%\documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
%\usepackage[english]{babel}
%\usepackage{apacite}
%\usepackage{url}
%\usepackage{graphicx}
%\usepackage{tabularx}
%\usepackage{booktabs}

%\linespread{1.3} % interlinea 1.5

%\usepackage{cite} da non usare, mette le parentesi quadre

%\author{Andrea Zanni}
%\date{2010-04-12}

%\begin{document}

%\section{Analysis and Results}
\section{Introduction}
Data analysis was conducted through \textquotedblleft constant comparative analysis\textquotedblright and lead to the categories here going to be presented. 
Interviews revealed themselves to be extremely interesting but challenging, providing in-depth conversations sometimes difficult to analyze. 

The wiki used by the researcher revealed itself as an helpful instrument for analysis, 
because it allowed researcher to follow exactly constructivist procedures suggested in research methods literature: 
particularly, memo writing and open coding were helped 
by the possibility to interact in many ways with transcripts of interviews, parsing texts and extracting data.
Wiki templates has been used during the whole research process to highlight in transcripts of interviews meaningful sentences and data. 
Phrases were then colored in different colors to distinguish, for example, facilitators and barriers to collaboration in digital libraries. 

During the whole research process, single terms and keywords of the research questions has been questioned and debated with interviewees.
Actually, a considerable amount of time of the interviews has been used for discussion of crucial terms like \textit{wiki}, \textit{collaboratory}, \textit{collaboration}, \textit{digital library}. 
These conversations happened to be very helpful and lead to important insights and results. 
Key informants helped defining boundaries of the research: Alison Babeu provided a dedicated bibliography, while the long conversation with Umberto Eco
enlightened deeply the Humanities context, especially the Italian one. 

Participants of the study contributed greatly to the study with their intelligence and experience
arguing about concepts and terms used in the research questions and objectives. 

Therefore, these results will be presented as they were found: as the outcome of a \textit{conversation}. Every important topic discussed in those conversations
lead to a result that will constitute a paragraph or a section.
The present chapter will also explore in-depth causes and will highlight keywords, issues and results raised by the research.

\section{Different types of Digital Libraries} 
The first discussion during interviews regarded the term \textquotedblleft digital library\textquotedblright. 
This actually confirmed a well-known result: the fact that ideas, definitions and practices around digital libraries are far from being homogeneous.
Literature suggested, and interviews confirmed, that the term \textit{digital library} is used for indicating projects (or, from a complementary point of view, \textit{functionalities}) 
very that are different one for each other.
They go from the most common tasks of preservation, storage to most advanced tools for philology and textual analysis.
What's new is that data gathered both with literature analysis and interviews suggest a convergence and an increasing attention to collaboration. 

Nonetheless, interviewees explicated a vision of digital libraries that have been coded in \texttt{Table 3}.
During the conversations, it came out clearly that participants did want to clarify what they intend with the term \textquotedblleft digital library\textquotedblright,
and clarification lead to assert the existence of two main models of DLs. 

Interviewee \texttt{I4} declared:
\begin{quotation}
Historical projects (regarding DLs) has been of these two kinds:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{repositories} in which to store digitized texts, in various ambit: some academic, some other amateur (like the Gutenberg Project\footnote{\url{http://www.gutenberg.org}} 
or Liber Liber\footnote{\url{http://www.liberliber.it}}), some other institutional.
Often [the repositories were built] without thinking at the aims they could accomplish. 
\item the \textit{scientific-academic digital library}, which tries to provide users with tools for working on texts. Often [these tools consists] in linguistic analysis tools, 
which are quantitative, like concordances, frequencies, etc. Sometimes, user can search on lemmatized texts, for example in the Perseus project.  
\end{itemize}
\end{quotation}

Other interviews upheld the same idea. 
It is important to notice that the subdivision here provided must be intended as an abstract and incomplete portrait: several projects do not fall exactly in one 
category, and sometimes things are more complex than suggested. Thus, it is the opinion of the researcher that such discrimination arisen from interviews
can be useful, intending the two main kinds of digital libraries as two limits of a continuous range.

\texttt{Table 4.1} will sum up some features of types of digital library involved, gathered from interviews.  
Following paragraphs will explain the division. 

\subsubsection{Kind of DLs excluded from the table}
From \texttt{Table 3}, other minor types of DLs suggested by the interviewees have been excluded. 
The main reason is that there is practically no literature studying these new types of libraries.
As very innovative projects, confusion is still high and there is no systematic study about them. Only one interviewee, \texttt{I4}, suggested that 
there were different directions for future digital libraries, and the researcher preferred to present only models of DLs widely used and somehow stable.

Interviewee \texttt{I4}, who has a broad vision of DLs had competences in different Humanities disciplines, sorted the different kinds of DLs by audience. 
He highlighted clearly that, aside repositories and research projects, the ideas around DLs are still focused on the traditional library: 
\begin{quotation}
Finally, there is the ultimate audience, broad and undifferentiated, which has been less explored. Also big projects like Gallica\footnote{\url{http://gallica.bnf.fr/}} or American Memory\footnote{\url{http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html}},
strongly mimic the model and the structure of a traditional library, with catalogs and sometimes thematic routes. 
That are exactly the same kind of expositions that we often find in our libraries. 
\end{quotation}

Also new projects like Europeana\footnote{\url{http://www.europeana.eu}} (that is a sort of meta-aggregator of digital libraries and online museums) and the World 
Digital Library\footnote{\url{http://www.wdl.org/en/}} still mimic the traditional model of paper libraries and do not explore deeply the potentialities of the digital world. 
 
Furthermore, interviewee \texttt{I4} emphasizes the lack of DLs created explicitly for teachers and didactics:
\begin{quotation}
[The projects] which has been less explored are projects dedicated to a non-specialized audience, or at least an audience who does not use texts for linguistic analysis, 
but [an audience that] could use them for literature didactics, or creation of supporting tools, etc.   
\end{quotation}

\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\label{tab:digital librarykinds}
\caption{Models of DL arisen form interviews.} 
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
%\toprule

& \textbf{Repositories}
& \textbf{VRE} \\

%\midrule
\textbf{User} & Generic user & Scholars\\
\textbf{Context} & Amateur/Scientific & Scientific \\
\textbf{Area} & Librarianship & Philology \\
%\midrule
\textbf{Focus} & Collection & Text\\
\textbf{Text} & Static & Dynamic \\
\textbf{Granularity} & Low & High \\
%\midrule
\textbf{Collaboration} & Mixed & Mixed \\
\textbf{Technology} & Simple & Advanced \\
\textbf{Provider} & Data & Services \\
%\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\subsection{Digital library as a \textit{repository}} 
This kind of digital libraries is the most common and directly stem from the original model of traditional libraries. 
As paper libraries do, these digital libraries provide access, storage and preservation of the content. 
They are often run by librarians, and have often a great attention to metadata. 

Context of repositories can be either academic (i.e. in Open Access institutional repositories) or 
amateur (i.e. Liber Liber, Gutenberg project, Wikisource\footnote{\url{http://wikisource.org}}). 
Inside these areas, projects can have different complexity.

Often, volunteer projects as Liber Liber or Gutenberg are sustained by a community of volunteers which digitizes and proofreads public domain books. 
Similar but institutional projects share the same aims and model; differences often arise in scale, scientificity, work-flow, funding, but not in the model of the digital library. 

On the other hand, some digital libraries do not have \textit{digitization} as an objective: working with born-digital documents, 
they are focused on preservation, storage and access of documents (sometimes multimedia content is allowed too). 
This is the case for example of Open Access institutional repositories.  

The digital library repository's focus is more the whole collection of texts than a single one; a text is intended as static objects which need to be accessed, retrieved, and preserved. 
In these projects granularity is therefore low, because they try to aggregate texts and books and do not aim to work upon them. 
This kind of digital library often provides no or few services for working with or around texts, and thus can be labeled as mere \textit{data providers}.

Collaboration too is mixed: in amateur projects is often high, because digitization work is done collectively, 
while in open access institutional repositories is low, because students and scholars just need to upload their articles and fill the related metadata. 

Technically speaking, systems for repositories are often not too advanced. This is especially true for volunteer projects: in projects as Gutenberg and Liber Liber, 
mailing lists are used for communication and databases are used for storage. On the other hand, Wikisource offers an integrated wiki system which allows both 
access and a framework for digitization and proofreading of texts. Interesting enough, Liber Liber will move to the same wiki engine, 
MediaWiki\footnote{MediaWiki (\url{http://www.mediawiki.org}) is also the wiki engine used by Wikipedia.}.  

Indeed, professional digital repository systems as DSpace\footnote{\url{http://www.dspace.org}}, Fedora\footnote{\url{http://www.fedora-commons.org/}}, 
Greenstone\footnote{\url{http://www.greenstone.org}} and Invenio\footnote{\url{http://cdsware.cern.ch/invenio/index.html}} are designed directly for storage, 
with great attention to metadata and interoperability, allowing harvesting through the OAI-PMH protocol.
Creating an useful and efficient infrastructure for sharing and access of digital objects, they lack in user interaction and social tools, 
being often too static and rigid. Moreover, these projects rarely explores Semantic Web tools and practices. 

\subsection{Digital library as a \textit{Virtual Research Environment}}
%This kind of digital libraries is what, in the present study, it has been called cyberinfrastructure and e-science projects regarding humanities. 
This model of DLs is the one mostly used by Digital Humanities.
These digital projects are actually more virtual working spaces than simple digital libraries: they are digital environments 
where scholars and researchers can work with, around and upon texts.
Though less traditional, these digital libraries have their roots in the first ideas of \citeA{bush1945} and \citeA{licklider1965}, namely the \textit{memex} and the \textit{procog system}.  
What is more, these new projects add a strong centering in collaboration, aggregation and networking where old visions where more focused on 
individual knowledge or \textquotedblleft intellect augmentation\textquotedblright \cite{engelbart1988}.    

The focal point of these projects is more on texts themselves rather than collection; therefore, they are more concentrated on providing \textit{services} and functionalities 
than simple static digital objects. They offer tools for working with texts, that vary from linguistic analysis tools from annotations.  
These kind of digital libraries often do no call themselves \textquotedblleft digital libraries\textquotedblright, but prefer the term \textit{electronic editions}. 

Interviewee \texttt{I5} stated: 
\begin{quotation}
One thing is the \textit{digital library}, which belongs to the librarian area; another is the \textit{electronic edition}, which belongs to philology.
Obviously there is some overlapping: on one side electronic editions are growing and developing, offering more features. On the other hand digital libraries are becoming more granular.  
\end{quotation}
Therefore, in the scholar context this kind of digital libraries is more related to philology and ecdotic than librarianship.

In these DLs, texts are dynamic, not fixed and static objects that cannot be manipulated. 
Granularity of texts is often really high, and different technologies are often involved to provide complex tools for study and analysis.
For example, mark-up languages as TEI or XML are used to code texts, and therefore to provide services for text and data mining. 
Statistical tools are used for quantitative analysis, as well as syntactical treebanks, as recalled by interviewee \texttt{I1}:
\begin{quotation}
[\dots] Is principally concerned with \textit{treebanks}, databases of syntactic structures, represented by tree structures.
The project Alpheios\footnote{\url{http://alpheios.net}} has created a collaborative platform for these tools: you go on a text and you can \textit{annotate a syntactic structure}.
They want to go further and expand [this model] with \textit{multiple annotators}, plus also \textit{different versions of the same text}.
\end{quotation}
 
\subsubsection{Semantic Web}
Moreover, Semantic Web technologies are receiving great attention from developers of VRE.
Though sometime a controversial term\footnote{There are many critics around Semantic Web, regarding different aspects: from the practical feasibility to 
to privacy and censorship issues. For a deeper understanding, see \cite{whichSW}.}, 
Semantic Web has been firstly introduced by \citeA{berners2001a}, and it's now widely used to indicate a cutting-edge field of computer science research and technologies.

It mainly describes methods and technologies to allow machines to understand the meaning of information on the Web, with a particular attention about the 
the availability of \textit{machine-readable} metadata that would enable automated software agents to access the Web more intelligently. 
The agents would be able to perform tasks automatically and locate related information on behalf of the user.

Moreover, while the term \textquotedblleft Semantic Web\textquotedblright is not very defined, it's often used to describe the model and technologies proposed by the W3C (\textit{World Wide Web Consortium}). 
These technologies include RDF (\textit{Resource Description Framework}) and OWL (\textit{Web Ontology Language}), which are intended to provide a formal description of concepts, 
terms, and relationships within a given knowledge domain \cite{wikipediaSW}.

Many of the technologies involved have their roots in decades of Artificial Intelligence research, and there are many connection with the disciplines on Librarianship
and Information Science (i.e. subject classification, categorization, tagging).
Development of authority files, controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and ontologies are a remarkable part of the work of researchers in VREs and sectoral digital libraries.
These tools are developed within very different disciplines for very different aims: for example, at CERN Library (in collaboration with the Computer Science Department) they are constructing a controlled vocabulary for a brand-new version 
of the SPIRES document search engine, which will cover completely the domain of \textit{High Energy Physics} and retrieve documents, metadata and every kind of information.
At the same time, various philological projects allow scholars to annotate and develop ontologies upon texts.

Semantic Web technologies are then very careful to standards, formats and interoperability, as well as the possibility of releasing data in raw (and open) form for 
further reuse from third parts. The whole concept of open data and reuse is a new trend highly supported bi Tim Berners-Lee himself, and is gaining much attention
by governments and institutions. In fact, if an institution is publicly funded, his data should be public too in an open and reusable format: 
this is way several institutions, from the UK Government to the CERN Library, are gradually releasing their data.

\subsection{Focus on VREs}
Eventually, digital library is a label that cover very different projects. 
What is more, some interviewees suggest other kinds of digital libraries (neither traditional nor academic/scientific) for different audiences. 
For example, there could be digital libraries for general users which provide maps of topics and places in literature, or learning objects for teachers and professors. 

Furthermore, it is important to state that data gathered, observation and literature analysis suggests that there is some convergence of these two kinds of digital libraries. 
For example, cutting-edge institutional repositories are becoming more granular and adding more services 
(i.e. annotation, comments and social tools in CERN's Invenio digital library system),
while electronic edition projects are fostering collaboration between members and moving towards to becoming Virtual Research Environments. 

The present study focused mainly on the this latter kind of digital libraries: projects build for scholars as an aid and a framework for research. 
The next section will enlighten in details the topic of collaboration in these environments.

\section{Collaboration} 
Literature and interviews both confirmed the increasing importance of collaboration in digital libraries. 
As e-science and cyberinfrastructure are growing, Humanities are exploring the same approach to a strongly collaborative work in digital environments. 

Interviewee \texttt{I4} is rather clear, stating:
\begin{quotation}
The topic of collaboration is increasing every day; in electronic editions, it is the \textit{keyword}. 
\end{quotation}

Interview \texttt{I1} too was asked if collaborative frameworks could help the field of Humanities:
\begin{quotation}
Absolutely. I believe this is the only way for a science which needs to innovate itself.
\end{quotation}

All other interviewees confirmed the importance of collaboration. 
Yet, it is crucial to define clearly what, in this study, has been intended for collaboration.
In fact, the term \textquotedblleft collaboration\textquotedblright has been another important keyword questioned during interviews. 
Collaboration is a broad term that covers many means. 
\citeA{kouzes1996}, exploring issues regarding collaboratories, identify 4 broad categories of collaboration 
among researchers:
\begin{itemize}
\item  \textit{peer to peer}
\item  \textit{mentor-student}
\item  \textit{interdisciplinary}
\item  \textit{producer-consumer}
\end{itemize}

For the present research, collaboration has been a term used in the broader scope possible, 
not to force meanings or prevent dimensions unforeseen by the researcher. 
It is in fact an opinion of the researcher that, being collaboration a boost for innovation, stricter definitions could only 
obstacle a deeper comprehension of the phenomenon.  

Nevertheless, a discussion about the term collaboration is mandatory, especially to distinguish it between different but similar concepts.  
 
In fact, collaboration between members in digital libraries and VREs is becoming every day more important. 
According to \texttt{I5}, \textquotedblleft there is great interest for this topic and a bloom of proposals of new projects, procedures and standards\textquotedblright.

The literature review offered an overview of the background of e-science and digital humanities: interviews indeed confirmed
attention to collaboration in these digital projects.
During research process it emerged clearly that collaboration was the focal point of the whole study:
though, it was also the most complex and full of issues, regarding especially digital humanities and particularly the Italian environment. 

The first result achieved during the research process has been a deeper comprehension of the concept of \textquotedblleft collaborative digital library\textquotedblright. 

\section{Collaborative editing}
For the scope of the study, the concept of \textit{collaborative editing} has been chosen to represent the ideal and strongest form of collaboration 
involved in a collaborative project. In fact, in the context of digital libraries the highest form of collaboration and sharing seemed 
to be the possibility to edit collaboratively either a text, a page or even a single line. 
\textquotedblleft Collaborative editing\textquotedblright is the possibility of freely edit a text\footnote{Actually, several types of digital objects could be edited collaboratively (for example, concept maps or pictures), 
but \textit{texts} are by far the simplest and most explored digital objects edited collaboratively.}, and it emerges as the core feature of wiki (and wiki-like) systems. 

Therefore, collaborative editing has been chosen as the core feature of the concept of \textquotedblleft strong collaboration\textquotedblright.
With this term, it was intended the highest form of collaboration possible. 

Indeed, interviewee \texttt{I4} upheld the importance of collaborative editing for digital libraries:
\begin{quotation}
Another aspect, more \textquotedblleft borderline\textquotedblright, regarding research, is the one which involves the \texttt{collaborative editing}.
One of the most complicated in the creation of quality archives is to guarantee the quality of both the text and possible mark up of the text itself.
\end{quotation}

Collaborative editing is then a top expression of collaboration: yet, it is easy to achieve (in wikis and wiki-like systems) but not easy to control. 
As literature on wiki points out (see \texttt{Chapter 2}), it is in fact collaborative editing which deeply affects the whole project and demands high attention and effort
from users, who have to constitute a sort of community to make the project up and running. 
If collaborative editing is open to all users, the community will have to control the quality and the motivations for each edit: this kind of control, 
called soft security, will concern totally the community of users. 
Few tools in wikis have been developed to help this quality control (for example, \texttt{History} of pages and \texttt{Audit trail}, the log of each user's contributes), and
each community is demanded to decide whether or not (and in which grade) use (and develop) practices, procedures, guidelines.

The present study is not a study on online community of users and their practice in highly collaborative projects: but of course is related to these topics. 
Further research is needed to enlighten issues of strong collaboration, especially from a sociological point of view. 

However, data gathered suggested some patterns and results concerning collaborative editing advantages and disadvantages, 
particularly for the Humanities community in the Italian context. 

\subsection{Consensus and NPOV}
Collaborative editing is a method whose aim is always to find a \textit{consensus} between different views and opinions.
In Wikipedia, this is explicated in one of the 5 pillars of the encyclopedia: the \texttt{Neutral Point of View} (NPOV)
%\footnote{The \textit{Neutral Point of View}, commonly called \textbf{NPOV}, is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, meaning that is one of the few unavoidable and fundamental principles of the project.} 
is the (utopian) objective of every user and of every single article. The community speak, discuss and argue to find a convergence point in writing encyclopedic articles. 
The definition of NPOV states:
\begin{quotation}
\textit{Neutral point of view (NPOV)} is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. 
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible 
without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. 
This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. | \cite{wikipediaNPOV} 
\end{quotation}

Thus, generally, collaborative editing is modeled to save incrementally each version of the page, 
but the version provided is always one, the last one, which is (hopefully) considered to reflect the community consensus. 
Collaborative editing force all users to integrate and modify a text to find a common solution for everyone,
a version that could satisfy (theoretically) all users and integrated (theoretically) all opinions.

\subsection{Tasks and forms of collaboration}
An important outcome is that, in digital libraries and VREs, differences arise depending on whether collaboration is conceived \textit{on} texts or \textit{around} them. 
Interviewee \texttt{I3} stated:
\begin{quotation}
I think that right now we [\textit{the interviewer and the interviewee, NdR}] are discussing about \textit{two different forms} of collaboration.

There is the collaboration \textit{in establishing a specific text}, which it does not exist yet: it is particular, there are some specific issues. 
You need to find a reference edition, you need to find a printed one, etc.  

On the other hand, [there is the collaboration] \textit{around} a text, which it does exist, which is improvable; but the text exists and it is trustworthy. 
Around that text, which collaborative tools could be provided? [We could] gather critic texts, different interpretations, quotations, different uses of that same text
in different contexts (maybe academic or didactic).
\end{quotation}

In this sense, there is a fundamental difference between tasks and the degree of collaboration they allow. 
For example, a single community could collaborate in establishing philologically a text, basing on a manuscript, but not collaborate in organizing 
the critic literature around that text, or not willing to share different interpretations.
A single task, depending on different factors, could allow a level of collaboration that another task would not allow.
Obviously, tasks regarding a major involvement of scholars' interpretation would be the less easy to be accomplished socially. 

Moreover, \texttt{I3} does emphasize that not all tasks can be executed collaboratively, and some services in these DLs and VREs are just on demand for the user:
\begin{quotation}
If you have corpora and stable texts, you can have \textit{on demand} tools upon them.  But these tools are for the single user. I don't see collaboration in this.
\end{quotation}
Again:
\begin{quotation}
I think these kind of tools [statistical analysis tools] are very little collaborative, at least from the user's point of view. Softwares like Word Cruncher\footnote{\url{http://www.wordcruncher.com}}
execute quantitative analysis of texts, and they can be collaborative only during the software development, but not when it's done and you have it available and running\dots
\end{quotation}

In this case, \texttt{I3} makes a point highlighting the fact that each task, feature or service of a collaboratory digital library is different, and demands
different degree of collaboration or socialization. 
Each tasks should be studied and discussed to understand the degree of collaboration that could be more suitable for the designated community (and related project).
%In the end, it is important to establish different tasks correlating each of them with a different degree of collaboration. 

\subsection{Lowering costs}
Interviewee \texttt{I4} suggested that collaboration could lower costs of certain tasks:
\begin{quotation}
This kind of operations are often really expensive; they require both time and rare competences (for example, in the case of manuscripts).
It would be really interesting to study instruments in which build cooperatively critical editions, or at least high quality diplomatic editions. 
\end{quotation}

He then continues:
\begin{quotation}
I rather think that the opportunities given \textit{interoperability} (which can be seen as collaboration among different softwares) and \textit{collaboration} (among different people), 
are very important.
They can lower costs, especially in the Humanities, where critical editions can cost 20 years [of work] and lots of money and even doubts about
funding. \textit{Collaborative work among scholars}, even from different disciplines, could \textit{solve} these problems.
\end{quotation}

Lowering costs is a clear advantage of collaborative projects, and sometimes is a key feature that is unavoidable.
It is also a feature deeply correlated to the \textit{openness} of the projects: the more users can join, the more the work can be distributed. 
The commonest and simplest example is always Wikipedia, a titanic encyclopedia that could not ever be written without the help of millions of users that freely 
join the project and contribute for free. A commercial attempt of producing Wikipedia is just unthinkable.  
This phenomenon of \textquotedblleft letting users do the hard work\textquotedblright, commonly known as \textit{crowdsourcing}, is a new feature of the so-called Web 2.0 and raises several advantages and disadvantages.

In the context under study, that is the Humanities scholar environment, particularly within the Italian area, it is highly controversial 
if it would be a good idea to let normal users join projects oriented to scholars and researchers. 
Interview with Umberto Eco provided an clear and critic opinion of the professor towards open collaborative projects, 
and also the other interviewees share several doubts about it. They will be discussed later on.    

Nevertheless, it would not be mandatory to open a project to undiscriminated audience to lower costs.
In fact, creating a common collaborative framework for Humanities scholars could avoid fragmentation of both institutional funds and competences 
that could be concentrated in a distributed framework, still in a controlled environment. 

\subsection{No \textquotedblleft best edition\textquotedblright}
Moreover, collaborative editing somehow questions the concept of an \textquotedblleft ultimate version\textquotedblright of a text.
\texttt{I4} stated:
\begin{quotation}
What is more, without having the presumption to aim at the \textquotedblleft best edition\textquotedblright (actually, we can just dump this idea).
[There could be projects where] philologists of different nationalities cooperate and suggest interpretations. 
This would be a brand new opportunity to change scientific cooperation in the philology area.
\end{quotation}

Editing collaboratively (for example, in a wiki system) is an experience that slowly make the user cast doubt on several practices and habits. 
This is due to the fact that every sentence (namely, every opinion and thought) can be doubted and questioned by other users.
Every text (i.e. an encyclopedic article, a didactic book as well as a translation) is the sum of several interpretations, versions, modifications and contributes of different users.

Thus, the common idea of a final, ultimate version of a text is \textit{doubtable} too. 
Strong collaborative projects as Wikipedia or Wikisource teach users that there is no ultimate version, and that every user can add, edit or question something. 
Each new person can add a new meaningful interpretation or information, and this can be applied also to critic or diplomatic editions, that would interest philologists 
and in general Humanities scholars. 
This is a very important consequence of the wiki-culture, and it is absolutely non trivial the possible transferability of such a concept within the cultural and 
scientific environment of both hard and soft, especially Humanities. 

\subsection{Neutralization process}
Interviewee \texttt{I1} interestingly compared the process in Wikipedia with a similar process in philology. He noticed that collaborative editing in Wikipedia, 
struggling for reaching a consensus among users in the name of the NPOV, is incredibly similar to a similar process happening in philology: the process of establishing, 
assess and evaluate a text. 
\begin{quotation}
Exactly, this is fundamental: this [\textit{the established consensus of a page, NdR}] is \textit{the outcome of a neutralization process}.
From the philological point of view, the possibility of tracking this process (through the \texttt{History} or other more sophisticated tools) is crucial.
Because the Neutral Point of View [one of the pillars of Wikipedia] is the result of a process of neutralization. 
In philology, to track and follow this process would be absolutely important. 
\end{quotation}
Moreover, this process in wikis (and other collaborative projects) is tracked by the \texttt{History} of a page: this tool is thus a log, a stratification of the various version of a page, 
then it is very helpful from the philologist's point of view.  

For interviewee \textit{I1}, the issue of the neutralization process, allowed by the log of page's versions, is directly linked with the issue of \textit{authorship}, 
allowed by the automatic tracking of each user's edits. 
\begin{quotation}
Another key factor is a philologist is \textit{authorship}: to find out who did what, to tracking each user's contributions.
You need to individuate who wrote something.
\end{quotation}

In fact, wikis do already own basic tools for log and track edits, both for users and pages' versions. 
Though, they are still too simple and plain to serve communities of scholars. 
Interviewee \texttt{I1} continued:
\begin{quotation}
I wanted to emphasize the importance of this [authorship matter].
The centrality of the user (in Web 2.0 there is a passage from centrality of document to centrality of users) takes us to these \textquotedblleft 
bio-bibliographies\textquotedblright.

Within philology, \textquotedblleft the history of a text is done through the history of the versions of the text\textquotedblright. 
Thus, the text does not exist without being in relationship with the people who have something to do with the text.
This \textit{traceability demands to be also theoretically emphasized}, because in crucial, in philology.  
\end{quotation}

%Collaborative editing is then much more than a simple technical feature, raising several issues and consequences.
%Much of the topics here discussed will be analyzed in the perspective of that views collaborative editing as the strongest form of collaboration, 
%especially in digital libraries.   

\section{Community}
In the context of collaborative digital projects (particularly, digital libraries and knowledge production projects), the community who is behind the project 
is the most important stakeholder. 
It is the main character, because a collaborative project without its members is just an empty (virtual) space.
This is especially true for wikis, in which the term often indicates the unit of both the community and the infrastructure itself \cite{koblas2006}.

Therefore, for the scope of this study it is mandatory to explore the concept of scholar community in digital collaborative projects.

According to \citeA{wenger2006} \textquotedblleft communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for 
something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly\textquotedblright. In his previous works 
Wenger did also differentiate from \textit{communities of practice} (CoP) and \textit{communities of interest} (CoI), stating that members of the CoP are active practitioners 
wherever members of CoI are only interested in sharing information and discussing a particular topic that interests them.
Within the present study it will be assumed that huge and open online communities (i.e. the Wikipedia community) as well as more institutional communities 
are both communities of practice, because the sharing of information and discussion is aimed to a better understanding of 
practices and to an actual production of knowledge.

Nonetheless, even if both assumed as CoPs (which is not immune of issues), these communities vary largely one from each other.

An helpful discrimination between online communities dedicated to knowledge production was suggested by professor Eco, in his interview as key informant.
After discussing about Wikipedia and the \textit{wisdom of the crowds}, the researcher asked him about collaboration in scholar communities. 
For the sake of comprehension, this section of the interview will be entirely reported:
\begin{quotation}
\textbf{Researcher:} What is your opinion about scholar collaboration in humanities?

\textbf{Eco:} This is another topic. Congresses were made by ecdotic scholars to investigate this topic. These are truly auto-controlled communities.

\textbf{Researcher:} Communities of practice.

\textbf{Eco:} Yes, but where we know that a single scholar belongs to a single university, we know where he comes from. In this case, 
it happens something similar to when people used to collaborate in writing a book, and they needed to take the train once a week to meet and discuss. 
It is a collaborative team work that is controlled by someone. It is not the wisdom of the crowds. 
It is simply the scaling and the simplification of a collective research work that once required filthy travels and nowadays it can be done online daily. [\dots]
I'd rather call them \textit{uncontrollable} and \textit{controlled} communities.

\textbf{Researcher:} It is very interesting when these controlled communities (which are granted and comes from determined institutions) do not have a hierarchy or a chief, but they auto-control themselves. 
[\dots] In your opinion, is this auto-organization possible also in these scholar communities?

\textbf{Eco:} I recall a conference in Bologna, about ecdotic studies, that was dedicated mainly to digital humanities projects and text research environments and 
functionalities.
Evidently, this was an \textit{headless} community, auto-controlled and headless. But \textquotedblleft headless\textquotedblright is a phrase: 
because in scientific communities which self-legitimate there's always someone who gains more authority: if an important philologist propose an interpretation, the others will follow.
%Quindi [la collaborazione digitale nei progetti accademici] non è la stessa cosa di Wikipedia. E' semplicemente la semplificazione da un lato (perchè lo rende più agibile), la complicazione dall'altro (perchè lo rende più vasto) di processi di ricerca scientifica. Certo che anche l'ultimo allievo può intervenire nella ricerca e dire che c'è qualcosa di sbagliato, ma questi non sono mai completamente anarchici, perchè c'è una gerarchia di influenze, anche se non di ruoli istituzionali. 
\end{quotation}

This study will assume hence the discrimination of communities in \textit{controlled} and \textit{uncontrollable}. 

Controlled communities are relatively limited and more homogeneous groups of people, who share precise competences or at least a domain, 
where anonymity is not appreciated, authorship is fundamental and real life boundaries, connections and hierarchies
are exported within the digital world. This is the case for example of communities of scholars: they share a precise context, aims and competences. 
They too wish to receive credit or some form of remuneration (money, reputation, authorship) from participation in an online community. 
Often, roles and authority gained in real life force a hierarchy also online, in the digital environment. 

This is quite different from totally open and \textquotedblleft anarchic\textquotedblright communities as the Wikipedia community\footnote{Actually, 
it would be more precise to state that the Wikipedia community is composed by several communities of practice, because of many users collaborate only with a small subgroup
of fellow participants who share the same interest about a topic.}, where participants are volunteer  
and do it \textquotedblleft for fun\textquotedblright. These communities do have less boundaries and limits, and participants get involved for their choice, 
without any evident reward. Both these communities and scholar communities can be defined communities of \textit{peers}; on the other hand, open communities are definitely more flat
and horizontal. 

Therefore, the so-called \textquotedblleft wisdom of the crowds \textquotedblright is very different from scholar collaboration, 
in terms of scale, openness, hierarchies, freedom. 

An in-depth analysis of differences and similarities of these two phenomenons is beyond the scope of the present study: nonetheless, further research is needed 
to gain deeper understanding of two diametrical forms of collaboration that share (or could share) much more than they at the present days. 

For the scope of present research, it will suffice to say that scale, authorship and openness seem to be crucial dimensions
in which open and scholar communities sit at the opposite extremes.  
Still, similarities arise to a deeper and non trivial observation. 
Communities dedicated to knowledge production try to auto-control themselves, and policies and procedures are negotiated directly within the community.
Both type of communities then are, theoretically, community of \textit{peers}, in which agreement and consensus should be reached all together. 
Further research is needed to verify these outcomes. 

\subsection{Control, review and quality}
The issue of control is probably one of the most problematic in online collaborative projects, especially if open and wiki-style. 
Projects like Wikipedia commit the review and the quality of the content directly to the same community why is producing that content. It is a sort of peer review, 
though not formalized and relegated to the good willingness of users. The most controversial aspect of wiki projects is in fact this: how it is possible to trust information
if you are not sure about the author and the reviewer? 
This question would not be answered here, going far beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, it will suffice to say that the auto-organization of the 
Wikipedia community seems to work in assessing quality of the content, on average. 
Several quantitative studies, as \citeA{paloalto2007}, suggest that the more users contributes and 
edits a page, the more the page, on average, is accurate and provides trustworthy information. 
Further and more qualitative research is needed to evaluate and comprehend these outcomes. 

Regarding Internet, Wikipedia and other peer-generated information, Eco thinks is always a problem of \textit{filtering}:
\begin{quotation}
So Wikipedia, as the whole Internet, has the problem of \textit{filtering the news}. 
\textit{It keeps both false and real news}; but the rich knows filtering techniques at least for the areas they know how to check. 
[\dots] Collective filtering is useless, since it could yield to fluctuations. 
I noticed that in a certain period of Berlusconi's triumph people went looking for information about me on the right-winged books and placed them in Wikipedia: 
as correctness prevents me from changing them directly, I left them on. But obviously it was an entry made by the winners of the moment.

The collective control is therefore useful up to a certain point: it is conceivable that if one gives a false length of the equator, 
sooner or later someone comes and corrects it, but correction of more subtle and difficult issues is more complicated.
\end{quotation}

In scholarly publishing, peer review is much more formalized and demands competences and economic resources. 
In collaboratory digital libraries, it is not yet understood (or foreseen) how the process of assessing quality would work.
Data suggest it is a matter of both authority and community.

Eco strongly believes in the difference of open, \textit{uncontrollable} and anarchic communities of users and \textit{controlled} community of scholars.  
\begin{quotation}
Take for example the journal \textit{Nature}. 
In the scientific world, if an article appeared on Nature, where there is peer review and large control, it is taken seriously.
It is true, in any case, that Nature could make an error, and exclude a brilliant article: nevertheless, Nature is believed a landmark of reliability, with fringe boundaries.
There is always the possibility of an error, or event a little academic revenge\dots
\end{quotation}

He believes in the final convergence on a consensus between peers, but only in a community with defined boundaries, with defined names and curricula, which guarantee 
authority of information and possibility of control.
\begin{quotation}
I am a disciple of Peirce, who states that the scientific truths get assessed and approved by the community. 
He intended the \textit{scientific community}, at his time much more divided by the normal crowd. 
The slow work of the community, though errors and revisions, carries on the \textquotedblleft torch of the truth\textquotedblright, as he said in the XIXth century.
\end{quotation}
And again:
\begin{quotation}
Things eventually \textit{get fixed}: these are the controlled communities, which are not anarchic, but with a fringe authority. 
This doesn't regard Wikipedia, in which the anarchy is much bigger.
\end{quotation}
 
Thus, for Eco it is not possible to compare communities of scholars and communities of general active users as in Wikipedia.
Also other interviewees shared a similar (yet less incisive) thought: some of them sincerely confessed that opening a scholar collaborative project
to general users would be often counterproductive, because people could vandalize or worse insert false information and argue with no competence about very specialized topics. 

Though, the researcher somehow feels that Eco did attribute some flaws to collective processes that he did not see(or appear to see) in scientific communities. 
He trusted the scientific community to reach, eventually, a convergence that he's not willing to attribute at the communities of active users of Wikipedia. 

Although the researcher is absolutely not competent of \textit{sociology of science}, yet, it is his humble opinion that a statement like this may be disputed in the future. 
Sociology of science is a quite sectorial and young field of study, but provides interesting insights about behaviour of scientific communities 
(and single scholars), illustrating a much more (and disturbing) picture of science, research and scholarship.
Mechanisms of knowledge production and science discovery are not immune of the influence of external factors as grants, scientific fads, trends, mainstream science,
competition among scholars, etc. Even the existence of a core, mainstream science is a political fact that preventes a free and totally open science and research, 
especially in developing countries \cite{guedon}.  
Further and multidisciplinary research is then needed to understand similarities and difference of scholar and amateur communities, that are maybe more related than expected.

\subsection{Fear}
This explains (and it is caused by) the diffidence of scholars regarding collaborative projects, especially open ones, as Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is open to \textit{everyone}, and this is a flaw that few scholars tolerate.
  
In fact, open communities are still high controversial and very difficult to comprehend in all their facets, also for inside participants. 
Many factors are involved: social, economic, psychological ones. 
Moreover, interviewee \textit{I5} admitted that scholars are often scared to a position, and an authority, which has been gained through long years of study, 
and that nowadays is sometimes underestimated. 
\begin{quotation}
The word \textquotedblleft collaborative\textquotedblright really scares the cultural establishment. 
Because it takes away \textit{power}, and the \textit{goal}. Yes, a philologist could be a reviewer, also with the so-called \textquotedblleft educated non professionals\textquotedblright
who could execute bulk jobs; he could control and assess quality. But still, this really scares academic world. 
\end{quotation}

In the conversatoin with Eco, the topic came up:
\begin{quotation}
from mighty to influential 
\end{quotation}

Interestingly enough, \texttt{I5} indicated with the label \textquotedblleft educated non professionals\textquotedblright what professor Eco called \textquotedblleft motivated crowd\textquotedblright, 
both emphasizing competence and motivation of non scholar users in open communities. 
Further research is needed to enlighten the confusion regarding various types of users in open communities, and also motivation, aims and jobs of these subgroups.

\subsection{Boundaries}
Especially in the Italian environment, it is still strong the idea that \textit{control} means \textit{boundaries}, limits. Eco itself confirmed this impression, 
providing several examples of categorization, discrimination between different kind of people, during the whole interview. 
At the beginning of the conversation, he made a distinction between two kind of information \textit{users}.
He stated:
\begin{quotation}
I once made a distinction between things good for the \textit{poor} and things good for the \textit{rich}, 
where rich and poor have no immediate connotation in terms of money, 
but in terms, say, of \textit{cultural evolution}... 
\textit{A graduate is a rich, an illiterate is poor}. 
There can obviously be a big entrepeneur who is poor and a little clerk who is rich.

Television thus is good for the poor and bad for the rich: it taught the poor to speak Italian, it is good for old women who sit alone in the house. 
And it harms the rich because it prevents him to go out and see things more beautiful at the cinema, it narrows his ideas.

The computer in general, and the \textit{Internet} in particular, \textit{is good for the rich and bad for the poor}. 
That is, Wikipedia is good for me, because I am able to find the information I need, I do not trust it, because everyone knows that as Wikipedia grows, 
the errors also grow. I found steep follies written about me, and if no-one pointed me at them, they would stay there still.

The rich are grown people, they can compare the information. I look at Wikipedia in Italian, I'm not sure that the news is correct, 
then I go to check the English version, then yet another source, and if all three tell me that this gentleman died in 371 AD I begin to believe it. 
\end{quotation}

To explain the success of open projects, he suggested an interesting definition.
He divided the normal, \textquotedblleft low\textquotedblright crowd, which often supports every kind of falsity 
(\textquotedblleft If you ask to 6 billion of inhabitants of the world, the majority will tell you that the Sun is going round the Earth. 
There's nothing to do about it\textquotedblright) to what he called the \textit{motivated crowd},
which can actually create trustworthy information, as (sometimes) happens in Wikipedia.
\begin{quotation}
We must therefore find another criterion, which I think is the \textit{motivated} crowds. 
People who work on Wikipedia are not just an aristocracy, just professors, but they are not the indiscriminate crowd either: 
they are the part of the crowd who feels motivated to work with Wikipedia. 
\end{quotation}

Thus, he continues: 
\begin{quotation}
Here it is: I'd replace the theory of \textquotedblleft wisdom of crowds\textquotedblright with the theory of the \textquotedblleft wisdom of the \textit{motivated} crowds.\textquotedblright 
The general crowd says that we should not pay taxes, the motivated crowd says that it's fair to pay them. 
In fact, it is not a digger or an illiterate who contributes on Wikipedia, but someone who already belongs to a cultural crowd for the very fact of using a computer. 
\end{quotation}

\section{Authorship} 
Collaboration between scholars, especially in the field of humanities, is intended to be the most important topic of the study. 
Data gathered suggest a consensus in noticing the same barriers to collaboration.
The main barriers found are related to \textit{authorship}.
This outcomes primarily refer to the Italian community of humanists, but some of the results can be extended to other national communities.
%In fact, it will be highlighted that the cultural approach towards collaboration is one of the most important factors. 
 
The term \textquotedblleft authorship\textquotedblright was chosen to indicate different but deeply correlated issues.
Data gathered assessed the idea of \textit{authorship} as a main issue for collaboration, which tends to presents in different facets summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
 \item \textit{myth of the lonely scholar}
 \item interpretation
 \item attribution
 \item intellectual property
\end{itemize}
These minor issues will be analyzed as aspect of the main authorship problem.

\subsection{The \textit{myth of the lonely scholar}}
It is meaningful that all interviewees agreed in confirming the fact that humanists are used to work independently, aside any discipline or nationality,
perpetrating the \textquotedblleft \textit{myth of the lonely scholar}\textquotedblright.
This concept is part of the core culture of all Humanities and it is accompanying the entire community of humanists from the roots of culture itself.
Interviewee \texttt{I5} stated:
\begin{quotation}
We need to state again that, so far, in humanities, work has been primarily individual. 
There is the \textit{myth of the lonely scholar}, as they say in the Anglo-Saxon area. At the same time, there is the \textit{myth of the lonely author}. 
It is a romantic idea, where the author, the scholar, is always working alone: this is still true.
\end{quotation}

%Other interviews confirmed the same impression. 
He then continues claiming this behavior to be an obstacle for collaboration:
\begin{quotation}
When you make a research in hard science, it is often a collaborative team work. 
In humanities you use need to go in a library, in an archive, in your \textit{scriptorium} and write until you have finished you work.
How much Digital Humanities have changed this behavior and culture needs still to be assessed.
\end{quotation}

Literature and other interviews confirmed the same views.

\subsection{Interpretation}
If the scientific method is founded on experiments and measurability of data, in Humanities there is no such a thing.
Humanities found themselves on authors' and scholars' \textit{interpretation}. Each individual interpretation is legit.

Eco explained this difference between hard and soft science as follows:
\begin{quotation}
Science is \textit{cumulative-destructive}, it stores what it needs and throw away what it doesn't require. 
Humanities are totally \textit{cumulative}, they don't throw away anything: in fact, there is always a return to the past. 

On the other hand, they are totally destructive in the way, as Maritain stated regarding to Descartes, \textquotedblleft a philosopher is a \textit{novice in the Absolute}\textquotedblright. 
For Descartes, everything that philosophy stated before him was false. If a mathematician did that, it would be the end of mathematics.
\end{quotation}

Hence, we have one crucial difference between hard sciences and humanities: if in hard sciences the entire community of scholars and scientists pursue the 
the ideal of universal agreement, humanities are less tied to the concept of \textit{agreement}. 
\textit{Measurability} and \textit{verifiability} are pillars of philosophy of science, and they are not in the humanities.
Differences between these two fields of human thought has been investigated for centuries: for the scope of the present study it will suffice to state that 
measurement in hard sciences provides a framework where to converge that is not available in Humanities.

While hard sciences struggle to converge to a consensus and to theories tested and verified by scientists all around the world, 
Humanities do not seek a convergence, but they maintain dignity to the single view of the individual. 
%Authority of an author is extremely important in humanities: even though is obviously a significant feature in hard sciences, in humanities it turns to be crucial. 

Of course, each interpretation needs to be correctly motivated: there is still the aim of being \textquotedblleft scientific\textquotedblright.
Nevertheless, there is surely less struggle to achieve an agreed, impersonal and \textit{objective} opinion: often, there's no 
objectivity\footnote{The researcher knows that the term \textit{objectivity} can be misread in the context of soft sciences: however, for the sake of the argument, 
here it is used to highlight the concept of convergence and scientificity} at all.   

%Therefore, \textit{interpretation} becomes extremely significant. 
In philology, different scholars can argue about how to read a line or a word, and agreement is not mandatory, sometimes not usual at all. 
This is directly an obstacle for collaboration, because collaboration itself premises a consensus between parts.

In this way, authorship cannot be forgotten. The authority of the scholar directly affects the importance of his interpretation, and viceversa. 
Interviewee \texttt{I5} claimed that authority is still crucial in philological sciences:
\begin{quotation}
%Hence, on one side,in the humanities, we have the individual work.
In philological sciences, in particular, there is one thing not to be underestimated: 
We read an edition of a particular curator or publisher because we know that he is an international expert.
I can read the Petrocchi's critical edition of Dante over another because I prefer, I respect, I trust more that curator or publisher.
In Humanities and philological sciences the author, \textit{the scholar is king}.
\end{quotation}

\subsection{Attribution}
Interpretation also brings with itself all problems related with attribution and authorship: 
in humanities, an interpretation is owned by the author, who demands to be recognized.

Eco stated:
\begin{quotation}
For what are soft sciences, \textit{there is absolutely less impulse to collaboration}. 
There is much more interest to be the main character of an idea, than being just a \textquotedblleft water carrier\textquotedblright. 

That's for sure. A scientist in these cases is used to not being mentioned and to know that however is carrying forward a fundamental research.
In soft sciences, this happens only to the exploited student who is sent to gather data that the professor will sign and profit by. 

That's an old story, there's no escape from that\dots
\end{quotation}
%In soft science, competitivity of ideas is greater than in hard sciences. 

Far from being only a intellectual property problem, it is more a cultural issue. Humanists are sometimes really jealous of
the texts they are studying and working on. This is obviously an obstacle to sharing and collaboration, 
because if in an environment competition is hard collaboration it is not likely to happen. 
According to interviewee \texttt{I4}:
\begin{quotation}
Usually, when a philologist or in general an humanist is working on a text, he tends to consider it \textit{his property}...
He surely doesn't like other people to study the same text.   
\end{quotation}
He continued:
\begin{quotation}
Working in different disciplines within Humanities, I felt and shared the feeling that computer science is important to renew your research and that 
collaboration is important: 
nonetheless, at the end of the day everyone has his own personal project, his own texts which is working on and he also gets mad is someone else copy him or 
just work on the same text.
\end{quotation}

Moreover, he correlates this approach with hard science different approach:
\begin{quotation}
%Questo è complicato, ammetto che mi trovi un po' più conservatore. 
In the Humanities, a scholar writes and that is his intellectual product, that is his accomplishment.  
%Nell'area umanistica uno studioso scrive e quello è il suo prodotto intellettuale, di ricerca, è quello che produce. [\dots]
In STM, there are patents, technologies, tolls to be developed. 
%Nell'ambito scientifico, ci sono brevetti, tecnologie, strumenti vengono sviluppati. 
Furthermore, aside some rare exceptions, no theory is developed on a single researcher, but on previous results. [\dots]
%Inoltre, a parte rare eccezioni, nessuna teoria si costruisce sull'individuo, ma su risultati precedenti. 
%Le innovazioni innovano del 5 per cento teorie precedenti. I contributi sono mnumerosi e minimi.
For humanists, this is more complicated, because interpretation has value on its own.
%Per noi è un po' più complicato, perchè l'interpretazione ha un valore in sè. 
\end{quotation}

\subsection{Intellectual property}
Moreover, intellectual property is a problem on its own.
Because each author's interpretation is so significant, intellectual theft are very feared. 
Interviewee \texttt{I3} confessed:
\begin{quotation}
This is [a complicated issue] complicated, I admit that I'm a bit more conservative about this. In Humanities a scholar writes and his byproducts what is its intellectual products, research,
is that it produces.

Within science, there are patents, technologies, tools are developed. Moreover, apart from rare exceptions, no theory is constructed on the singular individual,
but more on past research. [Technological and sientific] innovations innovate only 5 percent of earlier theories. Contributions in these theories are multiple 
and minimal.

For us [in Humanities] it is a bit more complicated, because the \textit{interpretation} has a value in itself. 
So I understand the issue of protecting even the letter of what I write,
so no one appropriates it to write his text. There is an authorship problem, which is important and must be addressed.
This also does not cover the speech open license and permit closed, but the recognition of intellectual authorship.

Internet in fact undermines the effective protection of intellectual property, and people copy. [\dots]
The issue of \textit{economic} rights is almost \textit{insignificant}, there are virtually no revenue for humanistic work.
I am convinced that the protection of open content, along with the protection for those who first expressed a particular idea in a particular form is a goal to pursue. 
\end{quotation}

Even if it's not an economic problem, stealing of intellectual property is very feared in Humanities, due to the high value of each singualr interpretation. 
Collaborative projects don't often pay enough attention to each author's work, with no sufficient effort in developing tracking systems 
for author's contributes. Thus, collaboratories digital linbraries for Humanities should pay extra attention to technical and management tools for tracking of 
edits and attribution of authorship.

\section{Scientific social networks}
% contesto italiano, questo te lo conferma anche Eco.
%Collaboration is one of the main topics debated during the whole research process. 
It is beyond the scope to investigate deeply differences between collaboration and communication, 
but as they were topics involved in the study it is mandatory to provide at least a common definition.

During the designing of the present study, the researcher assumed collaboration and communication as linked but different concepts. 
Although they are obviously bounded (no meaningful collaboration is possible without communication, 
communication itself is a form of collaboration), they are not the same thing. 

The term \textquotedblleft Web 2.0\textquotedblright, although is useful for suggest a cyberspace more oriented towards social interactions and users rather than
services and documents, is also an evergreen label used largely for marketing.
What is more, it often confuses different concepts as communication or collaboration, using them both to express a generic fostering of social interaction.

In the present research, the terms will be assumed as related but not equal. 
A collaboratory digital library is a space for collaboration in study and research, and therefore needs social features to allow communication between members.
Therefore, here it will be assumed that a system for collaboration is also (but not only) a system for communication. 

The contrary is not always true. 
According to \citeA{boyd2007}, social networks sites are 
\begin{quotation}
as web-based services that allow individuals to 
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, 
 \item articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and 
 \item view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. 
The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.
 \end{enumerate}
\end{quotation}
 
Generic social networks (i.e. Facebook\footnote{\url{http://www.facebook.com}}, MySpace,\footnote{\url{http://www.myspace.com}}) 
or even task-oriented social networks (LibraryThing\footnote{\url{http://www.librarything.com}} and aNobii\footnote{\url{http://www.anobii.com}} for books, 
Last.fm\footnote{\url{http://www.last.fm.com}} for music, etc.) are focused on social interaction and communication, and they do not allow 
the \textit{collaborative editing} of a text or a digital object, that is
what in this study it has been assumed as the core of strong collaboration. 

Therefore, in the scope of this study social networks will be not treated as collaborative frameworks, VREs or collaboratories, due to the fact that the former are 
concentrated in communication and social interaction and the latter in collaboration and production.
A social network therefore is not necessarily a collaborative network, if it does not provide tools for collaborative \textit{production}. 
Viceversa, a collaborative network is also a social network (and this is a reason why Wikipedia is often regarded as a social network). 

The difference here explained is a personal opinion of the researcher (motivated by literature, personal experience and different 
conversations with net experts), that thus was discussed about this topic with the interviewees.
Here is an excerpt of the conversation with interviewee I5:
\begin{quotation}
\textbf{I5}: Where do you make the \textit{social} part finish and start the \textit{wiki} one?

\textbf{Researcher}: Obviously, everything is blurred together, but I make this difference: in wikis, communication, the social part, is \textit{upon} something, is aimed to knowledge production. 
The social component is very important, also in wikis. But there is a difference between, for example, a generic wiki project and Facebook. 
In the first, you produce and communicate, in the latter you just communicate. 
In the first, communication is connected to a task, collaborative production of \textquotedblleft something\textquotedblright.
We are so a community of practice, because we \textit{make} something (in Wikisource, for example, linked to books and texts).

\textbf{I5}: In the electronic environment, everything is much more complicated, and distinctions as well, but you're right on this. 
On Facebook, few days ago I wrote a post on a congress' keynote; I tagged all my contacts related to Digital Humanities, 
and some of them commented. But you're right. 

\textit{I} produced something, but \textit{alone}, an other commented in a \textit{social} way. \textit{We communicated, but the text was mine}.
\end{quotation}

Thus, a little but clear difference will be maintained among the adjective \textit{collaborative} and \textit{social}: the first suggest a common 
workplace, the latter a place where to chat, communicate, even share information and opinion, but not produce digital objects in cooperation with others.

It is not meant to attribute a different value of collaboration instead of communication (or viceversa): just to provide a distinction whose
hope is to be a clarification, not a \textquotedblleft hierarchy of values\textquotedblright. 

% Biblioteche troppo settoriali, esisgenza di comunicazione prima della collaborazione. 
Nonetheless, interviewee \texttt{I3} did actually highlight the importance of scientific social network as a framework for collaboration: 
\begin{quotation}
%Look, a lot depends on how it embodies the idea of collaboration in a digital library. There are some points to make.
%One is that even as regards the humanities computing, which is actually the birthplace of the so-called "humanities computing sector," that is oriented
%individual communities of historians, archaeologists, and so on. GIS for archaeologists needed (?), For others it was important to geo-referencing.
%For the letter is very important to the marking (TEI), but only they know. This segmentation has been an obstacle to collaboration, which has a dispersion
%hinder, actually work together.

%This without forgetting the common part is the attention to textuality, the text that binds everyone.

%So what would, even if one ends up treating them with proper tools, are common theoretical tools.
More than a direct collaboration within a collaborative digital library, I think is important the \textit{social networking aimed to research}.
What I think is really missing a lot in Italy is just that. 

For example, a project as Academia\footnote{\url{http://academia.edu}}, is trying to create social networks, similar Facebook, but research-oriented. 
There are only two or three examples of this kind, and yet not well developed, but I think it would be extremely helpful to work collaboratively.

In a sense, all this could be carried out directly by Facebook, if it allowed \textit{typified} content. 
In Facebook it's all one mashed pot of content: you cannot filter by content, and that's a great pity.
If you had a layer on Facebook that gave the \textquotedblleft contact\textquotedblright and \textquotedblleft contents of those contacts that are focused on research\textquotedblright,
that would be great.
\end{quotation}

Moreover, \textit{I4} not only thought this would be important, but also I argued that in the Italian context this would more important than a real collaboratory
digital library, because is a previous step. 
\begin{quotation}
This is what you need, I think, \textit{even before} thinking to collaborate on digital libraries. 
You need to \textit{establish relationships}, they come first.

Within the DL environment, ideas are very beautiful, but perhaps they require \textit{prerequisites that we have not yet}. 
First, \textit{in Italy we do not have the digital library}, which is essential [\textit{laughs, ndR}]. 
Second, we don't have a research community used to build a research social networks.

I believe that these two things are essential to work. 
Wiki systems, which are best systems available nowadays to do this kind of things, are still used in a very amateur way. 
Including me; it is not a critic to users or to the instrument itself, but a critic to the \textit{approach}.
\end{quotation}
%Interviews conducted did assess conclusions here exposed. 
Thus, research social networking has been considered as an important prerequisite for real and efficient collaboration within Humanities in the Italian 
context. 
%Even though \textit{I4} provided these critics, the study still maintain the initial position, of investigating collaboration and collaboratory 
%digital libraries for scholars. 

\section{Laboratory}
During the whole research process, a concept emerged from literature, interviews and above all from the same experience of the researcher, who was using the computer (wiki, concept map software, \LaTeX)
as a research instrument: the idea that several tools combined can create a framework, a \textit{laboratory}.
This is a simple yet powerful concept that believes in the emergence of a new structure out of single, discrete instruments. 
The best example is the laboratory of a smith or a carpenter: it is not a disorganized collection of individual tools, but a framework of correlated instruments that 
together are much more the simple sum of them all. 
A framework where the smith or the carpenter can work, product and maybe \textit{create other tools}. 

This well-known idea is very explicit especially in the technological evolution, where rates of growth strictly follows exponential graphs \cite{kurzweil2005}:
this is the natural consequence of building tools with previous tools, as well as frameworks with previous frameworks. 
It is a \textit{multiplicative paradigm}, in which every factor is multiplied by, and not added to, the following factor.
   
The history of technology teaches us that some mechanisms of the world are exponential, some other no.
Technology itself, and scientific evolution too, follow this type of growth: this is the reason of the existence of empirical laws like the Moore's Law \cite{mooreWP}, 
which state that every 18 months a microprocessor would be twice powerful and cost half. 

In a minor way, also Eco suggested that few tools combined could simplify greatly the accomplishment of some tasks:
\begin{quotation}
It is a matter of time. When I write, I go on Wikipedia 30-40 times a day, because it is really helpful.
%Certo, e un discorso di tempo. Quando scrivo, andrò su Wikipedia 30-40 volte al giorno, perchè è molto comodo. 
When I write, I don't remember if someone was born in the VI century or the VII; or maybe how many \textit{n} are in \textquotedblleft Goldmann\textquotedblright\dots
%Quando scriviamo, magari non ci ricordiamo se questo o quello è nato nel VI secolo e VII secolo, o quante n ci sono in Goldmann... 
Just few years ago, for this kind of things you could wast do much time. 
Nowadays, with Wikipedia and Babylon, which check the spelling, you can save it a lot. 
%Una volta per queste cose si perdeva un sacco di tempo. Oggi, fra Wikipedia e Babylon, che corregge gli errori di ortografia, se ne guadagna moltissimo 
\end{quotation}
%In a much more minor way, the researcher experimented the same feelings using two tools as Google translate and the English thesaurus integrated in Open Office: 
%two simple yet powerful instruments which make easier the task of writing in English.

Finally, the researcher strongly believes in the importance of building open frameworks where users can exploit their creativity and competences not only to work on their object 
of study, but rather to create, build and develop other tools and instruments they could use on texts. 
This has been true in the little experience of the researcher himself, who developed during the whole research process an incomplete yet helpful
framework for accomplishing the research tasks. In fact, the researcher gradually developed a framework that helped him in storing and retriviend information, 
as well as storing data and analyze them. The framework has been previously overviewed in \texttt{Chapter 3}.  
 
When asked, \texttt{I5} corroborated the concept:
\begin{quotation}
This is exactly the theme of VREs. 
If I have to distinct tools from two different developers, and I want to have them both available on my VRE, I need standard and interoperability.
It is a very complex topic. 
\end{quotation}

Interviewee \texttt{I3}, too, was asked if he agreed with the fact of innovation to be generated by frameworks, that were themselves generated from previous tools:
\begin{quotation}
Of course. The knowledge has always worked like this, with people which discussed and changed opinion and mutually shared information. 
Collaborative frameworks allow at ideas to become convergent, and to do it without the boundaries of space and time. This is fundamental.
\end{quotation}

\section{Amateur and scholar digital libraries}
During the research process, a topic emerged clearly as prominent: the comparison between scholar and amateur communities working with digital libraries. 
Due to different experiences and aims, these communities both are similar and very different. 
These communities often share the same object of study (i.e. public domain texts), but do differ in work-flow, practice and expectations. 
A result of the research is that there is a significant difference in approach towards collaborative projects, also projects constructed upon wikis.
In fact, scholar communities seem to be not interested in wikis for collaborative digital libraries, because the prefer more specific and complex tools.
On the other hand, amateur communities do not have same expectations as scholar ones, and thus find wikis are far more useful and helpful. 

Interviewee \texttt{I4}, having a good experience of both the communities, highlighted some differences:
\begin{quotation}
I know both the two different approaches: the first is the amateur approach of people who digitize texts for interest or passion, without having any scientific purpose, 
and even then the pressures that this entails.

The other approach is the one of scholars or students, generally experts, in which defined collections are created, 
and where there is a plan work. The job is carried out in substantially different ways. Often texts are difficult to find, difficult to code, etc..
\end{quotation}

Thus, it is patent the fact that communities of amateurs do not have the same boundaries (especially legal and correlated to funding and scientific methods) of scholar 
ones: there is much more freedom (others would say \textquotedblleft anarchy\textquotedblright). Being volunteer-drive, amateur DLs do have little or no money involved: 
this is both a disadvantage (it limits the scope and the possibilities of the project) and an advantage (the community does work \textit{for fun}, no money means often no 
pressure). Wikis do work very well in large communities because they eliminate bottlenecks and allow all users to work without hierarchy restrictions. 
Other data suggest that these amateurs communities do have less limits and expectations.

A proper comparison between amateur and scholar communities of practice working with collaborative digital libraries could not be accomplished within the 
present study. 
The researcher in fact contacted the Liber Liber community to run an online focus group about the imminent shift of the project to a wiki framework.
Unfortunately, due to low response of the community and technical problems, the focus group could not been executed.

Nevertheless, interviews conducted offered meaningful data that suggest some clues: further research is needed to prove the conclusions and gain deeper understanding 
of the phenomenon.  

Amateur communities of practice did find a great increase in the last years, thanks to Internet. 
Amateurs gather in every angle of the Net for discussing about topics and sometimes to produce content and information. 
This is a prominent part of what has been called \textquotedblleft Web 2.0\textquotedblright: the gathering of people 
in communities of \textit{prosumers}, that are both information producer and consumers.

Regarding digital libraries, the first and most important amateur project is the Gutenberg Project, which was born in 1971 and has been digitizing over 30.000 
documents\cite{gutenbergWP}.
In all these years, the Gutenberg project has inspired several projects worldwide: one of them is the Italian Liber Liber, that was born in 1993, in Rome, 
to compensate for the lack of similar projects in Italy.  

%\section{The Italian context} Eco prima lìavevo inserito qui. 

\section{The Italian gap}
%Towards the digital environment, especially regarding digital libraries, Italy maintains a \textit{conservative} approach. 
Several interviews provided insights about different issues in Italy, and a draft but meaningful picture of the Italian context. 

Moreover, the study had the chance to gather data about the Italian cultural environment to one of his most prominent members. 
In fact, the best achievement of the present research has been the interview of Umberto Eco as an important insider of Humanities
in the Italian context. 
Professor Eco is a worldwide known professor and author of best-sellers as \textquotedblleft The Name of the Rose \textquotedblright and 
\textquotedblleft Foucault's Pendulum\textquotedblright.
He is also a medievalist, semiotician, philosopher, literary critic and novelist: he has written from academic texts to children's books, 
as well as many essays regarding very different topics, from politics to literature.

Professor Eco was interviewed by the researcher for a project called \textquotedblleft Wiki@Home\textquotedblright, supported by the Italian chapter of the 
Wikimedia Foundation\footnote{\url{http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home}}, Wikimedia Italia\footnote{\url{http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Who_we_are}}. 
Wikimedia Italia (WMI) is an association for open culture and open knwoledge, and it supports Wikimedia projects as Wikipedia and Wikisource. 
Wiki@Home is a subproject of WMI which is aimed to interview important members of the cultural and entertainment world. 

Within this context, the researcher contacted and gained and appointment with professor Eco to interview him about Internet, collaboration and Wikipedia. 
The researcher thus exploited this unique occasion to utilize professor Eco as a \textit{key informant} for the study, 
investigating topics as collaboration between scholars, especially within Humanities in the Italian context. 

Interview revealed to be extremely rich and helpful to gain in-depth information about Humanities in the Italian area and their 
approach to Internet and collaboration. Eco's and others' interviewees opinions will be analyzed in te next paragraphs. 

\subsection{Political, cultural, institutional issues}
Interviewee \texttt{I3} highlighted summarized several issues, at different leves, of the community of Humanities. 
He firstly emphasized cultural issues:
\begin{quotation}
There is a mentality and cultural problem, regarding Humanities. 
In my job I had the lucky chance of knowing different areas of expertise. 
I always found that people feel computers as an important tool to innovate their research and studies, and also that collaboration is important.  
Bu at the end of the day everyone has always his own project, his own studied text; people get mad if they discover that someone else is copying or 
even studying the same text.
\end{quotation}

But, eventually, many serious issues are \textit{political} and \textit{istitutional}. 
One of the main problem (which unfortunately is present in all levels of the Italian political and enterprise establishment), 
that is the old age of rectors, professors, deans:
\begin{quotation}
The problem is that my generation [which is composed by] young professors does not have decisional power within universities, so they can't support and endorse this kind of projects.
\end{quotation}

This issue is a well-known consequence of the Italian tradition of maintaining a position untile elder age. Unfortunately, young people do not have the chance of getting 
authority before they are no more young, and so the whole establishment (political, institutional, economical) tends to be held by elder people, with a consequent lack of 
attention and interest to innovation. 

In the last years, Universities saw their funds being reduced year by year, and the situation is not improving. 
Obviously, in such a grim situation, there is little space for really innovative projects, and it is very hard to find institutions funding big, cutting-edge projects.
Interviewee \texttt{I3} stated:
\begin{quotation}
Moreover, there is a huge issue of competence and background, and on the other hand a lack of adequate infrastructure. 
In UK e Germania si investe molto di E-science in ambito umanistico, di Digital humanities. 
Non solo non si fa, non se ne parla proprio, ed è un limite grosso. Anche la stessa comunità di informatica umanistica si è fermata su questo punto. 
Bisognerebbe agire su vari livelli, partire da una piattaforma e farlo vedere, farlo valutare in sede concorsuale.  
\end{quotation}
Moreover:
\begin{quotation}
The issue is providing a institutional framework which will support [these projects]: if there was a national institution for e-science or e-literature, for example, 
even with limited fundings, that would be the best location for experiments and test. 
\end{quotation}

\subsubsection{Academic publishing and career issues}
Finally, he emphasized very serious carreer and tenure issues. 
In the US academic environment, it is popular the phrase \textquotedblleft publish or perish\textquotedblright, meaning the \textquotedblleft pressure to publish 
work constantly to further or sustain a career in academia. 
The competition for tenure-track faculty positions in academia puts increasing pressure on scholars to publish new work frequently.\textquotedblright \cite{popWP}

Related to this, as both a consequence and a cause, there is the fact that publication on academic journals is one of the few possibilities for scholars to
improve their visibility, and mantain or obtain the position in universities.

\begin{quotation}
Now, there are issues related with tenure and \textit{career}, someway complicated. 
In tenure competitions, digital editions and digital publishing do not count. \textit{They are not evaluated}. 
\end{quotation}

Academic publishing in thus the main way to further a carrer in academia: unfortunately, this runs against the possibility of creating and sustaining online collaborative VREs, 
because often working in such projects is not seen as a proper task for researcher, and it is not relevant for evaluation of a scholar. 
Moreover, this is a big obstacle for collaboration and collaborative projects:
\begin{quotation}
Think about what could happen in a collaborative work, where it is not possible to redeem attribution of every edit. 
This is a serious problem, that will be maybe solved by younger generations of scholars, who are more aware of importance of sharing. 
\end{quotation}

\subsection{Italian digital libraries}
Interviews did  also confirm the backwardness of Italy regarding digital libraries and their conservative approach. Only few institutional libraries are actually online, 
and unfortunately amateur projects still are very important for their digitizing work.

Indeed, all interviewees related to the Liber Liber community expressed the same thought: the fact that Liber Liber was born to be an experiment (and a model), 
and it would have been substituted by more institutional and authoritative projects.  
Unfortunately, this did not happen. Italy still lacks institutional digital libraries comparable with great national projects as the french Gallica\footnote{\url{http://gallica.bnf.fr/}} or the
American Memory\footnote{\url{http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html}}, and even in European collective projects as Europeana\footnote{\url{http://www.europeana.eu/portal/}} 
the presence of Italian documents is minimal (and sometimes provided greatly by non-Italian institutions as Gallica).
What is more, even though Italy can boast centuries of culture (in almost every field of human creation), still little has been done to digitize this content and make it 
available online. Several nations, with far more humble and smaller heritages, spend greater effort in digitizing cultural heritage material. 

Interview \texttt{I2}, one of the founders of Liber Liber, stated:
\begin{quotation}
At the beginning, we filled a gap, \textit{in Italy there were no e-books at all}, at least in Italian. 
There was the Gutenberg project, it was in English, and we wanted to have at least an Italian project. 

Passing the years, even with a great response from users, \textit{we noticed to be still alone}: until recent years, to the birth of Wikisource and Distributed 
Proofreaders, there were no other projects that did what we were doing. 

Also nations (in Italy very little, sincerely) are moving towards digitization. 
\end{quotation}

Other interviewees share the same thoughts. Interviewee \texttt{I3} recalled the experience of \textit{Biblioteca Digitale Italiana}, the first and most famous 
(and, in a certain sense, the \textit{only}) institutional digital library for the general public.
He also express the feeling that the real issue is not the lack of resources, but mainly the lack of culture and mentality:
\begin{quotation}
Then, I also think that Italy lacks institutional digital libraries. Apart from the first experiments of \textit{Biblioteca Digitale Italiana}, 
(which was very professional, TEI marked-up, but actually really small).

Aside from that in Italy there is \textit{nothing} [\dots]. 

\textit{There's lack of an adequate culture}: when they started digitizing in Italy they started from historic bibliographic catalogs. 
There were beautiful bibliographic cards, of course, handwritten and from the XVII-XVIII century; but definitely not very attractive to the general audience.
Others nations are much smaller and culturally poorer [than Italy], such as Norway, are far ahead of us. It is a matter of approach, not just resources.
\end{quotation}

Interviewee \texttt{I4} also shared the surprise (and probably delusion) that an amateur project such as Liber Liber is nowadays still very important, because no other institutional projects 
followed:
\begin{quotation}
To be honest, we all thought that the work of Liber Liber was necessary in the first phase, hoping that the digitization would have been further made by large national projects, 
universities, institutions, in a professional manner, and not voluntary as we did. 

Unfortunately it was not so, at least not in Italy.

Liber Liber is thus still a reference point for Italian digital libraries. What is more, it is not a proper digital library: it does not guarantee certain
levels of science, despite the good will and the competence of volunteers. The same framework would be more complex.
\end{quotation}

Situation of Italy regarding is thus quite clear. There is little attention to innovation, and even the participation of Italy in big European projects 
still is insufficient, given the richness of Italian cultural heritage. 
Moreover, regarding digital libraries Italy is focused on preservation, and still maintains a very conservative approach towards innovative and advanced projects. 
Data from literature suggest also that Italy has so far lost several opportunities to innovate his approach to cultural preservation and access, and that much is to be done to reach the standards in these ambit of other European countries as 
France or Germany. 
Recent news tell that the Italian Government has already subscribed a partnership with Google 
for the digitization of over a million books and documents in the well-known (and controversial) \texttt{Google Books} project, but it is still too early to 
evaluate outcomes and results of the mentioned settlement, 

\subsection{Amateur digital libraries go wiki}
In 2001 Wikipedia rise up and community of volunteers in Internet would never be the same again \cite{lih2009}.
This project gathers millions of users around the world and in less than ten years has been producing over 15 million articles (over 3 millions just in English)\cite{statsWP}. 
In 2003, a sister-project is born, called \textit{Wikisource}, a wiki digital library which provides texts free of copyright \cite{wikisourceWP}.
The Italian Wikisource has been working since 2005: it started taking content already provided by Liber Liber and then began to digitize documents also providing
the images of scanned books, which has been a step of innovation towards other amateur digital libraries.
Liber Liber itself got interested in the wiki framework, deciding to adopt one. At the moment of the writing of the study, the moving has not been completed yet.   

Interviewee \texttt{I2}, was asked to explain why the Liber Liber project chose to move on a wiki\footnote{The researcher knew this information months before starting the study.}:
\begin{quotation}
Firstly, to provide [the community] a more efficient instrument for collaborative work than before: [the previous system was in fact] based on a mailing list.
The editorial staff used to create the content and subsequently send it to an HTML expert, who had to transfer it on the Web.
Though, this created bottlenecks that were unsustainable, given the number of volunteers....
\end{quotation}

The wiki system thus seems to meet some needs of the community, who demands to smooth the work-flow and eliminate bottlenecks. 
Wiki systems, allowing collaborative editing, greatly improve quickness of these collaborative projects, due to the fact that almost all tasks can be executed in parallel
and few bottlenecks are allowed\footnote{This explains why wiki are called like this: \textit{wiki} means \textquotedblleft quick\textquotedblright in Hawaian.}. 

\begin{quotation}
Then, among the various tools that enable online collaboration, some of which are also best suited to manage online libraries (such as DSpace), 
producing a data stream OAI-MPH, however, we chose a wiki [the technical name of the software is MediaWiki, ed] because we are a volunteer-based initiative, 
then we are interested first of all spark enthusiasm.
Then, the node to adjust MediaWiki, so that can produce a data stream OAI-MPH can be done later.
The opposite, with a specific tool, but little exciting in terms collaborative was much more difficult. I'd rather have a tool that works in terms of social and technical improvements that have a specific platform and already interoperable 
OAI does not work in terms of collaborative, rather it is designed for university employees who enter data and who are paid to do so.
\end{quotation}

\subsection{Wiki is not suitable for scholars}
It is very interesting to note that, on the contrary, all scholars interviewed were contrary to the idea of using wikis as collaborative digital libraries.
If for \texttt{I2}, it was very important to \textquotedblleft spark enthusiasm\textquotedblright and foster collaboration among other things, for scholars
collaboration became secondary, instead of other important features of the system.

Interviewee \texttt{I5} was very clear:
\begin{quotation}
G. and I were astonished when Marco told us he would like to use MediaWiki for Liber Liber. 
We come from \textit{a world which demands certain scientific features}. MediaWiki is absolutely fantastic for collaboration, but not for example for metadata.
\end{quotation}

\texttt{I3} stated:
\begin{quotation}
I was quite contrary with the idea of moving Liber Liber to a wiki, because it's true that is very useful for collaboration, but it is not so good for
managing a collection, for being a repository.
I would have liked more to have a wiki and another repository program, as DSpace, because it's standard for metadata management.
\end{quotation}

Instead, interviewee \textit{I3} did not focus on technologic issues, stating that every technical aspects was somehow secondary: more issues need to be solved before. 
\begin{quotation}
I believe the technology platform is a secondary problem, in a certain sense.
It is not a matter of choosing wiki technology rather than DSpace or Fedora. 
Obviously flexibility of wiki software among others is clear.
\end{quotation}

He insisted on the procedures and the model:
\begin{quotation}
For me it's a question of \textit{procedures} and \textit{work-flow}. 
Basically, when a philologist or generally a humanist starts working on a text,
he tends to consider it \textit{private property}, with no doubt he will be disappointed if other people studied the same text\dots  
\end{quotation}

\subsection{Collaborative editing and variations}
It has been previously mentioned that interpretation is an irreducible feature of Humanities culture and scholar method. 
Collaborative editing is somehow opposite: the aim is always to find a consensus between different views and opinions.
It works on the consensus of a particular community of users: even the version can be changed and edited by users, 
it is always one. There are no different variations or interpretations of the page. 

Actually, this is a issue for Humanities, in which the concept of \textit{interpretation} plays a great role.
Each scholar (actually, each reader) can provide an interpretation of a text, and they are all theoretically plausible. 
Regarding this, Eco stated: 
\begin{quotation}
Science is \textit{cumulative-destructive}, it stores what it needs and throw away what it doesn't require. 
Humanities are totally \textit{cumulative}, they don't throw away anything: in fact, there is always a return to the past. 

On the other hand, they are totally destructive in the way, as Maritain stated regarding to Descartes, \textquotedblleft a philosopher is a \textit{novice in the Absolute}\textquotedblright. 
For Descartes, everything that philosophy stated before him was false.
\end{quotation}

Each person, in Humanities, is therefore allowed to provide an interpretation: although of course these interpretations need to be motivated and there is always a 
principle of authority, in some fields (as philology) a collaborative system would absolutely provide a system for allowing different variations. 

This is not a feature of contemporary wiki (or wiki-like) system.
This is an important reason why scholars are skeptic about wikis: these softwares are sometimes considered impersonal and too aimed to reach an neutral consensus.

Yet, from the point of view of the researcher, this issue is merely technical: it should be possible to still have both features, collaborative editing and possibility of 
variations, in the same system. 
It does not seem an insurmountable technical problem, and the idea of allowing users to use collaborative editing where possible and 
still let the possibility of proposing different interpretations and variations should be methodologically and theoretically acceptable by Humanities scholars. 
In this way, the system should foster collaboration and leave intact the cultural prerogative of the CoP.

%\begin{quotation}
%I believe that the resistance, especially in the academy, which Wikipedia and all the related projects are facing can be attributed to a \textit{cultural condition}.
%I'm precisely referring to the use of Wikipedia as a \textit{source}. Because it's new, not yet released the chema maentale think a source of information for
%that is, that is a source, which then requires verification, criticism, etc..
%Both Wikipedia and the Treccani [the main Italian encycopedia] are \textit{unreliable}. 
%We need to get used to a critical exercise, because also Treccani, even if it driven by good will, has some considerable flaws, for example a non neutral view of the 
%fascism, or the jewish issue: it could not do it correctly, despite being a very influential institution. [\dots]
%This attachment to the source and authority, to the name of the author of an article or a book \textit{is the opposite of scientific rigor}.
%We need to worry about the content, not the author: not WHO wrote it, but WHAT he has written. 
%In my opinion, it should be forbidden to publish in scientific journals the name of the author and the publisher, 
%because if you're doing research you also have responsibilities. A reader should always check, never trust the authority, even if they are Nobel laureates.
%\end{quotation}

\begin{quotation}
So it seems to me absolutely positive that through wiki you get used to the need to verify the source, and the fact that there are some in the academic
resistance is not a good sign, but the academic community. People should be more stringent with regard to information, but instead attached to a show
how old information and wrong, and before you get used to that Wikipedia is a source as much as the "sacred manual" of their discipline, the better.
Because even there, for sure, there will be mistakes, however small. 
\end{quotation}
%\section{Fear}

\section{A Collaboratory Digital Library model}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
 \includegraphics[scale=0.80,clip=true,trim=120pt 280pt 120pt 150pt]{./Cipollafine.pdf}
 % Cipollafine.pdf: 612x792 pixel, 72dpi, 21.59x27.94 cm, bb=0 0 612 792
 \caption{Collaboratory Digital Library model}
 \label{fig:CDLM}
\end{figure}

During the conversation, interviewee \texttt{I3} said an enlightning sentence:
\begin{quotation}
The first image I would suggest of a collaborative digital library is an interface with several tabs, with the text, the quotations, the critical literature, the references, 
the didactic uses \dots
%La prima immagine che io avrei di una biblioteca digitale collaborativa è una cosa con diverse linguette, con il testo, le citazioni, la critica, i riferimenti, gli usi scolastici... 
I guess these are the layers where it could be interesting working on. 
%Immagino siano questi gli usi su cui possa essere più interessante lavorare. 
\end{quotation}

This statement suggests, in a nutshell, the most meaningful outcome of the present study: 
the idea that a collaboratory digital library is possible, but it needs to be structured in typified \textit{layers}, 
each one dedicated for a defined task with its own level of collaboration.

This type of design tries to solve several issues.
Indeed, it has been explained that authorship and collaboration do have several issues. 
Although some data suggests that collaborative editing is suitable for certain tasks, several other clues 
indicate that a strong collaboration system would not easily accepted by the community. 
Not all tasks and tools are meant to be social, or at least not all of them can be based on collaborative editing. 
Therefore, tasks demands to be discriminate by their aim and the possible degree of collaboration.

\subsection{Layers}
Every layer of the model represents a different service or feature, with its own level of collaboration. 
Creating a hierarchy of feature discriminating them by the level of sharing and collaboration is the main result of the present study. 
The researcher discussed largely with interviewees about collaboration and specifically collaboration in Humanities, concluding
that only discriminating different actions and activities could be the key of engaging humanists in collaborative projects. 
Each layer should be \textit{optional}, \textit{repeatable} and \textit{independent} from the other, to let each community decide whether or not
use, add, or eliminate tasks. In fact, each community should auto-organize and adapt the models to his needs and aims.   

In the draft concept here proposed, the Collaboratory Digital Library Model (CDLM) is structured like an \textit{onion}.
The first layer, level 0, could be an image of the document in which the community is interested.
If the document need to be transcribed, another layer could be added, providing a wiki-like system for transcription of the text.
This level should allow both collaborative editing and different variations to show different interpretations of the text.

Then a TEI mark-up would be added, utilizing stand-off mark-up to leave the transcription as plain and static text.
Moreover, an hypertext could be another layer, as well as critic literature, comments, interpretations, public and private annotation.

\subsection{From static to dynamic}
This passage from the interview of \textit{I5} will enlighten some clues of the model:
\begin{quotation}
Dino Buzzetti theorized that a text had both a dynamical and static aspect: one fixed and one mobile. 
Either you have textual variations and the text is mobile, or you have a fixed text (maybe critically established), and upon this you apply the dynamism.
He viewed the text as the fixed part, upon which you can apply the dynamic part of interpretation.
\end{quotation}

To establish a the fixed part of the text (i.e. transcription of a printed edition) could be then a task easily done in collaboration (transcribing a manuscript is much 
harder, demands different interpretations). 
Interviewees on average agreed on this. 
Though \textit{I4} argued that establishing a text it is not the most interesting part to do collaboratively:
%For example, a tool for statistical analysis of a text would be used individually by single researcher: nonetheless, it could store results in a common database and 
%could be developed in a open source way by the very same community. 
\begin{quotation}
[I imagine] an \textquotedblleft onion\textquotedblright with typified layers. The text is the level 0 of the onion, but is also the one with less issues. 
%Si, una cipolla con livelli tipizzati. Il testo è lo strato zero della cipolla, ma è anche quello meno problematico. 
If we need to collaborate to establish a text, well, when it's done, you just need to fix typos.
%Si tratta di collaborare per stabilire un testo, dopo che, a testo stabilito, si parla di singoli refusi. 
Thus, with a single edition the job is done soon. For example, with Liber Liber we digitized the Petrocchi's critical edition of the \textit{Divine Comedy}: that is now an 
established text, probably there are no more typos. We are reasonably sure that the paper edition and the digital edition coincide. 
%Con l'edizione singola chiudi la questione. Su Liber Liber abbiamo chiuso le discussioni sul testo della Divina Commedia 3-4 anni fa, oramai quello è un testo stabilito, 
%non credo ci sia neanche più un refuso. Abbiamo usato l'edizione Petrocchi e siamo ragionevolmente certi che coincidano. 

Nonetheless, that was one particular edition, there are several others.
%Ora, è una edizione particolare, ce ne sono state altre dopo.
What is not finished, and will never be completed, the whole environment of the references, quotations, critical literature, uses. 
%Quello che non è concluso, e che è impossibile chiudere, è il discorso dei riferimenti, dei rimandi, degli usi, della critica. 
This is what happened with the American Dante project: they collected the different editions, then they moved to the critics and comments. 
%Prendi di nuovo l'es. delle Divina commedia: il Dante Project americano ha collezionato le varie edizioni, poi è passato alla critica e ai commenti.
In my opinion, this the true field where to work collaboratively.  
%Quello secondo me è il vero campo su cui lavorare collaborativamente. 
\end{quotation}

Furthermore, \texttt{I5} confirmed the never-ending approach of philology:
\begin{quotation}
Approach to text is not one-sided, there are many as you wish. It depends on the text, different disciplines, and from what you are interested into.
%approccio al testo non è univoco, ce ne sono quanti ne vuoi. Dipende dal testo, dalle discpiline, da quello che ti interessa. 
In a philology conference, it is very hard to find two philologists agreed. \textit{Text is liquid, dynamic}. 
%In una conferenza di filologia, trovare due filologi d'accordo è estremamente raro. Il testo è una cosa fluida, è dinamica. 
This is the reason it is needed to start with images, that are more objective, and then going further to the top, creating different interpretations, different ontologies, ecc.
%Per questo bisogna partire da la cosa più oggettiva, cioè le immagini, poi andare via via più su, creando interpretazioni diverse, ontologie diverse, ecc. 
In an electronic archive, you can collect several different editions of the same text, as well as critics, comments [\dots]. You can make more people agree.
%Tu puoi classificare le prime edizioni, quello scritto dall'azione, le critiche: l'edizione elettronica ti da delle possibilità maggiori del libro a stampa, su cui devi 
%operare delle ovvie scelte per termini di spazio e costi. Un un archivio elettronico puoi mettere di tutto, ti permette di mettere d'accordo più persone. 
\end{quotation}

\subsection{Hypertextuality}
For interviewee \textit{I4}, hypertextuality was a bit of a issue.
The researcher provided him the example of wikis, where in the normal text it is possible to easily create hyperlinks (i.e. blue words in Wikipedia).
In a wiki digital library as Wikisource, this system is exploited to link quotations and cited author and texts to the original quotations, author and texts.\footnote{The 
issue of hypertext is a broad and complex topic that could not be developed by the present study. However, it will suffice to say that hypertext is one of the common and best metaphor of the net itself, 
and the whole world of digital libraries has taken his roots from the first experiments and conceptualization of hypertext. For further research, see \citeA{ridi2007}.}  :
\begin{quotation}
I believe that the approach of having an \textit{hypertext} directly on the textual layer is naive. 
%Il problema del livello ipertestuale, a livello testuale (link, riferiumenti, ecc.), senza prevedere dei layers, secondo me è un approccio un po' ingenuo
It is related to a common thought, which is in my opinion wrong, which believes that \textit{hypertext would need to make intertextuality shallow}, evident.  
%che si collega ad una tesi IMO sbagliata ma molto molto diffusa, per cui quello che fa un ipertesto è far emergere interstualità. 
It believes that a text itself \textit{is rich of implicit links, and the hypertext makes them explicit}. 
%Cioè un testo di per sè è ricco di rimandi impliciti e io con l'ipertesto li rendo espliciti. 
\end{quotation}

He continues arguing:
\begin{quotation}
The problem is that intertextuality is potentially never-ending, also in the very same hypertexts.
%Il problema è che l'intertestualità è qualcosa di potenzialmente inesauribile, anche negli ipertesti stessi. 
If people is given the opportunity of insert link in a plain text, these links are potentially infinite, and therefore it would be \textit{technically impossible}, 
because if links are not \textit{typified}, the very same word could generate different links, different paths\dots
%Se tu dai alla gente la possibilità di inserire link in un testo piatto, questi link sono potenzialmente infiniti, e sarebbe tecnicamente infattibile, dato che i link 
%non sarebbero tipizzati. La stessa parola potrebbe dar vita a link diversi...

The only way I see is to use different layers and \textit{typify} those layers: one layer dedicated to direct citations, another for back-links, etc. 
%Also \citeA{ridi2007} has discussed this idea, unfortunately not going very further and not providing concrete examples.
%L'unica possibilità sarebbe usare livelli diversi e attaverso i livelli tipizzare quello che vuoi dire. Layers dedicati alle citazioni dirette, 
%layers dedicati ai link in avanti ("chi ha citato questo testo"), ecc. Anche Ridi quando ha parla dell'idea, molto potente della biblioteca come ipertesto purtroppo 
%non scende molto nel concreto: l'insieme dei rimandi possibili è talmente ricco e multidimensionale che non riesci mai a gestirlo attraverso ipertesti piatti. 
\end{quotation}

\subsection{TEI mark-up}
The TEI, meaning \textquotedblleft Text Encoding Initiative\textquotedblright, is an international organization founded in 1987 to develop guidelines for encoding machine-readable texts in the humanities 
and social sciences \cite{teiFAQ}.
The TEI Guidelines \textquotedblleft define and document a markup language for representing the structural, renditional, and conceptual features of texts. 
They focus on the encoding of documents in the humanities and social sciences, and in particular on the representation of primary source 
materials for research and analysis\textquotedblright \cite{teiGL}.
TEI guidelines are thus an useful instrument for researchers, who can develop customized languages for their own texts and digital libraries.

Some interviewees were interested in the possibility of collaborative TEI mark-up: collaborative editing is very suitable for textual tasks as marking up a document, 
and several project, from Wikipedia to PlanethMath.org\footnote{\url{http://planetmath.org}}, do involve wikis and wiki-like system for text mark-up.  

Interviewee \texttt{I4} saw the TEI as a very useful layer of the collaboratory digital library:
\begin{quotation}
Marking-up a text in TEI could be useful, it could be a very functional and helpful layer, and too it could be done collaboratively.
On this mark-up, you could have other services, as data mining tools, etc.  
\end{quotation}

\subsection{Other layers}
Beyond tools that focus tools aimed to work on texts, there several other tasks that can be made \textit{around} them. 
Interviewee \texttt{I4} stated:
\begin{quotation}
There is the collaboration \textit{in establishing a specific text}, which it does not exist yet: it is particular, there are some specific issues. [\dots]
On the other hand, [there is the collaboration] \textit{around} a text, which it does exist [\dots] 
Around that text, which collaborative tools could be provided? [We could] gather critic texts, different interpretations, quotations, different uses of that same text
in different contexts (maybe academic or didactic).
\end{quotation}

He continues:
\begin{quotation}
What is not finished, and will never be completed, the whole environment of the references, quotations, critical literature, uses. 
%Quello che non è concluso, e che è impossibile chiudere, è il discorso dei riferimenti, dei rimandi, degli usi, della critica. 
This is what happened with the American Dante project: they collected the different editions, then they moved to the critics and comments. 
%Prendi di nuovo l'es. delle Divina commedia: il Dante Project americano ha collezionato le varie edizioni, poi è passato alla critica e ai commenti.
In my opinion, this the true field where to work collaboratively.  
\end{quotation}

Therefore, the next level of collaboration is around texts, maybe providing a critic literature framework for researchers, or collecting shared annotations and comments. 
In the CDLM, these tasks has been represented as higher levels. Moreover, these layers are also the less \textquotedblleft objective\textquotedblright and 
more influenced by personal interpretations and opinions. Which means that are tasks less suited for hard collaboration, or collaborative editing. 
In this case, the collaboration shift on communitcation, with the difference previously mentioned: from \textit{collaboration} to \textit{social}. 

\section{Open}
There is a deep connection between collaboration and sharing. 
It is beyond the scope of the present research to investigate these connections:
however, it must be emphasized that collaboration is a form of sharing, and openness is a crucial factors for both of them.
Highly collaborative projects demand often an high degree of openness, and the other way around. 
This little result, which needs further studies to be validated, was found during data collection, investigating issues related to strong collaboration. 
Interviewees were asked to express an opinion upon relationship between openness and collaboration.

Interviewee \texttt{I3} enlightened the issue of openness in Humanities, directly related with the issue of authorship and intellectual property:
\begin{quotation}
This is complicated, I admit that I'm a bit more conservative about this. In Humanities a scholar writes and his byproducts what is its intellectual products, research,
is that it produces.

Within science, there are patents, technologies, tools are developed. Moreover, apart from rare exceptions, no theory is constructed on the singular individual,
but more on past research. [Technological and sientific] innovations innovate only 5 percent of earlier theories. Contributions in these theories are multiple 
and minimal.

For us [in Humanities] it is a bit more complicated, because the \textit{interpretation} has a value in itself. 
So I understand the issue of protecting even the letter of what I write,
so no one appropriates it to write his text. There is an authorship problem, which is important and must be addressed.
This also does not cover the speech open license and permit closed, but the recognition of intellectual authorship.

Internet in fact undermines the effective protection of intellectual property, and people copy. [\dots]
The issue of \textit{economic} rights is almost \textit{insignificant}, there are virtually no revenue for humanistic work.
I am convinced that the protection of open content, along with the protection for those who first expressed a particular idea in a particular form is a goal to pursuit. 
\end{quotation}

According to him, there is also the obstacle of the \textquotedblleft proprietary\textquotedblright mentality of institution and singular scholars:
\begin{quotation}
There is then the problem of institution, which tend to consider everything as \textit{private property}.
The issue of Open Access and Open archives in Humanities is desolating: in Humanities, no ones put there anything of their own.
\end{quotation}


\bibliographystyle{apacite}
\bibliography{analysis}

%\end{document}
