Ein Uni-Journal („Innovate“, Nova Southeastern University) hat den Historiker, Blogger und Zotero-Entwickler Trevor Owens interviewt. Die Antworten auf die ersten drei Fragen bringen gegenüber den sehr instruktiven Zotero-Screencasts wenig Neues. Frage/Antwort fünf begründet, warum Benutzer wegen des Open Source-Entwicklungsmodells und der konsequenten Verwendung offener, etablierter Standards dem Produkt vertrauen können.
Aus den letzten beiden Frage/Antwort-Paaren möchte ich hier zitieren, da Trevor Owens darin treffend die neue Welt des „Bibliographierens 2.0“ skizziert. Dem Text ist deutlich die Perspektive des Geisteswissenschaftlers („tausende Arbeitsstunde flieÃ?en in jede Monographie ein“) und die Nähe zum Lehrbetrieb anzumerken.
By embedding information in bibliographic references it becomes possible for publishers to allow users to instantly capture all the sources referenced in an individual article, a syllabus, or a vita. We like to refer to this as the fluidity of bibliography; reference material is already moving in a much more fluid way between producers and consumers of information.
(…) Consider the scholarly monograph. Thousands of hours of research go into every project, and resulting publications really only represent about 10 percent of that work. There is a wide assortment of notes, assessments, and organizational structures that never make their way out to the public. This hidden layer of knowledge has been lost or has traditionally been passed on informally, as a kind of „professional folk wisdom“ (…). When Zotero users can share their collections, they will have the ability to share much of this work and effort. Once-ephemeral products of researchâ??insightful but peripheral commentary, helpful abstracts, even bibliographies themselvesâ??will become part of the wider scholarly effort, contributing to the collective pool of notes about items and to the collection of knowledge in a particular area.
(…) One of the big advantages of using Zotero in conjunction with student research is that it makes explicit much of the implicit prewriting process. Students organize, take notes, tag, and categorize various source materials before ever starting to write. Responsible research practice is on some level encouraged by the structure of the tool. We have augmented this tacit capability with an additional power tool for teachers to make their students‘ bibliographies completely transparent. Any user can generate comprehensive reports including every item in a collection, the tags and notes associated with those items, the dates those items were added to the collection, and where the resource was acquired. Students can print these reports and hand them in as documentation of their research process; teachers have found these comprehensive reports to be a useful way to peer into and encourage the prewriting process.
(…) Students and teachers will be able to create collaborative bibliographic collections that reflect and extend the work in the classroom or collaborate with researchers and students at other institutions to build a shared resource around a particular topic. RSS feeds from the collections of other students in the class and of the instructor will allow a new way for teachers to be in touch with their students‘ research activities and give students a portal into the research practices of their teachers.
Eine aktuelle, wiki-basierte Bibliographie mit — u.a. zahlreichen deutschsprachigen — Texten zum Thema „Bibliographieren 2.0“ gibt es von dem Baseler Historiker und Blogger Peter Haber, Vom Nutzen und Nachteil des Bibliographierens im digitalen Zeitalter. (Konferenz-Handout, Berlin, 20.11.2007).