By: Alyssa Arbuckle, Nina Belojevic, Tracey El Hajj, Randa El Khatib, Lindsey Seatter, and Raymond G. Siemens, with Alex Christie, Matthew Hiebert, Jon Saklofske, Jentery Sayers, Derek Siemens, Shaun Wong, and the INKE and ETCL Research
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 In 2015–16, a collaborative team at the Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (ETCL) endeavoured to update the previously published “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies.”  The former tripartite annotated bibliography collection was developed in 2012–13 at the ETCL, in collaboration with the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) research group.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Although “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies” provided a thorough snapshot of scholarship and initiatives related to social knowledge creation up to the year 2013, this area of inquiry has expanded steadily since that time, and requires further attention. Now revisited and renewed, “An Annotated Bibliography of Social Knowledge Creation” aims to broaden the conceptual scope of social knowledge creation, and makes notable additions and expansions—including those in the subjects of public humanities, crowdsourcing, collaborative games, digital publishing, and open access. Throughout this process, we have considered social knowledge creation as follows: acts of collaboration in order to engage in or produce shared cultural data and/or knowledge products. The authors enacted social knowledge creation practices in the very development of the current document. Not only did we engage, reshape, and build on the previous authors’ work, but we also collaborated on the intellectual direction of this iteration, and the compilation of new resources. This work was facilitated by electronic authoring platforms such as Google Drive, and integrated the substantial Zotero bibliographical library developed by the previous authorial team, which served as a critical foundation for this revised publication.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 The previous document, “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies,” gathered and annotated bibliographical items as a resource for students and researchers interested in INKE research areas, including participants at digital humanities seminars in Bern, Switzerland (June 2013), and Leipzig, Germany (July 2013). Updated as “An Annotated Bibliography of Social Knowledge Creation,” the result of these initiatives might be best understood as a gestural environmental scan. Necessarily a partial snapshot, the scholarship reflected continues to develop and coalesce around emerging areas of critical interest. Neither the current nor the previous iteration claims to establish a canon; rather, we hope to provide a glimpse into interconnected concepts and fields through collaborative aggregation and annotation. Given the nature of social knowledge creation as a research area, many of the bibliographical entries span several of our delineated categories. In those cases, the entries have been duplicated and appear in all of their respective categories to ensure easy access, readability, and the most complete treatment possible of each category. Please note that duplicated entries are marked with an asterisk (*) after their first appearance.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 We revised and updated “An Annotated Bibliography of Social Knowledge Creation” in order to offer critical contexts and resources for the development of new tools, modes, and methods of scholarship that engage diverse communities productively, including researchers, students, librarians, faculty, administrators, academically-aligned and public groups, and engaged members of the public. Our exploration was guided by the following questions: How can scholarly activity in online environments be modelled for greater public engagement? What can we learn from past and existing knowledge creation practices? Will the humanities continue to play a leading role in knowledge production within transforming social landscapes? How can we theorize the ongoing changes in knowledge conditions in ways that might account for our critical design-based interventions? What existing humanities processes should our new knowledge environments seek to redesign? How do social knowledge creation practices perpetuate an inclusive environment, and how do they inadvertently exclude marginalized groups?
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 We also commit to certain overarching concepts: knowledge is plural and its outputs are variegated, as emphasized by much of the research included (e.g., Gitelman 2006; McKenzie 1999). Rather than conceptualizing knowledge as singular (“the Media”), we consider knowledge as a multifaceted product of many social, material, and media forces. To take one example of many, there was no single “print culture” animating the world inaugurated by Gutenberg, but rather a myriad of localized print cultures (Johns 1998)—a claim Adrian Johns makes in firm opposition to the more straightforward cause-and-effect theory put forth by Elizabeth Eisenstein in The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (1979). In considering these lines of inquiry, we learned quickly that social knowledge creation does not necessarily heed traditional disciplinary boundaries and practices; rather, it cuts across research areas and methods, and emphasizes the innate value of collaboration.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Popular culture and social activity are often located in digital spaces, rendering knowledge creation increasingly collaborative and plural. As such, multiple institutions, cultural specificities, and political and economic conditions affect knowledge production in idiosyncratic ways (Burke 2000). In the twenty-first century, much of culture is developed, formalized, and perpetuated through the global network of the Internet as the primary space of knowledge creation, engagement, and dissemination. The prevalence of dynamic social knowledge creation and digital tools provides new opportunities for the humanities and social sciences to connect with multiple publics, who might not necessarily identify as academic.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 In the “Social Knowledge Creation and Conveyance” section of the bibliography, we gather perspectives on how knowledge creation processes might be imagined for digital environments. We also consider older forms of communication and interaction from the history of knowledge production. For instance, conversation, epistolary correspondence, manuscript circulation, and other informal modes of scholarly exchange have been recovered at the fount of academic disciplines (Siemens 2002). Various similarities can be drawn between manuscript culture and digital knowledge creation, and many electronic publications can enable social knowledge creation through critical engagement with the social elements and lessons from the history of scholarly communication. Both practices are founded on a cyclical process of drafting, editing, and revising in which documents are revisited continually, rather than a print model that perpetuates the idea of an “end product” (i.e., the published work). This writing practice is exemplified in the work of Jane Austen, who returned to her juvenile writings throughout her lifetime (Levy 2010), as well as in the eighteen surviving, distinct versions of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” that were drafted and circulated between November 1797 and March 1798 (Stillinger 1994). Moreover, both manuscript culture and web technologies rely explicitly on the social characteristics of knowledge creation, as authors seek the critical input of other experts to shape their ideas. Today, collaborative drafting and editing platforms such as Google Drive marry these conventions by providing an environment in which we are able to write, revise, and comment on our own work and the work of others simultaneously—a literary circle of the twentyfirst century variety. As we witness digital transformations, the principles of older technologies and cultural practices emerge and manifest in reimagined ways.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 How might we model these practices in the humanities? To explore this question, we have included resources that focus on how users may be empowered by social knowledge creation tools in order to contribute to knowledge production in online environments. Methodological practices of scholarship in all disciplines are increasingly affected by common digital affordances (McCarty 2005). Current web technologies offer a degree of interaction, collaboration, and sociality that contrasts with the early static websites modelled on the written page, which often privilege straightforward and linear information conveyance. The trend toward greater access to data in widely usable formats, and the growing familiarity with analytical tools to process that data, dramatically accelerates workflows and allows researchers to pose questions that simply would have taken too long to answer without computation. Online, interactive publication models are also gaining popularity for those who wish to actively engage the larger public in the sharing of academic work, and who may feel as though corporate academic publishers’ stakes in traditional journals and monographs have dominated scholarly knowledge production negatively. The increasing use by researchers of software-based modes for communication can be seen to cultivate a “problem-based” approach to scholarship that locates focus and concern outside of disciplinary boundaries. Problem-based scholarship implies greater attunement with the public that research intends to serve, and in so doing suggests that deepening discourse between experts and the communities that exist around data sets is valuable.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 The ETCL and INKE teams have explored the study and practice of social knowledge creation through their public development of A Social Edition of the Devonshire Manuscript on Wikibooks (Bowen, Crompton, and Hiebert, 2014; Crompton, Siemens, Arbuckle, et al. 2015; Crompton, Siemens, Arbuckle, et al. 2013; Siemens, Timney, and Leitch, et al. 2012; see “The Shifting Future of Scholarly Communication and Digital Scholarship” and “Social Knowledge Creation in Electronic Scholarly Editions and e-Books”). By prototyping an edition of an early modern text on the principles of open access and editorial transparency, this model suggests that new media environments can effectively facilitate access, contribution, and discussion of scholarly knowledge for stakeholders both within and beyond the academy without jettisoning quality or the peer review process. The social edition engages discourse surrounding scholarly knowledge production, new media, and critical making to develop an argument about the nature of scholarly editing. In extending the dynamic relations inherent to textual production and reception, the social scholarly edition transforms the role of the editor from that of a didactic authority to that of a knowledge creation facilitator. In other examples, the Transcribe Bentham project unites a humanities research aim with public engagement by developing a digital platform that facilitates the crowdsourced transcription of political philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s manuscripts (see the “Crowdsourcing” category); the OpenStreetMap project brings together crowdsourcing and digital mapping in its collection of over two million user uploads of geospatial data (see the “Spatial Humanities and Digital Mapping” category). Situating scholarly knowledge creation practices in a public, social sphere involves a redistribution of authority that gestures toward universal inclusiveness, and reactivates open, community-based collaborative processes by means of digital tools. In their digitally networked forms, basic scholarly activities—“scholarly primitives” as John Unsworth (2000) has termed them—extend into the public sphere. This shift in praxis unsettles conceptions of the researcher as a sovereign discoverer of knowledge in an objective world.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Social knowledge creation activities embody the epistemological and institutional changes occurring within society, but hinge on stakeholders building capacity in order to use and develop new methodologies and forms of communication. The involvement of citizen scholars is crucial, especially if humanities scholars consider social knowledge creation as an opportunity to reinvigorate and sustain research and dissemination. In this way, social knowledge creation can become an effective response to the perennial call for higher education institutions to actively engage community groups. In contrast to the undermining effects of corporate-based funding, economic incentives, or the commodification of the humanities, we argue that public involvement in knowledge creation can productively bolster the humanities through integration with its traditional values (Brown 1995; Ellison 2008; Farland 1996).
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 Another key area of concern for social knowledge creation is borne among earlier notions that the book is, itself, an inherently social technology. This concept is embodied in nascent efforts to digitally render the collaborative nature of textual analysis in projects such as Ivanhoe, an online environment for community-based literary analysis created by Johanna Drucker and Jerome McGann (Drucker 2003). The Ivanhoe project was the first popular attempt at this kind of socially gamified reading. Its very nature points to the potential for game-based design techniques to more broadly assist in modelling collaborative scholarly interpretation practices. Following this, the second section of the bibliography, “Game-Design Models for Digital Social Knowledge Creation,” incorporates critical assessment of the role of gaming in social knowledge creation, as it is essential for moving forward in the scholarly development of game-design models for publication and communication. We seek game-design techniques that might effectively contribute to humanities-based knowledge practices, as well as consider how gaming as a cultural phenomenon is capable of constituting subjects in ways that might perpetuate exploitative labour dynamics and rigidified knowledge regimes.
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 Game elements such as badges and achievements have inspired alternative recognition systems within non-game scholarly contexts to increase participation. This is exemplified in the growing use of altmetrics—a movement rooted in scientific journal practices—for quantifying article impact data. A number of critics from within the humanities have condemned such use of gamification for corroding the intrinsic motivation of knowledge-building activities. Conversely, other scholars argue that the processes of gamification attenuate the inherent power of full games to convey knowledge, make arguments, and accomplish other meaningful objectives (Bogost 2011). Theorists wishing to retain gamification as a sociological or media theory concept—to account, for instance, for the unique experiential phenomenon of “flickering” between game and non-game contexts (Deterding, Dixon, Khalad, and Nacke 2011)—have developed terminology distinct from “gamification,” and aim to limit its range of applicable techniques to the use of non-achievementrelated game elements within scholarly knowledge environments. How we analyze and understand past and present knowledge environments may be reconstituted through game-design and implementation, thus fostering the dialectical relationship between the critical and creative aspects of social knowledge production in digital environments.
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Social knowledge creation is often provoked through collaborative electronic tools that model such processes as John Unsworth’s “scholarly primitives”: discovering, annotating, comparing, referring, sampling, illustrating, and representing (2000). Creation-as-research and critical making are emerging as key practices of social knowledge creation (Chapman and Sawchuk 2015; Ratto, Wylie, and Jalbert 2014), and can be embedded as computational tools. More and more frequently, we see the integration of developing trends and technologies in scholarly exploration, such as the popularity of 3D printing in libraries and labs. Critical making is recognized for its popular draw and positive social impact, and will most likely continue to grow and provoke change in different arenas (Ratto and Ree 2012). The tools highlighted in the final section of the annotated bibliography, “Social Knowledge Creation Tools,” encourage the construction of flexible, open systems that evolve alongside the knowledge creation they facilitate. An advantage of using specifically open source tools in this context is that they are fundamentally participatory, allow arguments to be transparent at the level of code, and include adjustable, adaptable process modelling.
¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 The open source community revolves around several collaborative code repositories used for developing and distributing software, such as SourceForge and GitHub. As Alan Galey and Stan Ruecker (2010) argue, the design of prototyped digital tools perpetuates certain politics or makes specific arguments about the processes it intends to model. The social knowledge creation tools included in this section derive from areas of content provision, annotation, marking/tagging, bibliography, and text analysis. Collaborative tools for annotation model a scholarly primitive that emerged with medieval manuscript culture to assist in remembering, thinking, clarifying, sharing, and interpretating (Ovsiannikov, Arbib, and McNeill 1999; Marshall 1997; Wolfe 2002). Blogs and content management systems facilitate user-derived content, contending that sharing, creativity, and dialogue are intrinsic to knowledge work (Fitzpatrick 2007; Kjellberg 2010; Fernheimer, Litterio, and Hendler 2011). Collaborative bibliography tools enhance the scholarly processes they model by heightening social involvement and reflecting the networked nature of thought and scholarship (Cohen 2008; Hendry, Jenkins, and McCarthy 2006). Community bibliography applications, which often incorporate folksonomy tagging, allow for the collaborative creation, organization, citation, enrichment, and publication of bibliographies. Applied social knowledge creation tools for textual analysis involve “the application of algorithmically facilitated search, retrieval, and critical processes” (Schreibman, Siemens, and Unsworth 2008). After the profound “changes in knowledge regimes” of recent decades (Burke 2000), situated users are increasingly capable of redefining what media become, regardless of the publics they are initially constructed for and aim to construct (Gitelman 2006).
¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 Facilitating public involvement in scholarship through digital means can encourage the humanities to ask the “right” questions, provide better means of answering them, and improve competency in reflecting such answers in both expert communities and larger societal discourses. New media facilitates interactive public humanities practices with greater ease, as within the digital realm “the presentation of knowledge and the production of knowledge happen interdependently and simultaneously” (Jay 2012). This implied transformation of scholarship invites renewed inquiry into the field of knowledge production. Such inquiry, we believe, might inform practitioners in their efforts to create critical interventions (including through content modelling, critical processes, and communication and dissemination) that best facilitate a convergence of the scholarly and the social spheres while preserving a commitment to humanities-based research.
- ¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0
-  The Electronic Textual Cultures Lab (ETCL) is located at the University of Victoria in Victoria, BC, Canada. The ETCL engages in cross-disciplinary study of the past, present, and future of textual communication, and is a hub for digital humanities activities across the University of Victoria campus and beyond. It is a digital humanities lab with research, teaching, and service mandates, and an intellectual centre for the activities of some 20 local faculty, staff, students, and visiting scholars (more than 60 since inception), who work closely with research centres, libraries, academic departments, and projects locally and in the larger community. Through a series of highly collaborative relationships, the ETCL’s international research community comprises more than 300 researchers. Dr. Raymond G. Siemens directs the ETCL.
-  Alyssa Arbuckle, Nina Belojevic, Matthew Hiebert, and Raymond G. Siemens, with Shaun Wong, Derek Siemens, Alex Christie, Jon Saklofske, Jentery Sayers, and the INKE and ETCL Research Groups, “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies,” Scholarly and Research Communication 5, no. 2 (2014), http://src-online.ca/ index.php/src/article/view/150/299.
-  Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE; inke.ca) is a collaborative group of researchers and graduate research assistants working with other organizations and partners to explore the digital humanities, electronic scholarly communication, and the affordances of digital text. INKE is directed by Dr. Raymond G. Siemens and funded by a seven-year Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Major Collaborative Research Initiatives grant.
-  See Google Drive
-  See Zotero
-  Of note, the game-focused section of “Social Knowledge Creation: Three Annotated Bibliographies” was also revised for the journal Mémoires du livre / Studies in Book Culture, and published as “A Select Annotated Bibliography Concerning Game-Design Models for Digital Social Knowledge Creation” (Belojevic, Arbuckle, Hiebert, Siemens, et al., 2014).
-  See The Devonshire Manuscript on Wikibooks
- ¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0
- Belojevic, Nina, Alyssa Arbuckle, Matthew Hiebert, Raymond G. Siemens, Shaun Wong, Alex Christie, Jon Saklofske, Jentery Sayers, and Derek Siemens, with the INKE and ETCL Research Groups. 2014. “A Select Annotated Bibliography Concerning Game-Design Models for Digital Social Knowledge Creation,” Mémoires du livre/Studies in Book Culture 5 (2): n.p. http://www.erudit.org/revue/memoires/2014/v5/n2/1024783.
- Bogost, Ian. 2011. How to Do Things with Videogames. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Bowen, William R., Constance Crompton, and Matthew Hiebert. 2014. “Iter Community: Prototyping an Environment for Social Knowledge Creation and Communication.” Scholarly and Research Communication 5 (4): n.p. http://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/193/360.
- Brown, David W. 1995. “The Public/Academic Disconnect.” In Higher Education Exchange Annual, 38–42. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.
- Burke, Peter. 2000. A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Chapman, Owen, and Kim Sawchuk. 2015. “Creation-as-Research: Critical Making in Complex Environments.” RACAR: Revue d’art canadienne/ Canadian Art Review 40 (1): 49–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24327426.
- Cohen, Daniel J. 2008. “Creating Scholarly Tools and Resources for the Digital Ecosystem: Building Connections in the Zotero Project.” First Monday 13 (8): n.p. doi:10.5210/fm.v13i8.2233.
- Crompton, Constance, Alyssa Arbuckle, Raymond G. Siemens, and the Devonshire MS Editorial Group. 2013. “Understanding the Social Edition Through Iterative Implementation: The Case of the Devonshire MS (BL Add MS 17492).” Scholarly and Research Communication 4 (3): n.p. http:// src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/viewFile/118/311.
- Crompton, Constance, Raymond G. Siemens, and Alyssa Arbuckle, with the INKE Research Group. 2015. “Enlisting ‘Vertues Noble & Excelent’: Behavior, Credit, and Knowledge Organization in the Social Edition.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9 (2): n.p. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/ dhq/vol/9/2/000202/000202.html.
- Deterding, Sebastian, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khalad, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2011. “From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification.’” In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek ’11), 9–15. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040.
- Drucker, Johanna. 2003. “Designing Ivanhoe.” TEXT Technology 12 (2): 19–41. http://texttechnology.mcmaster.ca/pdf/vol12_2_03.pdf.
- Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1979. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ellison, Julie. 2008. “The Humanities and the Public Soul.” Antipode 40 (3): 463–71. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00615.x.
- Farland, Maria M. 1996. “Academic Professionalism and the New Public Mindedness.” Higher Education Exchange Annual: 51–57. http://www.unz. org/Pub/HigherEdExchange-1996q1-00051.
- Fernheimer, Janice W., Lisa Litterio, and James Hendler. 2011. “Transdisciplinary ITexts and the Future of Web-scale Collaboration.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 25 (3): 322–37. doi:10.1177/1050651911400710.
- Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2007. “CommentPress: New (Social) Structures for New (Networked) Texts.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 10 (3): n.p. doi:10.3998/3336451.0010.305.
- Galey, Alan, and Stan Ruecker. 2010. “How a Prototype Argues.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (formerly Literary and Linguistic Computing) 25 (4): 405–24. doi:10.1093/llc/fqq021.
- Gitelman, Lisa. 2006. Always Already New: Media, History, and the Data of Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Hendry, David G., J.R. Jenkins, and Joseph F. McCarthy. 2006. “Collaborative Bibliography.” Information Processing & Management 42 (3): 805–25. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2005.05.007.
- Jay, Gregory. 2012. “The Engaged Humanities: Principles and Practices for Public Scholarship and Teaching.” Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 3 (1): 51–63. principles-and-practices-for-public-scholarship-and-teaching/.
- Johns, Adrian. 1998. The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Kjellberg, Sara. 2010. “I am a Blogging Researcher: Motivations for Blogging in a Scholarly Context.” First Monday 15 (8): n.p. doi:10.5210/fm.v15i8.2962.
- Levy, Michelle. 2010. “Austen’s Manuscripts and the Publicity of Print.” ELH 77 (4): 1015–40. https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/elh/v077/77.4.levy.pdf.
- Marshall, Catherine C. 1997. “Annotation: From Paper Books to the Digital Library.” In Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries (Digital Libraries ’97), 131–40. Philadelphia: ACM. doi:10.1145/263690.263806.
- McCarty, Willard. 2005. Humanities Computing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. McKenzie, D. F. 1999. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ovsiannikov, Ilia A., Michael A. Arbib, and Thomas H. McNeill. 1999. “Annotation Technology.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 50 (4): 329–62. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0247.
- Ratto, Matt, and Robert Ree. 2012. “Materializing Information: 3D Printing and Social Change.” First Monday 17 (7): n.p. doi:10.5210/fm.v17i7.3968.
- Ratto, Matt, Sara Ann Wylie, and Kirk Jalbert. 2014. “Introduction to the Special Forum on Critical Making as Research Program.” The Information Society 30 (2): 85–95. doi:10.1080/01972243.2014.875767.
- Schreibman, Susan, Raymond G. Siemens, and John Unsworth, eds. 2008. A Companion to Digital Humanities. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Siemens, Raymond G. 2002. “Scholarly Publishing at its Source, and at Present.” In The Credibility of Electronic Publishing: A Report to the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, compiled by Raymond G. Siemens, Michael Best, Elizabeth Grove-White, Alan Burk, James Kerr, Andy Pope, Jean-Claude Guédon, Geoffrey Rockwell, and Lynne Siemens. TEXT Technology 11 (1): 1–128.
- Siemens, Raymond G., Meagan Timney, Cara Leitch, Corina Koolen, and Alex Garnett, with the ETCL, INKE, and PKP Research Groups. 2012. “Toward Modeling the Social Edition: An Approach to Understanding the Electronic Scholarly Edition in the Context of New and Emerging Social Media.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities (formerly Literary and Linguistic Computing) 27 (4): 445–61. doi:10.1093/llc/fqs013.
- Stillinger, Jack. 1994. Coleridge and Textual Instability: The Multiple Versions of the Major Poems. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Unsworth, John. 2000. “Scholarly Primitives: What Methods Do Humanities Researchers Have in Common, and How Might Our Tools Reflect This?” Part of a symposium on Humanities Computing: Formal Methods, Experimental Practice, sponsored by King’s College, London, May 13. http://people.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/Kings.5-00/primitives.html.
- Wolfe, Joanna. 2002. “Annotation Technologies: A Software and Research Review.” Computers and Composition 19 (4): 471–97. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00144-5.