<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for We think History</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wethink.hypotheses.org/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org</link>
	<description>Collaborative Digital History</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:15:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Digital_Humanities: THE Book! by Frédéric Clavert</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/854#comment-10467</link>
		<dc:creator>Frédéric Clavert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=854#comment-10467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you very much for this really interesting review. I am myself yet at the ent of the second chapter and hope to finish it soon.

We agree that the book is insisting too much on the importance of design. It&#039;s what almost made me abandon its reading from the first few pages. I suppose that this is also linked to the authors&#039; research objects. Drucker, as two ot the other four authors, is a specialist of design.

Best,
Frédéric Clavert]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you very much for this really interesting review. I am myself yet at the ent of the second chapter and hope to finish it soon.</p>
<p>We agree that the book is insisting too much on the importance of design. It&#8217;s what almost made me abandon its reading from the first few pages. I suppose that this is also linked to the authors&#8217; research objects. Drucker, as two ot the other four authors, is a specialist of design.</p>
<p>Best,<br />
Frédéric Clavert</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Silent Revolution: The Algorithms and Hyper-modern Knowledge by Guido Koller</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/784#comment-7219</link>
		<dc:creator>Guido Koller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=784#comment-7219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Mercedes,

thank you for your comment. I didn&#039;t know Peter-Paul Verbeek and look forward to check his approach. I agree: The &quot;digital revolution&quot; will change a lot of things in the world of knowledge - newspapers, encyclopedias, libraries etc. - and we should discuss this.

Kind regards,
Guido]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Mercedes,</p>
<p>thank you for your comment. I didn&#8217;t know Peter-Paul Verbeek and look forward to check his approach. I agree: The &#8220;digital revolution&#8221; will change a lot of things in the world of knowledge &#8211; newspapers, encyclopedias, libraries etc. &#8211; and we should discuss this.</p>
<p>Kind regards,<br />
Guido</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Silent Revolution: The Algorithms and Hyper-modern Knowledge by Mercedes Bunz</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/784#comment-6453</link>
		<dc:creator>Mercedes Bunz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:51:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=784#comment-6453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hello Guido,

thank you for this really detailed reading of the book (I must say, I feel quite honored). Indeed, your suggestion to use actor network theory is one a lot of my friends share. There is definitely a point there that should be explored. 

Also I like your remark: &quot;Humans, with their ability to (self-) representation, strongly rely on creating reality (Ian Hacking).&quot; Now what does this mean in a world that is more &#039;creative&#039; than every before? Very good point. There is a debate about the ethical dimension of design going on with Peter-Paul Verbeek in the Netherlands, but you are right - we need to discuss this more and get into the details. 

Thank you again for your remarks &amp; all the best, 
mb]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Guido,</p>
<p>thank you for this really detailed reading of the book (I must say, I feel quite honored). Indeed, your suggestion to use actor network theory is one a lot of my friends share. There is definitely a point there that should be explored. </p>
<p>Also I like your remark: &#8220;Humans, with their ability to (self-) representation, strongly rely on creating reality (Ian Hacking).&#8221; Now what does this mean in a world that is more &#8216;creative&#8217; than every before? Very good point. There is a debate about the ethical dimension of design going on with Peter-Paul Verbeek in the Netherlands, but you are right &#8211; we need to discuss this more and get into the details. </p>
<p>Thank you again for your remarks &amp; all the best,<br />
mb</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Digital History. Ready made. by Digital History. Ready made. : Global Perspectives on Digital History</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/701#comment-3696</link>
		<dc:creator>Digital History. Ready made. : Global Perspectives on Digital History</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=701#comment-3696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Read the original post here. (Originally published September 13, 2012) [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Read the original post here. (Originally published September 13, 2012) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Twitter in the Humanities by Twitter in the Humanities &#124; We think History &#124; net-plus-ultra &#124; Scoop.it</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/593#comment-1826</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitter in the Humanities &#124; We think History &#124; net-plus-ultra &#124; Scoop.it</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 21:43:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=593#comment-1826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] RT @hypothesesorg: Twitter in the Humanities http://t.co/Ei5pFQDL...&#160; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] RT @hypothesesorg: Twitter in the Humanities <a href="http://t.co/Ei5pFQDL" rel="nofollow">http://t.co/Ei5pFQDL</a>&#8230;&nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Twitter in the Humanities by Twitter in the Humanities &#124; We think History &#124; Biblioth&#232;que des sciences de l'Antiquit&#233; &#124; Scoop.it</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/593#comment-1783</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitter in the Humanities &#124; We think History &#124; Biblioth&#232;que des sciences de l'Antiquit&#233; &#124; Scoop.it</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 05:30:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=593#comment-1783</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] RT @hypothesesorg: Twitter in the Humanities http://t.co/Ei5pFQDL...&#160; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] RT @hypothesesorg: Twitter in the Humanities <a href="http://t.co/Ei5pFQDL" rel="nofollow">http://t.co/Ei5pFQDL</a>&#8230;&nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Digital Humanities: Short Outline of a Theory of Practice by Digital Humanities: Short outline of a Theory of Practice - Hypotheses &#124; EDUCACI&#211;N Y UNO QUE OTRO TIC &#124; Scoop.it</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/468#comment-243</link>
		<dc:creator>Digital Humanities: Short outline of a Theory of Practice - Hypotheses &#124; EDUCACI&#211;N Y UNO QUE OTRO TIC &#124; Scoop.it</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:41:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=468#comment-243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Review with respect to Digital Humanities. Preliminary remarks: I have tried in previous posts, to outline the framework and parameters for the Digital Humanities: the delegitimization of great stories, the decentration in the ...&#160; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Review with respect to Digital Humanities. Preliminary remarks: I have tried in previous posts, to outline the framework and parameters for the Digital Humanities: the delegitimization of great stories, the decentration in the &#8230;&nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The place in the Digital Humanities by Guido Koller</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/421#comment-143</link>
		<dc:creator>Guido Koller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:32:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=421#comment-143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please see the comment of Frédérique Muscinesi, Hypotheses.orgCléo/OpenEdition.org, to this as a separate post &quot;La place dans les Humanités Digitales&quot; on http://wethink.hypotheses.org/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please see the comment of Frédérique Muscinesi, Hypotheses.orgCléo/OpenEdition.org, to this as a separate post &#8220;La place dans les Humanités Digitales&#8221; on <a href="http://wethink.hypotheses.org/" rel="nofollow">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The place in the Digital Humanities by place dans les Humanités Digitales &#8211; Commentaire &#124; We think History</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/421#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>place dans les Humanités Digitales &#8211; Commentaire &#124; We think History</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:27:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=421#comment-142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] We think History   Collaborative Digital History    Skip to content HomeAboutCredits        &#8592; The place in the Digital Humanities [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] We think History   Collaborative Digital History    Skip to content HomeAboutCredits        &larr; The place in the Digital Humanities [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on La place dans les Humanités Digitales &#8211; Commentaire by Le carnet de recherche comme pratique de chercheur.se.s – Un billet prévu prenant une direction imprévue. &#124; L'infusoir</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/448#comment-141</link>
		<dc:creator>Le carnet de recherche comme pratique de chercheur.se.s – Un billet prévu prenant une direction imprévue. &#124; L'infusoir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=448#comment-141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Frédérique (3 juillet 2012) La place dans les Humanités Digitales – Commentaire We think history [carnet de recherche] Consulté le 3 juillet 2012 [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Frédérique (3 juillet 2012) La place dans les Humanités Digitales – Commentaire We think history [carnet de recherche] Consulté le 3 juillet 2012 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The place in the Digital Humanities by Enrico Natale</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/421#comment-129</link>
		<dc:creator>Enrico Natale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=421#comment-129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thinking about &quot;non-places&quot;, one can argue that historical sites, specially those declared as such, have always been heterotopias, i.e. places which contain many different, or even contradictory memories and cultures. In his book Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (1996), Arjun Appadurai argues that historical places have always been heterotopias. If you think about Rome or Jerusalem, those places are all together paradigmatic historical places, transit places, and the locus of a number of different cultural or religious representations, which sometimes clash together. 

Coming to online platforms, I&#039;m not sure that a shared cultural environment is a pre-condition for collaboration. In Switzerland, where citizens don&#039;t speak the same language, what should this common cultural heritage be ? Patriotism ? History has been too long at the service of nation building. Conversely, the virtual world is a good opportunity to cast a critical look to the cultural and ideological background of the historical sciences, and discuss the possible role of history in our &quot;super-modern&quot; world.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thinking about &#8220;non-places&#8221;, one can argue that historical sites, specially those declared as such, have always been heterotopias, i.e. places which contain many different, or even contradictory memories and cultures. In his book Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (1996), Arjun Appadurai argues that historical places have always been heterotopias. If you think about Rome or Jerusalem, those places are all together paradigmatic historical places, transit places, and the locus of a number of different cultural or religious representations, which sometimes clash together. </p>
<p>Coming to online platforms, I&#8217;m not sure that a shared cultural environment is a pre-condition for collaboration. In Switzerland, where citizens don&#8217;t speak the same language, what should this common cultural heritage be ? Patriotism ? History has been too long at the service of nation building. Conversely, the virtual world is a good opportunity to cast a critical look to the cultural and ideological background of the historical sciences, and discuss the possible role of history in our &#8220;super-modern&#8221; world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The place in the Digital Humanities by The place in the Digital Humanities &#124; We think History &#124; EJournalism Studies at BU &#124; Scoop.it</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/421#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>The place in the Digital Humanities &#124; We think History &#124; EJournalism Studies at BU &#124; Scoop.it</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:45:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=421#comment-123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] background-position: 50% 0px ; background-color:#222222; background-repeat : no-repeat; }           wethink.hypotheses.org  - Today, 5:45 [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] background-position: 50% 0px ; background-color:#222222; background-repeat : no-repeat; }           wethink.hypotheses.org  &#8211; Today, 5:45 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Foucault revisited for the Digital Humanities by Short Take: Foucault revisited for the Digital Humanities : Global Perspectives on Digital History</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/280#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>Short Take: Foucault revisited for the Digital Humanities : Global Perspectives on Digital History</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:01:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=280#comment-101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Read Full Post Here [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Read Full Post Here [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Foucault revisited for the Digital Humanities by Foucault revisited for the Digital Humanities &#124; philosopher1978 &#124; Scoop.it</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/280#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>Foucault revisited for the Digital Humanities &#124; philosopher1978 &#124; Scoop.it</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 21:16:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=280#comment-99</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] background-position: 50% 0px ; background-color:#000000; background-repeat : no-repeat; }           wethink.hypotheses.org  - Today, 11:16 [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] background-position: 50% 0px ; background-color:#000000; background-repeat : no-repeat; }           wethink.hypotheses.org  &#8211; Today, 11:16 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open up the Workshop of the Historian! by Guido Koller</title>
		<link>http://wethink.hypotheses.org/121#comment-77</link>
		<dc:creator>Guido Koller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wethink.hypotheses.org/?p=121#comment-77</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Pierre,

Thank you for your response. 

To publish a text is something quite exciting. But we should do it &lt;em&gt;sine ira et studio&lt;/em&gt;, as Tacitus used to say. 

We are talking about peer review, then. In the paper era we (used to) do that normally before publishing. But Charles Leadbeater is absolutely with you in this. He published a draft of his famous book &lt;em&gt;We-Think&lt;/em&gt; in the net and asked for feedback - just as you did with the book you have been writing with Martin Dacos. &quot;His&quot; - Leadbeater&#039;s - book had many co-authors, then. So the question arises: who is the &quot;author&quot; at the end? I know that Michel Foucault was very sceptical about the notion of “author” in relation to books and work. But shouldn’t we keep to that notion in the Humanities, at least? As a historian I should and I want to have a position, my position, then let others argue with it. This forms a debate, a discussion, a process of an added value of knowledge – I think.

Cordialement,
Guido Koller]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Pierre,</p>
<p>Thank you for your response. </p>
<p>To publish a text is something quite exciting. But we should do it <em>sine ira et studio</em>, as Tacitus used to say. </p>
<p>We are talking about peer review, then. In the paper era we (used to) do that normally before publishing. But Charles Leadbeater is absolutely with you in this. He published a draft of his famous book <em>We-Think</em> in the net and asked for feedback &#8211; just as you did with the book you have been writing with Martin Dacos. &#8220;His&#8221; &#8211; Leadbeater&#8217;s &#8211; book had many co-authors, then. So the question arises: who is the &#8220;author&#8221; at the end? I know that Michel Foucault was very sceptical about the notion of “author” in relation to books and work. But shouldn’t we keep to that notion in the Humanities, at least? As a historian I should and I want to have a position, my position, then let others argue with it. This forms a debate, a discussion, a process of an added value of knowledge – I think.</p>
<p>Cordialement,<br />
Guido Koller</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
