<!--StartFragment-->
On how we differentiate the scholarly usefulness of archives, versus editions, etc.: I like your point that digital humanists are advancing scholarship by illuminating their decisions and decision-making processes. I think that in doing so they are also pushing the definition of intellectual work, by asserting that those choices of presentation are active and interpretive—you cover this pretty well in your essay. My friend Jen has been doing some interesting work lately in which she interrogates the fact that scholars place a higher value on original written work than anything else, followed perhaps by curation and the compilation of edited volumes, with the act of reading ranking lowest of all. This implies that there are fewer intellectual claims being made in projects that do not culminate in the publication of the scholar’s original material. Jen wants to destabilize this hierarchy by theorizing reading as a productive act, especially with the aid of digital media in which the reader can leave footprints such as comments (like this one!), bringing the writer, editor, and reader more on par. I like your point that we need to consider the level of active scholarship that goes into curation, and I think that you and Jen are part of the same conversation. If you’re interested, you can check out her work on this idea at her blog (<a href="http://www.hastac.org/blogs/jenrajchel/reader-20-why-it-isnt-virginia-woolfs-judith-shakespeare" rel="nofollow">http://www.hastac.org/blogs/jenrajchel/reader-20-why-it-isnt-virginia-woolfs-judith-shakespeare</a>) or in the introduction to her digital thesis, here (http://mooreandpoetry.blogs.brynmawr.edu/2010/06/21/introduction/)
<!--EndFragment-->