Search Here ….

Tags

affect AI AI slop AI STORIES alumni art autocorrect Blogging book ChatGPT conferences data analysis digital art electronic literature ELMCIP environmental art exhibition flies Gephi history journalister LLMs London machine vision market literature motherhood network analysis norsk open access Pierre Huyghe publication publications research science fiction self-representation selfies social media Surveillance talks teaching tracking trip report twitter UiB visualisation
Uncategorised

french scholars of digital scholarly editions

JillPost a Comment

Today and tomorrow I’m going to be attending a seminar here in Bergen with Norwegian French scholars of digital scholarly editions. It’s a bit off the track of my main research, but it’ll be interesting to catch up with this field. My first job after my MA involved using A Midsummernight’s Dream as a basis for a MOO for teaching English literature, and along with it, creating an annotated hypertextual edition, which I rather enjoyed, really. My real interests have not really lain in the rigour of XML, DDTs and the Dublin Core, though for that project no doubt they’d all have been useful.

Bergen has lots of people working on digital editions. All of Wittgenstein’s nachlass has been digitalised and tagged in the Wittgenstein Archive. Apparently this involved encoding piles and piles of little “postit notes” he scribbled stuff on. There are projects to digitalise norse literature and diaries and letters and huge corpuses of newspaper material and so on, too. A lot of this is adjacent to work I do, so it’s good to keep in touch with it.

Today’s seminar is part of a rather nice EU project that’s supposed to foster collaboration between France and Norway. So this week French scholars come here, and in September, a group of us will go there – to Lyon. In theory we’re supposed to be writing papers together, but so far I think it looks like we’ll be writing papers individually and discussing them together.

My paper about XML metatagging of electronic fiction has not happened, given as I know heaps about electronic literature but very little about proper uses of XML. I doubt it will ever happen, at least not written by me. Instead I’ll be presenting a paper on feral hypertext, a paper that just got accepted for Hypertext ’05 (they sent me out of the room when they discussed it) and that started from a stray sentence in the French peoples’ initial notes where they referred to the Wikipedia as an example of “textes sauvages”. Wild texts. Text gone feral. Feral hypertexts.

I’ll write more about the feral hypertext thing soon. I’ve been having a lot of fun with it!

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI and algorithmic culture University politics

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.