Talk:Kathleen Fitzpatrick (American academic)

We might make these changes/additions to KP's page

Third Paragraph: Fitzpatrick’s articles have appeared in the Journal of Electronic Publishing, The Cinema Journal.; and IUPUI Arts & Humanities Institute

http://www.iupui.edu/~iahi/?event=2014-barlow-lecture-in-the-humanities-explores-the-future-history-of-the-book

---

We could add then work in a discussion around open peer review as follows:

Working with Faculty Writers: This article discusses author's desires for support around lifelong education.

This sentence describes how writers might experience collaboration:

“For example, what happens best to faculty writers (according to them) happens in person: building community, sharing drafts, engaging in peer review, celebrating. But several technologies will make it more possible to apply high touch to digital collaboration and online community-generated peer review, and to make way for the mega accessible through “the inevitability of open access” (Lewis 2012). One of Anne’s graduate students, Laura Lisabeth, was introduced to these ideas by one of the pioneers, Kathleen Fitzpatrick. Following a visit by Fitzpatrick to her campus, Lisabeth (2012) wrote this in her blog: “One of Dr. Fitzpatrick’s most thought provoking ideas was the need to move out of the ‘filter then publish’ process of academic publishing and into a ‘publish then filter’ one, which certainly challenges ownership of intellectual thought.”

Chapter Title: AFTERWORD Chapter Author(s): Michele Eodice Book Title: Working with Faculty Writers Book Editor(s): ANNE ELLEN GELLER, MICHELE EODICE Published by: University Press of Colorado, Utah State University Press, (October 2013) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt4cgs6g .

---

The following paragraph discusses publishing draft manuscripts using CommentPress and is a way of furthering a description about semi-public peer review on FP’s page (btw open peer review is a subcategory of peer review – so it could be a piped link. We can also introduce “Debates in the Digital Humanities” in this sentence or by reference to one of the below articles.

The Digital Humanities Moment: Matthew K. Gold

The semipublic peer-to-peer review was modeled on a number of recent experiments in peer review, most notably Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing (2008), Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s Planned Obsolescence (2009), Shakespeare Quarterly’s “Shakespeare and New Media” issue (2010), and Trebor Scholz’s Learning through Digital Media (2011). In all of these cases, CommentPress, a WordPress blog theme built by the Institute for the Future of the Book, was used to publish draft manuscripts on a site where comments could be added to the margin beside particular paragraphs of the text (Fitzpatrick, “CommentPress”). Most of the aforementioned examples were fully public, however, meaning that anyone with the link and an interest in a particular text could read and comment on it. For Debates in the Digital Humanities, we chose to go with a semipublic option, meaning that the site was password protected and accessible only to the scholars involved in its production.

Debates in the Digital Humanities: Matthew K. Gold http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates

---

This is a discussion around peer review, traditional scholarship and “intellectual engagement on the internet”: Beyond Metrics: Community Authorization and Open Peer Review

Debates in the Digital Humanities http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/7

---

Fyfe discusses KP’s notions of peer review in this article Electronic Errata: Digital Publishing, Open Review, and the Futures of Correction

PAUL FYFE Debates in the Digital Humanities http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/debates/text/4

CreativeLink (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

adding headings

Hi, thanks CreativeLink for the info. To structure the page, I suggest we add two new headings, one on Planned Obsolescence with a link to the main article and one on MediaCommons and open-peer review. Or should we create separate headings for these? We can add some of the reviews we gathered under the Planned Obsolescence heading, but should be careful not to add too much I think, since there's already a main article for it. Annepluus (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Annepluus

Hi, Annepluus I meant to say that I agree with you, I don't think we need to post too much and adding reviews of Planned Obsolescence should suffice. There's already a heading for MediaCommons, so let's add a link to open-peer review with a reference to Debates in The Digital Humanities, which I am surprised to see does not yet have a page! CreativeLink (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Symantictickler Please post your additions here and Thanks CreativeLink (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've written an opening paragraph and then provided quotes from several reviews of Planned Obsolescence. While she is cited in peer-reviewed journals, I did not find journals that had reviewed her book, per se. See what you think.

In her book, Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology and the Future of the Academy (2011), Kathleen Fitzpatrick describes the technological crisis facing scholarly work within the context of digital communication. She explores the relationship between digital communication and the future of academic publishing, and argues for a new way of working that would give equal weight to Web and print publications. A Choice’s Outstanding Academic Title for 2013, she describes the multiple stresses facing scholarly publishing, including the need to create new academic collaborations that will lead to an open, community-oriented system of scholarship made possible by the digital age.

Excerpts from reviews of her book include:

The Los Angeles Review of Books: “Fitzpatrick’s Planned Obsolescence – its title a sardonic speculation on the future of the printed book – considers how academic publishing might best resolve this challenging dilemma.”

P.E. Sandstrom, CHOICE: “This primer on innovations in academic publishing is a must-read for all participants: university administrators, faculty authors, librarians, publishers, technologists, and informed general readers.”

Library Journal: “Fitzpatrick is well qualified to discuss alternate forms of publishing and unexpected futures for the academy…Chapters titled ‘Peer Review,’ ‘Authorship,’ ‘Texts,’ ‘Preservation,’ and ‘The University’ methodically dismantle arguments for the status quo, with sections debating accepted beliefs and practices such as the anonymous basis of peer review; recognizable, individual authorship; for-profit university presses; and the rejection of open access as a tenable scholarly publishing model.”

Neil Baldwin, Creative Research Center at Montclair State University, Director's Blog: “The narrative arc of Planned Obsolescence is tight, coherent, and eloquent—propulsively stating its territory from micro to macro, personal to global….a rallying-cry to intelligent writers who want to be communicators to come to the Web.”

Alessandra Tosi is a life fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge and Director of Open Book Publishers:

“Planned Obsolescence enthuses about digital technology's potential to reconnect humanities research with broader social debates, policymakers and general readers. But it also carries a stark warning: do nothing and our disciplines will cease to be relevant.”

Digital Humanities

Hi Annepluus Thanks so much but I'd like to include a way to introduce Debates in Digital Humanities on the page as I think that would be an important addition since KP is featured twice in that Book at Part I The Humanities Done Digitally, and again at Part VI Beyond Metrics: Community Authorization and Open Peer Review. I think a separate heading for open-peer review could include a reference to the Future of the Book which can lead to a discussion around making comments in draft manuscripts. Am interested in knowing your thoughts on this. CreativeLink --CreativeLink () 23:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi CreativeLink. Agree on relevance of Debates in Digital Humanities, but am not sure how and what to include here. There's no wiki for it, do you suggest creating a subheading for the book with Fitzpatrick's mention in it? Also: short summary of changes I made: added three headings plus link to main articles, and a "see also" section, as well as short summaries. Added references in first paragraph and more external links. Welcome any comments on what to do next. Annepluus (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Annepluus

Hi Annepluus and Symantictickler. Here's a rough draft of a paragraph we could use to introduce Debates in Digital Humanities: "Kathleen Fitzpatrick has written extensively around the digital humanities as can be illustrated through her work in Debates In The Digital Humanities which is a compilation of writings that provide an opportunity for readers to absorb critical issues around the rise of the digital humanities, including theories, methodologies, collaboration, and peer review, and is a venue for clarification around oppositional ideals relating to the growing field. Kathleen Fitzpatrick has contributed two works to the collection, “The Humanities, Done Digitally”, and “Beyond Metrics: Community Authorization and Open Peer Review”." I'm not sure if the book should be introduced as a subheading. Let's follow it directly after the paragraph on Planned Obsolescence. I see the changes you made which do add substance to the page so thanks for that. I think the review by "Library Journal" that Symantictickler wrote reads really well. Perhaps that could go in between the Planned Obsolescence paragraph and the Debates in Digital Humanities paragraph. CreativeLink (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know where to talk on the talk page....is this the place where we can just dialogue? I love the Debates in the Digital Humanities idea. Good call, CreativeLink. I understand Annepluus's concern about too many subheadings, which is why I suggested linking her articles in Debates with the reviews...probably fits best following my book text, whatever that turns out to be. Book is much heftier professionally than articles. I can't tell if we're nixing the bulk of actual quotes from some of her book reviews, which is OK with me if you guys decide it reads better without them. I thought reading some of what has actually been said about her book (besides the couple that get consistently cited) would bring it home for the reader, but I'm not wedded to it. I like very much the idea of putting the Library Journal review in between the paragraphs describing her book and her articles. This is a very difficult way for me to work...way too much slippage. Symantictickler (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)symantictickler

Hi Annepluus and Symantictickler. Symantictickler - you can't just delete someone else' comment. I copied this out of the history and am repasting it here. I understand you think this is an uncomfortable way to work but it does show the history of our work, so when you delete something it shows up when you do a diff. Anyhow, here's what I wanted to say "Sorry, I think Debates in the Digital Humanities should go in the main section at the top of the page as the third paragraph - just before the Contents box. It really shouldn't be included in the paragraph on the book". Annepluus I hope you won't mind making this change and many thanks.CreativeLink (talk)

no prob CreativeLink, will add third paragraph to main section with what you wrote on debates in dig humAnnepluus (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

made said changes, let me know what you think Symantictickler and CreativeLink Annepluus (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathleen Fitzpatrick (American academic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018023158/http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookid=5008 to http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=5008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)