I am unfortunately not even suitably qualified to be a respectable idiot, just 'idiot' or 'clown' will have to suffice. As I give 'The Digital Scholar' a third read I am reminded how you suggest the importance, in contrast to Boyer, of traits that may seem 'unscholarly'. The digital reality will be that only with hindsight will we see what scholarship is produced and then discover how it came about rather thsn thinking that wearing scholarly airs and graces of any kind will deliver the goods.

I was suprised by a faculty meeting in which outputs from these fingers may considered 'scholarship'. The very thought has me tripping over my preferred and well practiced 'stream of consciousness' writing style, which along with typos, will not, until I know them off-heart, be properly referenced either. (But I could always get someone else to come in and do that?) Yet to blog on the Digital Scholarship debate because I am yet to create the six hours or so I feel I need to offer a substantial and substantiate response. My view remains that digital scholarship, in blog form at least, already exists. The author may not know it, and institutional free and unfunded they have no need to make a song and dance about it. on verra.