Home

Mewburn, Inger. 2011-03-17. “Zotero vs Endnote 4: the battle is on!” In this post PhD student, Gabriel Oguda, who is studying for an MPhil in Health Promotion at the University of Bergen in Norway, argued in favour of Zotero.

There was a conflict between firefox and therefore zotero on the PC (Vista?) setup I began using in 2007 and continue to use. With the crashes, clean-up and switch I was forced back to Internet Explorer and “lost” the zotero library I had been slowing building. Since then I haven’t taken the risk of switching back to Firefox and I miss many of its features.

My Endnote librairies remained intact as I had backed them up in multiple spaces both virtual and really real.

Since the crashes, clean-up and switch, I have been drawn back to Endnote as the safety deposit box of my webliographies and bibliographies.

I am not comfortable being so dependent on a product I cannot update (since I am no longer affiliated with the academic institutions that provided me with access and or licensed software)
But EndNote is reliable, robust and ready-to-use. It is really like FoxPro’s dynamic query searching (relational query by example?) capacity.

End Note Search It lets me break the rules a little so I can use it to keep track of glossaries, timelines, biographies using their titles fields, etc in unconventional ways. It generates useful data such as my timelines in .html format. It lets me share my bibliographies seamlessly on my blogs.

It’s a bit like owning a very old Volvo (my licensed EndNote software dates from c. 2002-3? and will not support the http://www.myendnoteweb.com Alex so kindly recommended) that is ultra solid and dependable when I know I really cannot afford the repairs. Except that so much of my data is softwere dependent and there is always that concern that I might lose access to my own research as I did with FoxPro, ToolBook and Olympus. (Files no longer open because I am missing licensed upgrades). This was my motivation for experimenting with open source.

My original speechless page (2006-12-13) speechless >> web 2.0 >> Zotero vs EndNote has been attracting the most visits of all my posts lately so I have decided to update it as this post entitled “Zotero vs EndNote: 2006 – 2008”.

I would be really interested in Alex Liberzon’s experiences with http://www.myendnoteweb.com, http://www.CiteULike.org and LaTeX. See Zotero vs EndNote post (2007-01-23) has been finding out about . Says: January 23, 2007 at 7:52 pm e

Like Farrel Buchinsky (2007-02-17) I am looking forward to a seamless interface between Google docs, open source word processors and Zotero, Connotea or even Endnote (?) where citations and bibliographies will be automatically generated. My wish list/to-do-list continues to include a library database using Zotero that has compatibilities with free source like Google docs that worked like EndNote and the big name proprietorial software (BNPS) I became dependent on.

Since working with Google docs I have enjoyed the fact the my PC does not crash as it used to with the BNPS. But I still haven’t taken the time to learn how to integrate zotero with Google docs (or grant applications and manuscripts). Once I do I will post it. I use my own blog more as a How-did-I-do-that? not as a How-you-should-do-it?. There are better sites for the latter. I am a bricoleuse.

I would like to really use My EndNote Web as Alex Leberzon suggested but this service is only available for EndNote 10 licensed users. I’m EndNote 8. I have also started to investigate Cite-U-Like but I am discouraged by its academic criteria-based exclusivity. (I’m not even sure it accepts New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles? Concepts of authority (who can be a knower?) need to be re-examined in the era of Web 2.0+.) I still prefer deli.ci.ous. I have not been able to update my MySwickis and my Customized Google Search as much as I would like as these are invaluable resources for focused research.

Testing COinS Generator:

(Žižek, Slavoj. 2004. Organs without Bodies: on Deleuze and Consequences. New York/London. Routledge)

COins Generator


Speechless is now on WordPress’ list of Growing Blogs with 22,854 viewers. My first entry was entitled “Navigation Tools for the Blogosphere” and as I approach Speechless’ first anniversary I’ve just begun to use two new Open Source applications, CiteULike and Flexlists. I had attempted Zotero as a replacement for my huge EndNote library but I somehow lost the new library when I switched computers. CiteULike is all on-line and annotates references for me in formats used by academics. It also allows me to enter my CiteULike entries into my EndNote database. So far I’ve just been experimenting with compiling references on the concept of “memory work” in My Webliography and Bibliography. I have been contributing to building on-line resources of the concept “memory work” on wikipedia, deli.cio.us, WordPress, Googles Customized Search and Swicki.

I’ve also begun a list of key concepts on Flexlists which I prefer to call My Organic Glossary since it will mutate as my understanding of terms matures, deepens and develops through further teaching, learning and research.

I had attempted to use Babylon as an Open Source on-line build-your-own-glossary but realized that it is not actually free. It offers a limited introductory period followed by a pay-to-use plan. It would have been frustrating to invest time in building a glossary only to lose access to it!

I’ve started investing more time into my Google Customized Search on “Memory Work” and added Adsense. I have added refinements to it through labels: health, academic, article, museology, Inuit,


This slideshow Logo Digitage Web2.0 was featured on SlideShare on June 18!

Digitage Web 2.0

June 14, 2007


Logos from Web 2.0 are caught in the web somewhere between NASA photos of deep space, science fiction landscapes of our inner space, the synapses of the brain, the virtual space that is not abstract, imagined or really real.

Web 2.0, is a term coined by Tim O’Reilly in 2004 for a series of conferences on a revivified Internet. O’Reilly (2005) in what is now considered to be his seminal article claimed that, “If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0 (O’Reilly 2005). He contrasted Web 1.0 with Web 2.0 by citing examples: DoubleClick vs Google AdSense, Ofoto vs Flickr, Britannica Online vs Wikipedia, personal websites vs blogging, domain name speculation vs search engine optimization, page views vs cost per click, publishing vs participation, content management systems vs wikis directories (taxonomy) vs tagging (”folksonomy”) and stickiness vs syndication. The conceptual map his team devised provides a sketch of Web 2.0 showing social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies.

Although some argue that it does not exist as anything more than geek jargon, for this new user, it is a promising and surprising paradigm shift in the Internet and in software development. I began blogging using Web 2.0 freeware in September 2006. Numerous users like myself have access to sophisticated, ever-improving software technologies since the cost of development is shared among enthusiastic nerds and geeks (in a good way). Freeware on Web 2.0 is not proprietary by nature but is capable of generating huge profits because of the viral way in which users share in the development, marketing and growth of the product while improving connectivity and in content in the process.

Note: June 2007. This image was included in Weinreich’s slideshare album with a layer of text he added:New Generation Social Marketing. He had to resize the image to the PowerPoint format. It is credited to me in the transcript. It is fascinating how digitage such as this has a potential for producing offshoots. I am investigating the potential of slideshare for managing teaching, learning and research digitage (slides) in one place. I started to put them in my Flickr albums. Since I first created this image I have begun to use YouTube, Google docs, iGoogle and Facebook so there are several layers of text orbits to be added . . .

Key words: slideshare, academic, blog, blogging, collaboration, presentation, web2.0, powerpoint, slides, sharing presentations, slideshare, academic, collaboration, presentation, web2.0, powerpoint, slides, sharing presentations, Tim O’Reilly, wordpress.com, vastation, synaptic gasp, swicki, synapses, synaptic cleft, synaptic gap, rapture of the deep internet, photoshop, neuroscience, neural architectonics, mind-brain, googleearth, gather, frimr, flickr, digitage, delicious, cybernarcosis, cyberdelirium, cyberdeliria, creative commons, consciousness, bricoleuse, blogspot, blogging, art and science, technology, mind, Adobe Photoshop

Selected webliography

Tim O’Reilly, 2005. “What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software”. Uploaded 09/30/2005. Accessed January 6, 2007.



Flynn-Burhoe, Maureen. 2006. Ripples Algorithm
Applying algorithms to ripples is as necessary in art as in science. Those applied by artists are invisible and unconscious but omnipresent. I googled for measurements to better understand M. C. Escher’s linogravure (1950) Cercles dans eau in relation to Andrew Davidhazy‘s photographs of the ripple effect of a drop disturbing the calm surface of a body of water.

I wanted to compare the measurements for the angles at which both these images were captured. I had layered them but they were not the same at all. This image was viewed on my Flickr account 2,843 times from October 22, 2006 when I first uploaded it to January 29, 2007. I finally printed it out in December 2006 at Apple Printers in Duncan, BC. The print quality potential at the shop is excellent but the image did not stand up to a printout! The layer of Escher’s print is too bluntly cut off and I was disappointed in the edges of my globes. So I opened all my original files again and went to work to clean it up. I realized that the angles at which Escher and Davidhazy captured their images, were different.

Andrew Davidhazy’s photographs of water splashes

“concentrate on the after effects of the impact of a drop of water on a shallow layer of the same liquid. He documents an aspect of fluid mechanics. This is a recoil or rebound effect of the surface responding to the sudden disturbance caused by a drop of water hitting the surface. The recoil column of water rises to surprising elevations above the surface and then due to surface tension effects it breaks up into droplets that fall back into the host liquid under the pull of gravity.”

Of course, I knew Escher’s original print was a double-ripple on a mirrored surface clearly reflecting branches of a tree without any leaves against a white sun. The serenity of Davidhazy’s photo could not be interrupted with an entire tree! But I would have liked to have had a better resonance between the angles of the ripples. There was more than one question. How do you measure the angle of perspective of the ripples? How do you measure a ripple affect? The first is basic Renaissance perspective but the second . . .

When professor Mikhail Nesterenko describes wave algorithms his descriptions are written in the language of computers and science: mathematics, engineering and physics but there is something of the philosophical that engaged me . . . almost poetry.

In this <a href=”http://www.photoblog.com/user/oceanflynn/2006/12/19″>image on my photoblog</a> I layered a sections of his description with a detail of M. C. Escher’s print. So which kind of algorithm is used by Escher and Davidhazy?

“Wave algorithm satisfies the following three properties:

  1. Termination: each computation is finite
  2. Decision: each computation contains at least one decide event
  3. Dependence: in each computation each decide event is causally preceded by an event in each process
  • initiator(starter) – process that execution of its actions spontaneously
  • non-initiator(follower) – starts execution only when receives a message

Wave algorithms differ in many respects, some features:

  • Centralized (single-source)
  • – one initiator; decentralized (multisource)
  • – multiple initiators

Topology – ring, tree, clique, etc.
Initial knowledge:

  • Each process knows its own unique name
  • Each process knows the names of its neighbors
  • Number of decisions to occur in each process
  • Usually wave algorithms exchange messages with no content

Footnotes

Andrew Davidhazy also works with digital strip panaroma of 360 degrees views

For more on stunning visual effects of fluid mechanics see Alex Liberzon’s site here. . he is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer, Faculty of Engineering of the Tel Aviv University.