<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Bnowviskie on Journal of Digital Humanities</title><link>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/author/bnowviskie/</link><description>Recent content in Bnowviskie on Journal of Digital Humanities</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/author/bnowviskie/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>On the Origin of “Hack” and “Yack”</title><link>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/3-2/on-the-origin-of-hack-and-yack-by-bethany-nowviskie/</link><pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/3-2/on-the-origin-of-hack-and-yack-by-bethany-nowviskie/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;One of the least helpful constructs of our “digital humanities” moment has been a supposed active opposition, drawn out over the course of years in publications, presentations, and social media conversation, between two inane-sounding concepts: “hack” and “yack.” The heralding of digital humanities as the academy’s “&lt;a href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/pannapacker-at-mla-digital-humanities-triumphant/30915" title="Pannapacker at MLA: Digital Humanities Triumphant?"&gt;next big thing&lt;/a&gt;” has been (depending on whom you ask) over-due or overblown, unexpected or contrived, refreshing or retrograde—but one thing is clear: everyone has a rhetorical use for it. The uses of “hack vs. yack,” on the other hand, rapidly became so one-sided that I find it odd the phrase retains any currency for critique.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Evaluating Collaborative Digital Scholarship (or, Where Credit is Due)</title><link>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/evaluating-collaborative-digital-scholarship-by-bethany-nowviskie/</link><pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/evaluating-collaborative-digital-scholarship-by-bethany-nowviskie/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is the lightly edited text of a talk given at the &lt;a href="http://www.nines.org/about/community/workshop.html" title="NINES Summer Institute Webpage"&gt;2011 NINES Summer Institute&lt;/a&gt;, a National Endowment for the Humanities-funded workshop on evaluating digital scholarship for purposes of tenure and promotion, hosted by the Networked Infrastructure for Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship. It builds on a &lt;a href="http://www.mlajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1632/prof.2011.2011.1.169" title="Bethany Nowviskie, 'Where Credit is Due,' Profession 2011"&gt;more formal essay&lt;/a&gt; written for an open-access &lt;a href="http://www.mlajournals.org/toc/prof/2011/1" title="Profession 2011 Table of Contents"&gt;cluster of articles&lt;/a&gt; on the topic in &lt;em&gt;Profession&lt;/em&gt;, the journal of the Modern Language Association (MLA). A pre-print of that essay was provided to NINES attendees in advance of the Institute.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>