I've been working with a reader and friend on a project to build a tool for managing information for humanities scholars and others who deal with textual data, and I've been thinking about the problem of information management a bit more seriously. Unlike numerical, or more easily categorized information data, how to take a bunch of textual information--either of your own production or a library of your own collection--is far from a solved problem.

The technical limitation--from a pragmatic perspective--is that you need to have an understanding not only of the specific tasks in front of you, but a grasp of the entire collection of information you work with in order to effectively organize, manage, and use the texts as an aggregate.

"But wait," you say. "Google solved this problem a long time ago, you don't need a deterministic information management tool, you need to brute force the problem with enough raw data, some clever algorithms, and search tools," you explain. And on some level you'd be right. The problem is of course, you can't create knowledge with Google.

Google doesn't give us the ability to discover information that's new, or powerful. Google works best when we know exactly what we're looking for, the top results in Google are most likely to be the resources that the most people know and are familiar. Google's good, and useful and a wonderful tool that more people should probably use but Google cannot lead you into novel territory.

Which brings us back to local information management tools. When you can collect, organize, and manipulate data in your own library you can draw novel conclusions, When the information is well organized, and you can survey a collection in useful and meaningful ways, you can see holes and collect more, you can search tactically, and within subsets of articles to provide. I've been talking for more than a year about the utility of curation in the creation of value on-line. and fundamentally I think the same holds true for personal information collections.

Which brings us back to the ways we organize information. And my firm conclusion that we don't have a really good way of organizing information. Everything that I'm aware of either relies on search, and therefore only allows us to find what we already know we're looking for, or requires us to understand our final conclusions during the preliminary phase of our investigations.

The solution to this problem is thus two fold: First, we need tools that allow us to work with and organize the data for our projects, full stop. Wiki's, never ending text files, don't really address all of the different ways we need to work with and organize information. Secondly we need tool tools that are tailored to the way researchers who deal in text work with information from collection and processing to quoting and citation, rather than focusing on the end stage of this process. These tools should allow our conceptual framework for organizing information to evolve as the project evolves.

I'm not sure what that looks like for sure, but I'd like to find out. If you're interested, do help us think about this!

(Also, see this post `regarding the current state of the Cyborg Institute <http://www.cyborginstitute.com/2010/06/a-report-from-the-institute/>`_.)