hypothesis (dot) is
“To enable a conversation over the world’s knowledge.”
jeremy dean: https://twitter.com/dr_jdean
learning one note.. been told note easily shareable (from uni students trying to)
huge.. so huge.. we need to break from confines of school ness for this.. no? ie: rev in reverse.. (where perhaps..crowd.. state of union.. et al… become irrelevant..)
Organizing an Annotation Flash Mob
hypothesis plug in available for wordpress
seeing mind at work.. annotating.. huge
annotate everything – @wiobyrne
spot on.. so let’s make sure it’s what we would do.. if we weren’t told what to do..
in hangout: @wiobyrne @onewheeljoe @ellication @kfasimpaur @tellio @remiholden @dogtrax @dr_jdean ..
Will post the annotations and the HOA as well here asap: rhetcompnow.com/annotatenow/
commonplace book – document everything – ness..
io dance ness
mar 2016 via a Jon Udell rt:
We’ve been listening. Our thoughts on preventing abuse. hypothes.is/blog/preventin…
love. haven’t even read.. not even looking into the context. just love..
we’ve been listening..
LSE Impact Blog (@LSEImpactBlog) tweeted at 5:01 AM – 14 Nov 2016 :
A tale of two scholarly blog platforms: comparing and conceptualizing online research communities.https://t.co/CAJBk22xOC (http://twitter.com/LSEImpactBlog/status/798133743655337984?s=17)
So how are HASTAC and Hypotheses different? As noted above, HASTAC is driven by newness and what you might call a revolutionary, cross-disciplinary aspiration, compared to the disciplinary focus of Hypotheses. New media, new forms of teaching, learning, and collaboration, are discussed more often in HASTAC, while Hypotheses includes more content dedicated to the transferal of traditional humanities and social science research into a new environment. …..While HASTAC posts are spread over groups of humanities and digital humanities disciplines, Hypotheses posts are mostly concentrated on a single group with digital humanities labels subsumed within the large cluster. These differences are likely tied to the organizations running the platforms and how they framed their aims (building a network of scholars interested in new media vs. providing a publishing platform). There also seems to be a greater enthusiasm for prefixing subdomains of humanities research with the word digital in the U.S. than in Europe, perhaps a symptom of this aspiration to newness, or an interdisciplinary vs. intradisciplinary vision of what the digital humanities comprise.
“As We May Think,” Annotation, and Liberal Learning: a conversation with Hypothesi.is’ Jon Udell and Jeremy Dean gardnercampbell.net/blog1/?p=2673
on ‘associative trails’ that capture seemingly irrelevant thinking as it emerges..
‘to allow for bigger leaps in thinking and imagination’ – jeremy
‘i don’t want to get rid of the loneliness of reading..but this community aspect helps with loneliness of ie: reading’ – jeremy
context is a service we provide each other – jon
there are going to need to be ways to see/choose trails you want..i think the personal..idio sync get forged more this way.. – jeremy
‘how to filter w/o creating echo chamber &/or filtering out idiosyncratic ness that could lead to interesting trails’- – gardner
idiosyncratic jargon ness