iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Das hängt sicher damit zusammen, dass DH dort sowieso anders gelagert war. Trotzdem gilt es, ein Verständnis für die Komplexität/Tiefe der Fragestellungen in den DH (und ihrer Erkenntnisse) in die Breite zu tragen. Sonst bleiben die DH bloß Zuschauer bei ihrem Abschied aus der Relevanz.

030

Sonst wird es den DH ergehen wie anderen Strömungen vor ihnen. Sie werden zum Artefakt einer zersplitterten Geschichte von Diskontinuitäten. Dazu habe ich auch auf der #DHd2026 ein paar Gespräche geführt. In Deutschland sehe ich die Gefahr nicht unmittelbar, international (USA) ist sie schon da.

Es fehlen wohl die eigenen großen Gegenentwürfe, weil man dafür keine Zeit hat. Und stattdessen mit, äh, Arbeit (Projekten, Studien, Ergebnissen) beschäftigt ist. Da bleibt meist keine Muße. Aber wie Peer Trilcke eindrucksvoll veranschaulicht, müssen wir diese Energie entwickeln.

In diese Lücke stoßen Philosophen, Medientheoretiker und Geisteswissenschaftler anderer, theoriestärkerer Disziplinen. Deren Eingaben sind interessant, aber oft am Kern der Sache (ich will nun nicht sagen: an der Realität) vorbei. Warum lassen sich die DH von links und rechts überholen?

Tessa Gengnagel @tesstess.bsky.social · 01/03/2026

Wunderbare Rezension von @peertrilcke.bsky.social zu Sybille Krämers "Stachel des Digitalen". Die #DigitalHumanities besitzen die Expertise; eine öffentliche intellektuelle Einordnung (von sich selbst, von Digitalität/Geisteswissenschaften, vom Einfluss von genAI) überlassen sie anderen.

1115

Honestly seems like they thought we were capable but lazy. Which is wild on its own but maybe not as offensive (though extremely presumptuous in multiple directions). Anyway, onwards and upwards. We can use the reviews to improve the abstract and clear things up so the process isn't entirely broken.

230

Tessa Gengnagel @tesstess.bsky.social · 01/03/2026

They for sure thought they were being helpful and their other comments show they're not an idiot. But since they assumed we had actively opted for AI translation *into* English, it's even more offensive to tell us we should try "thinking in English" instead 💀

Tessa Gengnagel @tesstess.bsky.social · 01/03/2026

Thank you and no apologies needed! To me that point seemed very clear. I don't know what that reviewer was thinking but thankfully it doesn't matter 😄

By which I mean: Was that option not meant to allow the live presentations to be translated into different languages? Because the presentation language was asked separately and I stated that ours would be in English. Which is why I don't understand the reviewer thinking otherwise.

120

It's almost comically offensive. They might have been confused by the AI translation option in Conftool (I might have checked that wrong, I thought it was about allowing the live presentations to be translated into all kinds of languages) but either way, what a wild thing to say.

120

Actually I'm realising that the reviewer who (wrongly) assumed we used AI translation in our submission might have been confused by the AI translation option in the Conftool on top of things. Now I'm confused as well. @dh2026daejeon.bsky.social Was that option meant to be multidirectional? #DH2026

230

That's a very interesting point. Def tracks! I can also see why the reviewer might have thought we translated parts because the vibes may be slightly "foreign" even if the language isn't. They said we should try thinking in English... so much to unpack... (I do think in English more than I'd like).

(But also I'm not the only author of the paper and who knows why they were so adamant it was an AI translation, maybe the different parts felt too frankenstein'd together. Though to me that spells the opposite of bland AI slop. Reviewer 2 found it too dense. Reviewer 3 wanted even more refs 😂 Mess.)

000

Congrats! I've applied for a travel stipend as well so fingers crossed! (As Tara pointed out, the reviewer might not have been Anglo, so I shouldn't have gone off like that, just got up in my feels bc I've put in so many years to get to that level. Reviewers should be mindful of such sensitivities.)

100

At least I hope reviewers will consider keeping such thoughts to themselves 😭 I'm sure if I met them we could laugh about it but it's really a crazy thing to say with such confidence (and be wrong about). It's actually the best review aside from that. But even just the idea of AI is bricking people.

True, I assumed that based on the way they phrased their criticism which very much points in that direction but due to the lack of open peer review, it's just a guess. You'd think a native Anglophone would be able to tell the difference though, so maybe they're not.

120

(Also, yes, I've always used em dashes and will continue to do so and that doesn't make me AI either lol)

340

(With this thread I'm only venting on my own behalf, not that of my co-author who may well have different opinions. I'll now focus on being happy that the paper was accepted at all despite these weird misunderstandings and despite the real – rather than imagined – shortcomings that it has.)