Several years after the publication of P. Robinson’s provocative essay on the status of digital editions (Robinson 2005) many new editions have been produced, but very little seems to have changed with regard to their acceptance and diffusion among ‘traditional’ scholars: especially in non-Anglo-Saxon countries, many colleagues are sticking to usual practices and producing printed editions; others are starting to look into the Digital Humanities field, but are sometimes scared away by what is perceived as ‘technical complexity’, the amount of learning required to use digital tools and methods. There surely is a growth in interest for tools allowing to create an edition (text encoding, web publication), or to help the philologist in doing part of the hard work (semi-automatic collation), but are these really related to what a digital edition should and could be? Especially when they are often used to produce printed ones. Furthermore, the fact that there is no definite consensus about what a ‘digital edition’ is or should be is definitely not helping, methodological uncertainty adds to technical complexity and fragmentation to form a formidable access barrier. Should we encode less and agree on a precise definition, then, and make the point in favor of the digital edition with renewed energy and in no ambiguous terms? In this article I will try to survey the status quo of the digital philology discipline and expose the major roadblocks towards greater acceptance of digital editions.

The Battle We Forgot to Fight: Should We Make a Case for Digital Editions?

ROSSELLI DEL TURCO, Roberto
2016-01-01

Abstract

Several years after the publication of P. Robinson’s provocative essay on the status of digital editions (Robinson 2005) many new editions have been produced, but very little seems to have changed with regard to their acceptance and diffusion among ‘traditional’ scholars: especially in non-Anglo-Saxon countries, many colleagues are sticking to usual practices and producing printed editions; others are starting to look into the Digital Humanities field, but are sometimes scared away by what is perceived as ‘technical complexity’, the amount of learning required to use digital tools and methods. There surely is a growth in interest for tools allowing to create an edition (text encoding, web publication), or to help the philologist in doing part of the hard work (semi-automatic collation), but are these really related to what a digital edition should and could be? Especially when they are often used to produce printed ones. Furthermore, the fact that there is no definite consensus about what a ‘digital edition’ is or should be is definitely not helping, methodological uncertainty adds to technical complexity and fragmentation to form a formidable access barrier. Should we encode less and agree on a precise definition, then, and make the point in favor of the digital edition with renewed energy and in no ambiguous terms? In this article I will try to survey the status quo of the digital philology discipline and expose the major roadblocks towards greater acceptance of digital editions.
2016
Digital Scholarly Editing: Theories and Practices
Open Book Publishers
Digital Humanities Series
4
219
238
978-1-78374-238-7
978-1-78374-239-4
978-1-78374-240-0
978-1-78374-241-7
978-1-78374-242-4
978-1-78374-238-7
978-1-78374-239-4
978-1-78374-240-0
978-1-78374-241-7
978-1-78374-242-4
http://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/483/digital-scholarly-editing--theories-and-practices
filologia digitale, edizioni digitali, informatica umanistica, filologia, interdisciplinarietà
Rosselli Del Turco, Roberto
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2016 The Battle We Forgot to Fight: Should We Make a Case for Digital Editions?.pdf

Accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo completo.
Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 1.97 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.97 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1630456
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact