Danielle W. Westbrook

Microsoft has a long history of making complicated technology simple to use. Love it or hate it, Microsoft has done more to democratize technology than any other vendor. Could Microsoft do the same for R? Definitely maybe. A certain amount of complexity is inherent in R, of course. Red Hat’s Dave Neary argues, “R is for statistics and numerical analysis,” requiring an “understand[ing of] the math to some degree.” He goes on to suggest, “Saying it's too hard for mere mortals is like saying a saw is too hard. [You n]eed to learn the tools.” The promise behind the deal, however, is that Microsoft can significantly improve those tools, such that a tech-savvy, nonprogrammer can do “data science.”

If you're unsure which 3pm session to attend today @alamw15

In a stipulation filed with the court this week, the Authors Guild v. HathiTrust was officially dismissed, by agreement of the parties. In a concession, HathiTrust officials agreed that the organization would, for a five-year period, notify the Authors Guild if it decides to change its practices. The resolution comes after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in June, 2014, forcefully affirmed Judge Harold Baer’s October 2012 verdict in favor of the HathiTrust, and as the Second Circuit is reviewing the Authors Guild’s main suit against Google.

Which brings me to the second reason that the NGA Online Editions is worth your attention — the custom-built content management system on which it operates. While the sustainability of the investment may be of concern, simply because any system will ultimately require upgrades, that a cultural heritage institution has designed and built exactly the publication platform needed to support an existing professional function is both laudable as well as indicative. It’s not that the private sector couldn’t have created this platform. It is more likely that the private sector couldn’t immediately see the way clear to a financially viable pricing or business model. That’s understandable, but that mindset doesn’t necessarily serve the needs of the scholar. Instead, this digital catalogue has emerged from the public sector, a publication attuned to the researcher need. It’s exciting to learn that the Gallery anticipates another such catalogue as this being released in 2015 on the topic of Italian painting with a third on American modernism planned for 2016.

Scholars see their well-established publishing practices as separate from the sharing they do. Sharing seems both natural and pretty frictionless. But the only way it will truly be frictionless is if we reorganize our financial and labor practices to make it easier to share legally. This is doable without losing rigor or quality.

In the short term, it will indeed be nice to be able to share a digital book or song with a partner or family member. But don’t lose sight of the fact that you’re being allowed to do so, with the assumption that the alternative would have made you a pirate.

Most modern organisations use numerical data to communicate quantitative information. These numbers are fundamental to understanding of organisational performance. This information can be presented in many different ways, for example graphs, maps, and at a more advanced level – dashboards. Despite the popular wisdom, data and numbers cannot always speak for themselves. Sometimes, too much time can be spent on struggling to understand the data presented in lengthy reports and numerical tables. This time could be better spent on making evidence-based decisions.

So here’s the thing: the only effective strategy for preserving things for the future is commitment. I don’t mean to suggest it must be the commitment of an individual — far from it. There are many examples of institutional commitment. But simply because either an individual or an organization is involved does not by itself signal the sufficient commitment for long-term preservation.

One of the hardest parts of learning anything new, especially when you’re teaching it to yourself, is figuring out how to get started.

It’ [sic] quite true that a lot of these problems are “pipeline” problems. Decades of subtle processes can shape the number of qualified applicants and make it hard to hire people across the spectrum. However, it’s not enough to throw up one’s hands and blame the pipeline because the issue continues to persist at every stage and something can be done at every stage. What’s necessary is to create an environment in which women can speak up, and more importantly, be heard… And diversity in newsroom or in the development team is not just a feel-good, but a functional need as well. Fiascos such as Google Buzz in which they did not realize the extend of the backlash they’d endure by making people’s email contacts visible to each other, or Grantland’s infamous story in which they could not figure out what was offensive about hounding and outing a trans individual (they didn’t have a single one to look over the story) are some recent exampes [sic] in which diversity among decision makers would have really helped bring much-needed different viewpoints to the table.