephew — Le Neveu de Rameau: A Multi-Media Bilingual Edition. Edited by Marian Hobson. Translated by Kate Tunstall and Caroline Warman. Open Book Publishers. <https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0098>.

 As I remember it.

 ### 
 Scott, Joel. 2018. *Translation and Experimental Writing* : Routledge
--- a/web/content/practices/Versioning.md
+++ b/web/content/practices/Versioning.md
@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 Short Description
 ### Description

 Versioning (also known as processual, iterative, or continuous publishing), as a concept and practice used within academic research and publishing, refers to the frequent updating, rewriting, or modification of academic material published in a formal or informal way. Versioning documents diachronic changes in a publication—a publication is updated until an agreed-upon number of edits has been included; this then becomes fixed and time-stamped ('frozen') in a new version. 

 Full Description
 ### Full description

 Versioning was initially pioneered within STEM fields with the use of pre and postprints. As a practice it has affinity with software development, where it is used to distinguish the various instalments of a piece of software. However, versioning and revision have a rich tradition within the humanities too (see disciplines such as genetic criticism that deal with textual variety) and in an open access environment there is perhaps more opportunity for and interest in versioning research and showcasing revision. Textual critics generally define a version as "a distinct state of a work or a document that has transformed in time" [(Broyles, 2020)](https://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/14/2/000455/000455.html), where authors, editors, and readers can all potentially make alterations to a book during its development. Such a focus on material and textual variation as introduced during the writing and research process but also as part of a book’s publication and further dissemination and adaptation, triggers a reconsideration of the book as a fixed object we can return to or emulate while pointing to the inadequacy of final authorial intention. Hence the growing interest, also within the humanities, in more processual forms of publishing and fluid publications that try to incorporate textual variation and versioning, which can also better mirror the scholarly workflow. Yet within most humanities fields and publishing processes, the so-perceived 'final' or 'version of record' (generally seen as a stable, fixed, or bound publication published by a press and written by a single author or a well-defined set of authors) remains dominant in communication and reward structures.

 Experimenting with versioning
 ### Experimental uses

 Although textual scholarship has created sophisticated frameworks for understanding revision and the evolution of books, the mutability of digital text brings up questions around the citeability of different versions and the ability to identify and track changes to a publication. The increasing embrace of version and revision control systems, such as Git, in the digital humanities, has offered the possibility of automated, systematised methods for tracking revision history and providing access to specific states of a project or publication. Changelogs or revision histories, well-known features from platforms such as [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_history) and GitHub or GitLab, are also increasingly integrated into platforms that accommodate collaborative and experimental forms of academic writing. For example [PubPub](https://www.pubpub.org/) (regularly used for journal and book publishing) provides a filterable log of changes made to a ‘pub’ as part of its [Activity Dashboard](https://notes.knowledgefutures.org/pub/82021-product-update/release/1). Next to PubPub, several other publishers and open publishing platforms in the humanities have now started to experiment with and accommodate more processual forms of publishing or have started to formally incorporate versioning and options to update and revise publications. The [Manifold Scholarship](https://cuny.manifoldapp.org/) publishing program (developed by [The University of Minnesota Press](https://www.upress.umn.edu/) in collaboration with [CUNY’s Digital Scholarship Lab](https://gcdsl.commons.gc.cuny.edu/) for the production of what they call 'iterative' texts or publications), allows material (text, data, sound, video) to be added to a publication as it progresses or is iteratively published. Foreseeing as they [state](https://www.upress.umn.edu/press/press-releases/manifold-scholarship) "an emerging hybrid environment for scholarship, Manifold develops, alongside the print edition of a book, an alternate form of publication that is networked and iterative, served on an interactive, open-source platform." With the possibility to keep changelogs and previous versions available, the modifications, interactions, comments, annotations, and updates to publications can become more visible, which offers possibilities to highlight the co-creation of and engagement with scholarship. Experiments with versioning books in the humanities include Mckenzie Wark’s *[Gamer Theory](https://futureofthebook.org/mckenziewark/index.html)* (or *GAM3R 7H30RY* to distinguish the online version from the print one) first developed online in collaboration with the Institute for the Future of the Book in 2006 as [version 1.1](https://futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/). Wark put the draft of her book, what she distinctively calls a networked book, online using an earlier version of the open source Wordpress plugin Commentpress, which allowed readers to comment alongside the text (instead of underneath it). These reader comments were incorporate in [version 2.0](https://futureofthebook.org/gamertheory2.0/), which was published online and as a print [version 2.1](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674025196) published by Harvard University Press. A [third version](https://futureofthebook.org/mckenziewark/visualizations/index.html) of the book then included user visualisations made based on version 2.0.

 Considerations
 ### Considerations

 Based on the technology of the printing press, research has been traditionally organised around fixed and authoritative texts, presumed consistent and stable from copy to copy. The digital environment offers ways to arrange our research differently around the processes of writing. Experimenting with different versions (including using different formats, platforms, and media) offers opportunities to reflect critically on the way the publishing workflow is currently (teleologically and hierarchically) set up, institutionalised, and commercialised and how we might communicate our work differently at the various stages of its development. This includes an investigation of revision management and control (including which revisions are archived), which can be seen as an essential aspect of versioning. Versioning further encourages asking questions about the role of publishers and about what the publishing function entails exactly. For example in relation to  authority of a specific text and who does (and does not) get to have a role in establishing this authority; in relation to what currently counts as a formal version, at what point and for what reason and how to distinguish different versions; and in relation to when a text has been deemed reviewed by our peers, when in a public setting it can potentially be 'reviewed' in a continuous manner, even after it has been formally published. 

@@ -18,16 +18,8 @@ Versioning might also help us look more closely at how different platforms and f

 A focus on the continuously evolving nature of research might help us make more informed decisions about what kind of versions to bring out and with what intention (to communicate, collaborate, share, gift, attribute, credit, improve, brand, etc.). This could also help break down linear conceptions of publishing, where research often doesn’t develop (neatly) linearly, but is taken up and remixed in different contexts, abandoned and picked up again, extended and aborted and returned to, further interlinked with other references, and networked with other communities and with other texts. Linearity, in this respect, is often a construct, something reconstructed in retrospect. Such a sequential focus also tends to draw our attention to the latest version (as visible on publishing platforms) or to the 'end result' of our research, as the version that is perceived the most complete, definitive, authentic, and original, and with that the most valuable. In this respect versioning has the potential to break down—to some extent at least—the strict boundaries between research and publishing.

 References and further readings
 ### Further reading

 Arbuckle, A. (2019). Open+: Versioning Open Social Scholarship. *KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies*, 3, 18–18. [https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.39](https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.39)

 Adema, J. (2021). Versioning and Iterative Publishing. *Commonplace*. [https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.42408f5b](https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.42408f5b)

 Links to tools
 https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/books-contain-multitudes-part-3-technical-workflows-tools-experimental-publishing#versioning-and-forking-of-books
 Links to experimental books making use of annotation
 See typology: https://copim.pubpub.org/pub/books-contain-multitudes-part-2-typology-of-experimental-books#n103i9z75kp 
 Admin section: what crosslinks are there?
 Practices: Forking; Translation; Remix; Rewriting; Translation; Licensing

 Adema, J. (2021). Versioning and Iterative Publishing. *Commonplace*. [https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.42408f5b](https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.42408f5b)