Huff, Chuck. "The Internet is a Fine Place for Women," Computers and Society December 1997 (pg 27)
Chuck Huff offers a new perspective regarding the inhospitable behavior a few on the Internet have directed toward women. He is a person with history in this technology. He uses it to write his newspaper column and he also publishes freelance articles about issues of interest. I believe he understands that some women who might genuinely enjoy and profit from participation in the Internet might have second thoughts given this adverse but very real news about the dangers and threats that this form of communication leaves one open to. Especially disturbing are reports of "virtual rape", harassment and degredation that have found their way into Internet forums and recent articles about them. Mr. Huff goes on to point out that despite all of these negatives, there are several positives that he sees. First of all, there is variety in the Net and this grows every day. New web sites are opening every offering a divergence to address the interests and issues of more readers . Additionally, more women are participating in online forums. Women, initially a minority, are beginning to have a voice, without altering anyone elses.
Mr Huff gives all of us some reasonable hope for the future of the Net. For years many of us have heard only the bad and frightening things that are part of this world. Sometimes we forget that the real world can be a dangerous place too. But few of us would quit going outside because of this fear. We learn to be more reasonable and cautious while we enjoy the world.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Thursday, April 5, 2007
The Internet is a Fine Place for Women
Huff, Chuck. "The Internet Is a Fine Place for Women", Computers and Society, December, 1997 (pg 27).
Chuck Huff is optimistic about the Internet as a place women can find their voice. He understands the dark side of the Internet. He does not make light of the sexual harassment and "virtual rape" ostracism and sexual stereotyping that takes place in some forums and chat rooms.. But he argues that there are still many communities and forums in the net culture. They take all different kinds of style and shapes, There is much room for positive experiences and variety but we all need to use our "fine good sense to exploit it."
You're right, Mr Huff. What surprises me is that anyone would have difficulty figuring this out. Even in the real world there are dark places and people have dark sides. I imagine anyone who has fallen victim to this would be justifiably wary. But the real trick in life, including the Internet is to approach where we go, what we do and who we meet with a little caution and good sense.
Chuck Huff is optimistic about the Internet as a place women can find their voice. He understands the dark side of the Internet. He does not make light of the sexual harassment and "virtual rape" ostracism and sexual stereotyping that takes place in some forums and chat rooms.. But he argues that there are still many communities and forums in the net culture. They take all different kinds of style and shapes, There is much room for positive experiences and variety but we all need to use our "fine good sense to exploit it."
You're right, Mr Huff. What surprises me is that anyone would have difficulty figuring this out. Even in the real world there are dark places and people have dark sides. I imagine anyone who has fallen victim to this would be justifiably wary. But the real trick in life, including the Internet is to approach where we go, what we do and who we meet with a little caution and good sense.
Gender Gap in Cyberspace
Tannen, Deborah. "Gender Gap in Cyberspace", Newsweek, 16 May 1994, pgs 52-53.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/popular.htm 6 Apr 2007
Deborah Tannen describes herself as a pioneer in the use of personal computers. She certainly is just that. In 1980 most people had little contact with computers and fewer saw any reason to invest in a personal computer for their home. This was the time when Deborah and her friend, Ralph took the plunge. As the story progresses, Ralph became more involved in and acquired understanding of the technology while Ms. Tannen admittedly became more involved in computer use, not mastery. We learn her interest in computers grew when she discovered and, in her own words, got hooked on email. She writes about two quite basic differences she sees in computer use between men and women. First, women seldom take an interest in the nuts and bolts of computers. Ralph described how men struggle to get the upper hand, they want to show this machine who's boss. She feels women typically just want the computer to work for them, they don't want to be challenged by it. She found email an especially enjoyable way to connect with others but here too she found basic differences evident to her between men and women. She pointed out the dark side of derogatory and unwarranted sexual comments that the anonymity of email brings out in some men. On the brighter side, she found men more likely to respond to technical questions with lengthy but helpful information. She reminisced that although she was a pioneer, one of the earliest users of personal computers, she was happy if it worked she didn't need to understand why (or how) it worked.
I believe I would catagorize mysely with Ms. Tannen on this issue. I'm always amazed when I discover something new I can do aith a computer, especially when it makes my work easier. But I really have no interest fixing things when they go wrong with the computer. I leave this to the experts and in my house they are all men.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/popular.htm 6 Apr 2007
Deborah Tannen describes herself as a pioneer in the use of personal computers. She certainly is just that. In 1980 most people had little contact with computers and fewer saw any reason to invest in a personal computer for their home. This was the time when Deborah and her friend, Ralph took the plunge. As the story progresses, Ralph became more involved in and acquired understanding of the technology while Ms. Tannen admittedly became more involved in computer use, not mastery. We learn her interest in computers grew when she discovered and, in her own words, got hooked on email. She writes about two quite basic differences she sees in computer use between men and women. First, women seldom take an interest in the nuts and bolts of computers. Ralph described how men struggle to get the upper hand, they want to show this machine who's boss. She feels women typically just want the computer to work for them, they don't want to be challenged by it. She found email an especially enjoyable way to connect with others but here too she found basic differences evident to her between men and women. She pointed out the dark side of derogatory and unwarranted sexual comments that the anonymity of email brings out in some men. On the brighter side, she found men more likely to respond to technical questions with lengthy but helpful information. She reminisced that although she was a pioneer, one of the earliest users of personal computers, she was happy if it worked she didn't need to understand why (or how) it worked.
I believe I would catagorize mysely with Ms. Tannen on this issue. I'm always amazed when I discover something new I can do aith a computer, especially when it makes my work easier. But I really have no interest fixing things when they go wrong with the computer. I leave this to the experts and in my house they are all men.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Warcraft: Another Point of View
ROBUSTYOUNGSOUL (Anonymous). "Warcraft: Another Point of View", Online posting 19 Oct 2006, SOUL KERFUFFLE. 1 Apr 2007
This blog is an answer and a different point of view from the one taken by Andy in A View From the Top. The writer is a friend of Andy's and says he supported his move out of online gaming. For himself, he says he has a happy, busy and successful life as he continues to participate in World of Warcraft. He told us he was able to get a Masters degree and work a part time job while playing online. He says he is improving his game while has a life outside of gaming.He "goes to the movies, persues other hobbies and calls friends." He says he can walk away when frustrated but admits casually that he plays every night (for fifteen minutes) before he goes to bed.He mentions giving up herbalism and having an ex ( girlfriend? wife? ). He writes that he hasn't given up large amounts of his life but he enjoys it and feels there are people in the game that he "loves and have made it worthwhile to play."
All-in-all Mr. Anonymous, I'm glad that you are enjoying yourself but I don't think you have much of a life. The real difficulty that I have with the Internet and computer technology is that it circumvents face to face life. The technology itself is fun, educational and has much promise but it is not the real world. That usually involves, for most of the adults I know, a full time job and a life that is occasionally interrupted by gaming, not the other way around.
This blog is an answer and a different point of view from the one taken by Andy in A View From the Top. The writer is a friend of Andy's and says he supported his move out of online gaming. For himself, he says he has a happy, busy and successful life as he continues to participate in World of Warcraft. He told us he was able to get a Masters degree and work a part time job while playing online. He says he is improving his game while has a life outside of gaming.He "goes to the movies, persues other hobbies and calls friends." He says he can walk away when frustrated but admits casually that he plays every night (for fifteen minutes) before he goes to bed.He mentions giving up herbalism and having an ex ( girlfriend? wife? ). He writes that he hasn't given up large amounts of his life but he enjoys it and feels there are people in the game that he "loves and have made it worthwhile to play."
All-in-all Mr. Anonymous, I'm glad that you are enjoying yourself but I don't think you have much of a life. The real difficulty that I have with the Internet and computer technology is that it circumvents face to face life. The technology itself is fun, educational and has much promise but it is not the real world. That usually involves, for most of the adults I know, a full time job and a life that is occasionally interrupted by gaming, not the other way around.
The View fron the Top
ROBUSTYOUNGSOUL (Andy). "The View From the Top" Online posting 17 Oct 2006 SOUL KEFFUFFLE, 1 Apr 2007
This blog post summarizes a young man's reasons for his participation in online gaming and the subsequent reasons he had for walking away from what had become a major part of his life. The writer (Andy) describes his entry into the World of Warcraft when he was a young man fresh out of school with lots of free time on his hands. He wrote about the friends he made, what he learned and how he was able to advance in the "Guild" in the more than a year he spent wrapped up in online gaming. His decision to quit the game cold-turkey seemed based on the fact that he realized his whole life was wrapped up in this game and the end result was that he had no life. As he spent all of his time working his way up the ladder of the game, taking his responsibilities seriously, he suddenly realized that this game would go on quite nicely without him and not lose a beat when he left.
Andy was a lucky young man. He played and enjoyed this game for over a year as it took over his real life in terms of time and energy. But as he points out himself, he left before he had lost those things that really matter in the real world. He was single without any family responsibilities, he had not done irreparable damage to his career and he was able to step back and take a realistic view of his life. It sounded to me that he was a little disappointed at having lost this time in his real life but he managed to have an optimistic view of his future without online gaming. I believe he has gotten his priorities well organized. We would all be wise to take this kind of critical look at our priorities.
Enjoy your memories of the past and the lessons it teaches you while you look forward to the future Andy, you're headed in the right direction.
This blog post summarizes a young man's reasons for his participation in online gaming and the subsequent reasons he had for walking away from what had become a major part of his life. The writer (Andy) describes his entry into the World of Warcraft when he was a young man fresh out of school with lots of free time on his hands. He wrote about the friends he made, what he learned and how he was able to advance in the "Guild" in the more than a year he spent wrapped up in online gaming. His decision to quit the game cold-turkey seemed based on the fact that he realized his whole life was wrapped up in this game and the end result was that he had no life. As he spent all of his time working his way up the ladder of the game, taking his responsibilities seriously, he suddenly realized that this game would go on quite nicely without him and not lose a beat when he left.
Andy was a lucky young man. He played and enjoyed this game for over a year as it took over his real life in terms of time and energy. But as he points out himself, he left before he had lost those things that really matter in the real world. He was single without any family responsibilities, he had not done irreparable damage to his career and he was able to step back and take a realistic view of his life. It sounded to me that he was a little disappointed at having lost this time in his real life but he managed to have an optimistic view of his future without online gaming. I believe he has gotten his priorities well organized. We would all be wise to take this kind of critical look at our priorities.
Enjoy your memories of the past and the lessons it teaches you while you look forward to the future Andy, you're headed in the right direction.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Web and the Future of Writing
Scanlon, Chip. The Web and the Future of Writing. Poynteronline, posted Dec 18, 2002
Chip Scanlon plays the wise sage in this article. He has been a writer long anough to know that things change and you need to "go with the flow".But he has been a good writewr and knows that some things should never change. He writes about the new technology that is now such an integral part of journalism and news writing. Not only has the internet age allowed for worldwide communication, it allows for world apart interviews. This certainly provides a new horizon when a journalist can interview "together" world leaders, personalities or figures of importance at one time. Can provide communication, both audio and visual, between all and do so on a live broadcast. But he reminds would -be writers and journalists that there are practices that good journalism will always require of a writer. First is the face-to-face interview. A video conference or telephone conference simply cannot replace what this brings to a good story. The interaction between interviewee and interviewer, "the texture, completeness and accuracy that only person-to-person reporting can bring" to a story is left out in a long distance interview. anyone who has studied digitally formatted information,agrees that "users don't scroll" and frequently "read only the top part of an article". For this reason writers on the Web often resort to short articles with eye-catching headlines. Scanlon cautions that this type of reporting, especially when it relies on visual and/or audio technology, cannot replace a well written article or broadcast that engages it's reader/listener and relies on well documented, factual information. He compares a broadcast writer who often writes to enhance what the vieweer sees and hears to the print writer who uses words and story to create an image on the screen that is the readers mind.
I tend to agree with Mr. Scolon. The new technology available to writers provides a wealth of opportunity and innovation but this cannot replace the tenacity and talent of a reporter who interviews the principles, researches the subject and writes to engage the reader with the words and story. Certainly this type of writer will have readers using the scroll bar before they do the back button.
Chip Scanlon plays the wise sage in this article. He has been a writer long anough to know that things change and you need to "go with the flow".But he has been a good writewr and knows that some things should never change. He writes about the new technology that is now such an integral part of journalism and news writing. Not only has the internet age allowed for worldwide communication, it allows for world apart interviews. This certainly provides a new horizon when a journalist can interview "together" world leaders, personalities or figures of importance at one time. Can provide communication, both audio and visual, between all and do so on a live broadcast. But he reminds would -be writers and journalists that there are practices that good journalism will always require of a writer. First is the face-to-face interview. A video conference or telephone conference simply cannot replace what this brings to a good story. The interaction between interviewee and interviewer, "the texture, completeness and accuracy that only person-to-person reporting can bring" to a story is left out in a long distance interview. anyone who has studied digitally formatted information,agrees that "users don't scroll" and frequently "read only the top part of an article". For this reason writers on the Web often resort to short articles with eye-catching headlines. Scanlon cautions that this type of reporting, especially when it relies on visual and/or audio technology, cannot replace a well written article or broadcast that engages it's reader/listener and relies on well documented, factual information. He compares a broadcast writer who often writes to enhance what the vieweer sees and hears to the print writer who uses words and story to create an image on the screen that is the readers mind.
I tend to agree with Mr. Scolon. The new technology available to writers provides a wealth of opportunity and innovation but this cannot replace the tenacity and talent of a reporter who interviews the principles, researches the subject and writes to engage the reader with the words and story. Certainly this type of writer will have readers using the scroll bar before they do the back button.
Friday, March 16, 2007
New Mediaeval Aesthetic
Zorach,Rebecca E. "New Mediaeval Aesthetic", Wired: Issue 2.01, Jan 1994.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.01/mediaeval.html 16 March 2007
Rebecca Zorach provides interesting parallels between the "nodes" of medieval texting, writing and copying in the monastaries and the texting, writing and copying that the internet has made so available to us. Copying was the means of preserving information in the past. It also described they active creation of new material in what was learned from the past. The printing press, although it provided the means to easily print and distribute books, limited the number of individauls who could contribute. It also created a physical commodity and a profitble business for those with resources. By the 17th century, copyright laaws were protecting the creative rights of some but limiting the ability of others to create. As Zorach describes, the monks had a network between monistaries. Few common people traveled any distance from their birthplace so the monks provided a source of information on their travels. Those monks relegated to copying literary works in their nodes embellished their works, not just artistically but literally. e are reminded of how the marvel that was the printing press provided books, reading material and the ability to read to many during this time, but there were still those who were not included, especially serfs and slaves. In drawing her parallels, the author remembers those today who do not profit from the promise this technology holds.
As I read this article, I tried to imagine who would have been the Jack Valenti of medieval times? Would he have been the wealthy book publisher who decided how many books to print and where to sell them? Would he own the theater and decide what would be seen and by whom? I often wonder if there was anyone else with anywhere near the talent of William Shakespeare alive at that time. Would he have had a chance to publish and profit from his creativity? Would he have had any better chance today? The Internet should be able to provide that opportunity to all but will it?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.01/mediaeval.html 16 March 2007
Rebecca Zorach provides interesting parallels between the "nodes" of medieval texting, writing and copying in the monastaries and the texting, writing and copying that the internet has made so available to us. Copying was the means of preserving information in the past. It also described they active creation of new material in what was learned from the past. The printing press, although it provided the means to easily print and distribute books, limited the number of individauls who could contribute. It also created a physical commodity and a profitble business for those with resources. By the 17th century, copyright laaws were protecting the creative rights of some but limiting the ability of others to create. As Zorach describes, the monks had a network between monistaries. Few common people traveled any distance from their birthplace so the monks provided a source of information on their travels. Those monks relegated to copying literary works in their nodes embellished their works, not just artistically but literally. e are reminded of how the marvel that was the printing press provided books, reading material and the ability to read to many during this time, but there were still those who were not included, especially serfs and slaves. In drawing her parallels, the author remembers those today who do not profit from the promise this technology holds.
As I read this article, I tried to imagine who would have been the Jack Valenti of medieval times? Would he have been the wealthy book publisher who decided how many books to print and where to sell them? Would he own the theater and decide what would be seen and by whom? I often wonder if there was anyone else with anywhere near the talent of William Shakespeare alive at that time. Would he have had a chance to publish and profit from his creativity? Would he have had any better chance today? The Internet should be able to provide that opportunity to all but will it?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Utopian Plagiarism, Hypertextuality and Electronic Cultural Production~Critical Art Ensemble
Critical Art Ensemble. The Electronic Disturbance, Chapter 5, Media Mutandis-a NODE London Reader(http://publication.nodel.org )
Source: http://www.critical-art.net/books/ted/ted5.pdf
What is the first idea that pops into your head at the mention of plagiarism? How about theft or dishonesty or cheating, certainly not anything remotely positive. This article argues, quite effectively, that "plagiarism was useful in aiding the distribution of ideas" in the past. But the argument in favour of plagiarism today involves the idea of recombination. Artistic growth in the past flourished when creative minds were allowed to 'build on' the past. The premise was not to allow theft but to allow the free flow of ideas. The logic was that creative ideas inspire more creativity in others. The extraordinary advances we have witnessed in electronic technology have given rise to arguments supporting the plagiarism that the authors describe as "recombinant". The premise is that in a recombinant culture, plagiarism is productive, that one of the "main goals of the plagiarist is to restore the dynamic and unstable drift of meaning by appropriating and recombining fragments of culture". The article argues that although the laws regarding cultural property may have some useful consequences most of them are related to greater efficiency of these same laws with repressive costs that excessively tax the creative potential of the general populace. Plagiarism, on the other hand, stands against privileging and sees all "objects" as equal. it favors the "new perception or idea brought out by intersecting two or more formally disparate systems-recombination! Perhaps the most graphic example was Leonardo da Vinci whose genius lay in his ability to combine what seemed to be separate systems-art and science.
Arguments that demonize plagiarism have often been difficult to argue against. On careful examination they are almost always bad but persuasive arguments. This is especially true in the media today. Anyone who does not support these arguments risks being associated with all of the negatives (thief, pirate,cheat) that are used. The idea of recombination reminds me of the academics who were first to describe the helical shape of the human chromosome- Waston and Crick. Neither of them had actively participated in the research and separate discoveries that preceded their paper. They were able to gather the pieces of the puzzle, so to speak, step back and see the real value of each piece. It allowed them to correctly assemble the puzzle.
Source: http://www.critical-art.net/books/ted/ted5.pdf
What is the first idea that pops into your head at the mention of plagiarism? How about theft or dishonesty or cheating, certainly not anything remotely positive. This article argues, quite effectively, that "plagiarism was useful in aiding the distribution of ideas" in the past. But the argument in favour of plagiarism today involves the idea of recombination. Artistic growth in the past flourished when creative minds were allowed to 'build on' the past. The premise was not to allow theft but to allow the free flow of ideas. The logic was that creative ideas inspire more creativity in others. The extraordinary advances we have witnessed in electronic technology have given rise to arguments supporting the plagiarism that the authors describe as "recombinant". The premise is that in a recombinant culture, plagiarism is productive, that one of the "main goals of the plagiarist is to restore the dynamic and unstable drift of meaning by appropriating and recombining fragments of culture". The article argues that although the laws regarding cultural property may have some useful consequences most of them are related to greater efficiency of these same laws with repressive costs that excessively tax the creative potential of the general populace. Plagiarism, on the other hand, stands against privileging and sees all "objects" as equal. it favors the "new perception or idea brought out by intersecting two or more formally disparate systems-recombination! Perhaps the most graphic example was Leonardo da Vinci whose genius lay in his ability to combine what seemed to be separate systems-art and science.
Arguments that demonize plagiarism have often been difficult to argue against. On careful examination they are almost always bad but persuasive arguments. This is especially true in the media today. Anyone who does not support these arguments risks being associated with all of the negatives (thief, pirate,cheat) that are used. The idea of recombination reminds me of the academics who were first to describe the helical shape of the human chromosome- Waston and Crick. Neither of them had actively participated in the research and separate discoveries that preceded their paper. They were able to gather the pieces of the puzzle, so to speak, step back and see the real value of each piece. It allowed them to correctly assemble the puzzle.
The Bellagio Declaration
The Society for Critical Exchange. The Bellagio Declaration, Statement of the Bellagio Conference, 1993 Rockefeller Conference "Cultural Agency/Cultural Authority:Politics and Poetics of Intellectual Property in the Post-Colonial Era. March 11,1993.
http://www.case.edu/affil/sce/BellagioDec.html
The Bellagio Document is a declaration that received unified support from a broad range of professionals who gathered from all over the globe. While they applauded the 'increasing attention by the world community to such previously ignored issues as preservation of the enviornment, cultural heritage and biodiversity" they voiced genuine concern and alarm over the increased control a few individuals had managed to acquire over intellectual property. These "few " had designed laws that would benefit them at the expense of many. The concept of "fair use" and "public domain" were being limited to protect these few but the harmful effects in areas such as culture, public access, international development and technological innovation were being ignored.
They took issue with the following points in particular. The need to protect folkliric works, works of cultural heritage and the biological and technological knowledge of traditional peoples. The broad range of negative effects these laws had on scientific and artistic progress, the traditional cultures of indigenous and tribal people and access to information by all. The aggressive expansion of intellectual property rights that benifit only a few. They were especially concerned with the negative effects suffered by indigenous groups because their folklore and culture were basically excluded from any protection by the singular author design that was implemented.
The Document directly attacked the "systems built around the author paradigm (which) tend to obscure or undervalue the importance of 'public domain', the intellectual and cultural commons from which the future will be constructed." They, in fact, recognized "information as among the most precious of all resources...(and)...systems built around the author paradigm tend to obscure the importance of the public domain."
The Bellagio Declaration is a united statement issued by professionals from many diciplines and from around the world in support of the "public domain". They addressed the issue of creative property rights and the laws that have effectively limited access to creative property and often stifle new intellectual and creative ideas. It was drawn up and signed fourteen years ago but the conflicts it describes are very much with us today. A special concern was voiced regarding digital technology and it is in this arena today that the copyright wars are being waged. As we were reminded in this Declaration this has all taken place in the absence of public outcry, outrage ao even recognition. Our freedom to acquire knowledge, create independently and secure the past is at stake.
http://www.case.edu/affil/sce/BellagioDec.html
The Bellagio Document is a declaration that received unified support from a broad range of professionals who gathered from all over the globe. While they applauded the 'increasing attention by the world community to such previously ignored issues as preservation of the enviornment, cultural heritage and biodiversity" they voiced genuine concern and alarm over the increased control a few individuals had managed to acquire over intellectual property. These "few " had designed laws that would benefit them at the expense of many. The concept of "fair use" and "public domain" were being limited to protect these few but the harmful effects in areas such as culture, public access, international development and technological innovation were being ignored.
They took issue with the following points in particular. The need to protect folkliric works, works of cultural heritage and the biological and technological knowledge of traditional peoples. The broad range of negative effects these laws had on scientific and artistic progress, the traditional cultures of indigenous and tribal people and access to information by all. The aggressive expansion of intellectual property rights that benifit only a few. They were especially concerned with the negative effects suffered by indigenous groups because their folklore and culture were basically excluded from any protection by the singular author design that was implemented.
The Document directly attacked the "systems built around the author paradigm (which) tend to obscure or undervalue the importance of 'public domain', the intellectual and cultural commons from which the future will be constructed." They, in fact, recognized "information as among the most precious of all resources...(and)...systems built around the author paradigm tend to obscure the importance of the public domain."
The Bellagio Declaration is a united statement issued by professionals from many diciplines and from around the world in support of the "public domain". They addressed the issue of creative property rights and the laws that have effectively limited access to creative property and often stifle new intellectual and creative ideas. It was drawn up and signed fourteen years ago but the conflicts it describes are very much with us today. A special concern was voiced regarding digital technology and it is in this arena today that the copyright wars are being waged. As we were reminded in this Declaration this has all taken place in the absence of public outcry, outrage ao even recognition. Our freedom to acquire knowledge, create independently and secure the past is at stake.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Balances and Afterword
Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture, New York, The Penguin Press, 2004. http://free-culture.org/get-it
Lawrence Lessig poses his final arguments and very reasonable answers in these sections of his book. He has primed us with a history of copyright law, the direction it has taken in the past fifty years and why this should alarm us. When there was little control over creative work the law intervened but only enough to give original artists an opportunity to profit for a reasonable time from their work. Even then lawmakers recognized the importance this creative work had in establishing our culture and history and that others should be allowed to freely build upon it. In the past century, with the advances in technology that allowed easy copying, laws became more restrictive in favor of copyright owners. While this was understandable, the law was still balanced to allow "fair use" and reasonable time restrictions. That is no longer the case today. "Fair use" hardly has any meaning because of the hostile and threatening climate instigated by large corporations who control creative property. Enormous fines can be levied against relatively innocent use and ordinary citizens are becoming felons under the heavy handed laws that have been passed. Now Mr. Lessig tells us that the very technology which should have opened the world of creativity to us is being used to make us felons. These huge media corporations are being allowed, by laws they pressed for passage, to search private computers and make felons of private citizens. This justifiably alarms him even more than the threat to our culture. He sites the Supreme Court case he and others prepared, presented and lost but he manages to put even this in it's proper perspective. He understood the mistakes that were made and continues to have the support that saw him through this court battle. They are preparing to fight another day, this war has not been lost.
Much to his credit, Lessig has provided us not only with information most of us were completely unaware of but has founded his arguments in objective and reasonable form. We are reminded of the need to protect creative property rights while ha carefully explains the difference between this and material property, a difference that even our forefathers understood and allowed for. In answer to this defeat and afterthought he proposed Eldred's Law. This law is elegant in it's simplicity. Lessig, as he has done before, makes no effort to dismantle Copyright Law but makes it reasonable. This law, while it does not shorten the absolute length of copyright, requires those seeking copyright to apply for it and to renew the copyright after a period of fifty years. He poses several suggestions to streamline this procedure and make applications not only easy but inexpensive. As he argues, this is not only reasonable but fair. It would accommodate those who have creative property that still has commercial value. At the same time that which does not and is not worth the trouble renewing a copyright would be open to the public domain for everyone to freely share.
What I found particularly troubling in Mr. Lessig's book was the discussion of the attempts by the media moguls to use technology to make criminals of ordinary citizens. While I realize the law should be respected, this is not an attempt to protect citizens from criminal harm. The fact that Internet servers and colleges can invade personal hard drives and use this information against computer owners is mortifying. What happened to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which provides relief from self-incrimination. These laws are not meant to protect anyone but the powerful. Those who are accused of "breaking" these laws are seldom committing any act that is harmful to the plaintiffs. They have not been proven to lessen any profits, in fact they more likely are improving profits by allowing unpaid advertising for the work they are accused of stealing. I know I will be strongly recommending Lawrence Lessig's book to anyone who will hear me out. The real irony is that I was allowed to read his book for free and that any bookstore where I have attempted to buy his book has told me it is out of print. I won't let that stop me.
Lawrence Lessig poses his final arguments and very reasonable answers in these sections of his book. He has primed us with a history of copyright law, the direction it has taken in the past fifty years and why this should alarm us. When there was little control over creative work the law intervened but only enough to give original artists an opportunity to profit for a reasonable time from their work. Even then lawmakers recognized the importance this creative work had in establishing our culture and history and that others should be allowed to freely build upon it. In the past century, with the advances in technology that allowed easy copying, laws became more restrictive in favor of copyright owners. While this was understandable, the law was still balanced to allow "fair use" and reasonable time restrictions. That is no longer the case today. "Fair use" hardly has any meaning because of the hostile and threatening climate instigated by large corporations who control creative property. Enormous fines can be levied against relatively innocent use and ordinary citizens are becoming felons under the heavy handed laws that have been passed. Now Mr. Lessig tells us that the very technology which should have opened the world of creativity to us is being used to make us felons. These huge media corporations are being allowed, by laws they pressed for passage, to search private computers and make felons of private citizens. This justifiably alarms him even more than the threat to our culture. He sites the Supreme Court case he and others prepared, presented and lost but he manages to put even this in it's proper perspective. He understood the mistakes that were made and continues to have the support that saw him through this court battle. They are preparing to fight another day, this war has not been lost.
Much to his credit, Lessig has provided us not only with information most of us were completely unaware of but has founded his arguments in objective and reasonable form. We are reminded of the need to protect creative property rights while ha carefully explains the difference between this and material property, a difference that even our forefathers understood and allowed for. In answer to this defeat and afterthought he proposed Eldred's Law. This law is elegant in it's simplicity. Lessig, as he has done before, makes no effort to dismantle Copyright Law but makes it reasonable. This law, while it does not shorten the absolute length of copyright, requires those seeking copyright to apply for it and to renew the copyright after a period of fifty years. He poses several suggestions to streamline this procedure and make applications not only easy but inexpensive. As he argues, this is not only reasonable but fair. It would accommodate those who have creative property that still has commercial value. At the same time that which does not and is not worth the trouble renewing a copyright would be open to the public domain for everyone to freely share.
What I found particularly troubling in Mr. Lessig's book was the discussion of the attempts by the media moguls to use technology to make criminals of ordinary citizens. While I realize the law should be respected, this is not an attempt to protect citizens from criminal harm. The fact that Internet servers and colleges can invade personal hard drives and use this information against computer owners is mortifying. What happened to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which provides relief from self-incrimination. These laws are not meant to protect anyone but the powerful. Those who are accused of "breaking" these laws are seldom committing any act that is harmful to the plaintiffs. They have not been proven to lessen any profits, in fact they more likely are improving profits by allowing unpaid advertising for the work they are accused of stealing. I know I will be strongly recommending Lawrence Lessig's book to anyone who will hear me out. The real irony is that I was allowed to read his book for free and that any bookstore where I have attempted to buy his book has told me it is out of print. I won't let that stop me.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Property
Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture, free-culture.org/get-it pages 85-173
The second part of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture outlines in detail the changes that have been occurring in copyright laws, the entertainment industry and technology. He uses a very informative visual format to help describe to relationship between the forces that influence interact to support or weaken a particular right or regulation. This model placed a "regulated dot" at the center representing the regulation regarding copyright protection. The four oval areas represented equidistant around this were Law, Market, Architecture and Norms. He then described what each was, in terms of it's relationship to copyright law, and how each was one of "four ways in which the group or individual might be regulated" in regards to copyright protection. The Law and Norms are regulators that constrain by threatening punishment. They are certainly different and can carry much different burdens. The first is imposed by the state, the second by the community. The third constraint, Market, operates simultaneously with the first two, either constraining or enabling, within a free market system. The fourth, Architecture, imposes a constraint or enables based on the conditions of the physical world at that particular place in time. The Architecture to which Mr. Lessig refers is the physical makeup of the copyrighted work and the technology used to format it in the real world. He gives us a historical perspective on how and why copyright law was initiated in England and in our own Constitution. He reiterates his support of this protection of "intellectual property" but voices his concerns over the changes that have taken place over the last two hundred years, most specifically in the last forty years. He uses his model to visually describe the changes that have occurred and the impact they have had on this country's "free culture". He reveals to the reader a regulatory system that has gone completely out of balance. The four ways that interact to provide fairness and balance in regulating copyright by protecting "creative property" rights and ensuring reasonable and unhindered access of the public to it, have "become unbalanced and tilted toward an extreme". There have always been attempts by powerful third parties with a financial interest in intellectual property to control access to it completely. Their attempts to do so have resulted in increasing more restrictive use and application of copyrighted material but the courts have limited these restrictions in order to provide a reasonable balance between use of this material and the rights of copyright owners who control it. This, as Mr Lessig points out, is because intellectual property-free or not- is at the very heart of our culture and is often part of the foundation on which succeeding generations build the future. This "build-on" creativity has always been part of our culture and is in fact what the entertainment industry that exists today was built upon. As with most of the changes initiated by financially interested communities, the issues today arise from the advent of new technology. The Internet has provided an arena where, not only can information in all forms be made available to a worldwide audience, all of this can be shared with the click of a mouse. In addition, the media industry has positioned itself, both legally and financially in a position with almost overwhelming power. They control the "creative property" and usually all rights to it, or so we would be lead to believe. Even the right to "fair use" which is covered by law but not well defined, is infringed upon by imposing immense burdens of proof to those who might attempt to use it. In the end we understand first that the Law has been skewered greatly in favor of a powerful entertainment industry. Second that the Media and this industry is controlled by a very powerful few who will use any means they have to retain control. Thirdly, the Media can and is being used to affect the Norms of a community by providing only those arguments and points of view they support to be presented in a favorable light. This is important because the general population of a community seeks information about the world around them and in general from these sources. Finally, the Architecture, the framework in which "intellectual property" is made available, is now being used in ways never imagined before and against uses often previously been considered "fair use". The power of technology, which could support the fair use and distribution of material copyrighted and not, is being "used to supplement the law's control in ways that are often no less the threatening and invasive for a user of this technology. And worse yet, the overall effect of all of this is to strengthen regulation yet weaken creativity, especially for those who would quite normally build-on the creativity of the past.
As Mr. Lessig very effectively points out, creativity should be independent in a free market. That creativity historically, and quite reasonably, grows on the past."Free cultures, like free markets,are built with property." It is the nature of this property that has been so drastically changed by this unbalanced and extreme vision of copyright law that exists today. We are becoming a culture of creativity but only with permission.
This reading was very long but informative. I often tried to imagine my own examples of how unbalanced this vision of copyright law has become. As I have taken several science classes the past year, I recalled that a copyright has been sought(and probably granted by this time)on human genes. This is so preposterous to me. Genes are the product of normal biological interactions between amino acids, specific sugar molecules and phosphate molecules. These have been around far longer than any humans and in fact combined independent of human assistance to form who we are today. This is certainly a "property" that was not created recently, it was discovered and identified. recently but that is hardly the same thing. Imagine in the early 60's if scientific information was as severely restricted as "creative property " is today. Those who discovered the pieces to the puzzle that was the shape and form of the human genome were unable to put the pieces together. The information was there but it took two men(Crick and Watson), neither of whom had discovered the pieces themselves, to see the bigger picture formed by these parts and discover the shape of DNA. Imagine them having to obtain and possibly pay for permission before using the results of the work that preceded their discovery. Their creative work and subsequent discovery was built on the creative work/property of others. In the real world at that time they were only required to give credit where it was due for the work they based their discovery on(which they unfortunately did not do in at least one case). So today, if a researcher feels that they can provide a product of great benefit to mankind by using the gene that is now copyrighted, would they be required to obtain permission and pay for the use of this gene before they could even experiment with it?
The second part of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture outlines in detail the changes that have been occurring in copyright laws, the entertainment industry and technology. He uses a very informative visual format to help describe to relationship between the forces that influence interact to support or weaken a particular right or regulation. This model placed a "regulated dot" at the center representing the regulation regarding copyright protection. The four oval areas represented equidistant around this were Law, Market, Architecture and Norms. He then described what each was, in terms of it's relationship to copyright law, and how each was one of "four ways in which the group or individual might be regulated" in regards to copyright protection. The Law and Norms are regulators that constrain by threatening punishment. They are certainly different and can carry much different burdens. The first is imposed by the state, the second by the community. The third constraint, Market, operates simultaneously with the first two, either constraining or enabling, within a free market system. The fourth, Architecture, imposes a constraint or enables based on the conditions of the physical world at that particular place in time. The Architecture to which Mr. Lessig refers is the physical makeup of the copyrighted work and the technology used to format it in the real world. He gives us a historical perspective on how and why copyright law was initiated in England and in our own Constitution. He reiterates his support of this protection of "intellectual property" but voices his concerns over the changes that have taken place over the last two hundred years, most specifically in the last forty years. He uses his model to visually describe the changes that have occurred and the impact they have had on this country's "free culture". He reveals to the reader a regulatory system that has gone completely out of balance. The four ways that interact to provide fairness and balance in regulating copyright by protecting "creative property" rights and ensuring reasonable and unhindered access of the public to it, have "become unbalanced and tilted toward an extreme". There have always been attempts by powerful third parties with a financial interest in intellectual property to control access to it completely. Their attempts to do so have resulted in increasing more restrictive use and application of copyrighted material but the courts have limited these restrictions in order to provide a reasonable balance between use of this material and the rights of copyright owners who control it. This, as Mr Lessig points out, is because intellectual property-free or not- is at the very heart of our culture and is often part of the foundation on which succeeding generations build the future. This "build-on" creativity has always been part of our culture and is in fact what the entertainment industry that exists today was built upon. As with most of the changes initiated by financially interested communities, the issues today arise from the advent of new technology. The Internet has provided an arena where, not only can information in all forms be made available to a worldwide audience, all of this can be shared with the click of a mouse. In addition, the media industry has positioned itself, both legally and financially in a position with almost overwhelming power. They control the "creative property" and usually all rights to it, or so we would be lead to believe. Even the right to "fair use" which is covered by law but not well defined, is infringed upon by imposing immense burdens of proof to those who might attempt to use it. In the end we understand first that the Law has been skewered greatly in favor of a powerful entertainment industry. Second that the Media and this industry is controlled by a very powerful few who will use any means they have to retain control. Thirdly, the Media can and is being used to affect the Norms of a community by providing only those arguments and points of view they support to be presented in a favorable light. This is important because the general population of a community seeks information about the world around them and in general from these sources. Finally, the Architecture, the framework in which "intellectual property" is made available, is now being used in ways never imagined before and against uses often previously been considered "fair use". The power of technology, which could support the fair use and distribution of material copyrighted and not, is being "used to supplement the law's control in ways that are often no less the threatening and invasive for a user of this technology. And worse yet, the overall effect of all of this is to strengthen regulation yet weaken creativity, especially for those who would quite normally build-on the creativity of the past.
As Mr. Lessig very effectively points out, creativity should be independent in a free market. That creativity historically, and quite reasonably, grows on the past."Free cultures, like free markets,are built with property." It is the nature of this property that has been so drastically changed by this unbalanced and extreme vision of copyright law that exists today. We are becoming a culture of creativity but only with permission.
This reading was very long but informative. I often tried to imagine my own examples of how unbalanced this vision of copyright law has become. As I have taken several science classes the past year, I recalled that a copyright has been sought(and probably granted by this time)on human genes. This is so preposterous to me. Genes are the product of normal biological interactions between amino acids, specific sugar molecules and phosphate molecules. These have been around far longer than any humans and in fact combined independent of human assistance to form who we are today. This is certainly a "property" that was not created recently, it was discovered and identified. recently but that is hardly the same thing. Imagine in the early 60's if scientific information was as severely restricted as "creative property " is today. Those who discovered the pieces to the puzzle that was the shape and form of the human genome were unable to put the pieces together. The information was there but it took two men(Crick and Watson), neither of whom had discovered the pieces themselves, to see the bigger picture formed by these parts and discover the shape of DNA. Imagine them having to obtain and possibly pay for permission before using the results of the work that preceded their discovery. Their creative work and subsequent discovery was built on the creative work/property of others. In the real world at that time they were only required to give credit where it was due for the work they based their discovery on(which they unfortunately did not do in at least one case). So today, if a researcher feels that they can provide a product of great benefit to mankind by using the gene that is now copyrighted, would they be required to obtain permission and pay for the use of this gene before they could even experiment with it?
Friday, February 16, 2007
The Google Book Project
Mr. Lessig reminds me of what the editorial page in the newspaper used to be. There were those who only wrote a column once or twice a week including guest and syndicated columnists. Very often these comumns had an obvious point of view, but they kept us informed about issues that were either ignored or buried by the newspapers themselves.
Well Mr. Lessig, you've done this. I never would have known about the trouble Google was having because of it's BookSearch site if I hadn't listened to your video. I didn't see anything on TV or hear anything over the radio. What I understand is that Google has created this site to catalogue all of the books that it can find. In addition they have used three catagories or levels of search to distinguish between those books in print and under copyright, those books in the public domain and finally those books that are copyrighted but not available in print. It seems they have done everything possible to ensure that they do not infringe on any copyright. The only area where there is a problem, however, is also the largest. It is those books that are copyrighted but not available in print. I learned that not only is there no publisher to contact for permission to publish but very often the author is either unknown or not able to be located. As a result this area of the project only gives lmited access to the book in the form of "snippets". What this area also provides is the opportunity for browsers to find these books and further search for them, it creates a market for these unpublished works. Unfortunately, they were unable to obtain "permission" from the copyright owners before including these books in their catalogue as they had for the other copyrighted area. This has resulted in their being sued by organizations representing both authors and publishers. They argue that Google is not covered by "fair use" which is allowed under copyright law. They insist that Google did not ask permission before copying parts of these books and that they are profiting from the use of these books. Now Mr. Lessig argues that in his own book he extensivly quotes other books and authors and that he neither asked permission to do so and he has profited from the sale of his book. He did both under the exception of "fair use " which the copyright laws allow. He also argues on behalf of Google that not only are the plaintifs not losing any money-by their own admission-but also, that due to the inefficienty that is inherent in the copyright system, the authors and/or copyright owners of the group of books not in print but under copyright could not be identified or found to ask for permission to copy these books. Fot this reason, as mentioned previously, Google has only made the titles and very limited sinppets available on its site. Where Google has identified authors and/or publishers, they have sought premission to copy copyrighted books and have done only what was allowed by these individuals.
I hope that Google is able to win this battle. At stake is not only this site but the ability of individuals to easily access an enormous part of our cultural heritage. Google is one of the big corporations and that could easily bother me. but I believe the organizations representing the publishers and authors are also very big and very powerful. As Mr. Lessig pointed out, Google has made a concerted effort to adhere to copyright laws and any limitations individual authors and publishers have insisted on. Those trying to stop Google are, by their own admission not losing any money and the market for these books, far from having their market potential harmed, may in the end actually profit from the exposure.
At stake here is the accessability to our cultural heritage. The copyright laws were written to protect the intellectual property rights of those who wrote these books and contributed to our rich culture. This is a good thing. But when these laws are used as an excuse to manipulate control of these works over an exaggerated time frame that adversly effects the past and future, it becomes the law rewriting itself. I believe the project Google has undertaken will be an enormous benifit to anyone who has access to the internet. They should be required to respect the rights of those who own the rights to these books and I believe they have done that and more.
Well Mr. Lessig, you've done this. I never would have known about the trouble Google was having because of it's BookSearch site if I hadn't listened to your video. I didn't see anything on TV or hear anything over the radio. What I understand is that Google has created this site to catalogue all of the books that it can find. In addition they have used three catagories or levels of search to distinguish between those books in print and under copyright, those books in the public domain and finally those books that are copyrighted but not available in print. It seems they have done everything possible to ensure that they do not infringe on any copyright. The only area where there is a problem, however, is also the largest. It is those books that are copyrighted but not available in print. I learned that not only is there no publisher to contact for permission to publish but very often the author is either unknown or not able to be located. As a result this area of the project only gives lmited access to the book in the form of "snippets". What this area also provides is the opportunity for browsers to find these books and further search for them, it creates a market for these unpublished works. Unfortunately, they were unable to obtain "permission" from the copyright owners before including these books in their catalogue as they had for the other copyrighted area. This has resulted in their being sued by organizations representing both authors and publishers. They argue that Google is not covered by "fair use" which is allowed under copyright law. They insist that Google did not ask permission before copying parts of these books and that they are profiting from the use of these books. Now Mr. Lessig argues that in his own book he extensivly quotes other books and authors and that he neither asked permission to do so and he has profited from the sale of his book. He did both under the exception of "fair use " which the copyright laws allow. He also argues on behalf of Google that not only are the plaintifs not losing any money-by their own admission-but also, that due to the inefficienty that is inherent in the copyright system, the authors and/or copyright owners of the group of books not in print but under copyright could not be identified or found to ask for permission to copy these books. Fot this reason, as mentioned previously, Google has only made the titles and very limited sinppets available on its site. Where Google has identified authors and/or publishers, they have sought premission to copy copyrighted books and have done only what was allowed by these individuals.
I hope that Google is able to win this battle. At stake is not only this site but the ability of individuals to easily access an enormous part of our cultural heritage. Google is one of the big corporations and that could easily bother me. but I believe the organizations representing the publishers and authors are also very big and very powerful. As Mr. Lessig pointed out, Google has made a concerted effort to adhere to copyright laws and any limitations individual authors and publishers have insisted on. Those trying to stop Google are, by their own admission not losing any money and the market for these books, far from having their market potential harmed, may in the end actually profit from the exposure.
At stake here is the accessability to our cultural heritage. The copyright laws were written to protect the intellectual property rights of those who wrote these books and contributed to our rich culture. This is a good thing. But when these laws are used as an excuse to manipulate control of these works over an exaggerated time frame that adversly effects the past and future, it becomes the law rewriting itself. I believe the project Google has undertaken will be an enormous benifit to anyone who has access to the internet. They should be required to respect the rights of those who own the rights to these books and I believe they have done that and more.
Piracy
Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. http://free-culture.org/get-it pages 30-79
Lawrence Lessing has written a very thought provoking book. He challenges us to quit being a "read only" society and understand what will happen to our use of the Internet if we allow a war of words to dull our minds. He recounts the introduction of new technology over the past one hundred years in an attempt to illustrate what is happening with Internet technology now in the name of "intellectual property rights" and copyright ownership. He supports the idea of intellectual property and the creator/innovator's property rights to their work and describes a "Free Culture " as one that does the same but "indirectly limits the reach of those rights so follow-on creators remain as free as possible from control of the past". He believes a Free Culture provides a balance between the rights of creators and the burden those rights impose on others who would create after them. Our culture has always thrived on the ability of creative people to use what has been made by improving, adapting or changing it. The copyright laws are today being used by powerful interests to stifle this follow-on creativity. Their argument uses words that conjure powerful images and ideas. Their argument is generally that if something created has value than the owner of that has a right to profit from the value of the property they have created. Anyone else who profits from it is stealing from them-they are guilty of piracy and are stealing property. This argument has great emotional appeal. All of us value what belongs to us and know how strongly we would react if anyone stole it. It is an argument that is ingenious in it's simplicity. Mr. Lessig, however, asks us to pause and take a closer look not only at the argument but what is at stake.
He provides several real world examples of battles over copyright and property. Each involves a plaintiff trying to recover property they argue was taken wrongly. While the best arguments usually take the day, Mr Lessig feels that often those arguments have become more over who has the most power. This has led to powerful companies and groups stifling creativity on the Internet by using the courts to create a no win situation for individuals ans small businesses who simply cannot compete with them to defend themselves.
Mr. Lessig provides us with a history of recent innovations and how each of them infringed on the creative property of others to create something new and innovative- a creative property in it's own right. The movie industry, radio, records and cable TV have all done this. The irony is that these are the very industries and their offshoots that are the powerful forces trying to control creativity on the Internet.
In a history of court decisions involving copyright suits the courts have demonstrated a consistent stand against unlimited control of intellectual property. Their major decisions have balanced the good to be gained from exclusive rights with the burden this exclusivity creates. This is also consistent with what our culture has always been. We have always been a society that learns from the past, learns from "tinkering" with new ideas and technologies and creating something new from what has been.
Mr. Lessig provides very powerful insights into an argument that the media takes the use of emotionally charged words. The arguments against waiting for congress to enact laws and the use of litigation against those who have done no real wrong but cannot prove their innocence should raise a red flag for everyone. Unfortunately, we all to often just believe whatever we hear without considering the source. What if many years ago when culture was spread only by oral communication, someone was not allowed to repeat the story told by another? After all, it was their story and any attempt to retell it would be stealing. I wonder how far mankind would have gotten and how long it would have taken if we had been as litigious as we are now.
Lawrence Lessing has written a very thought provoking book. He challenges us to quit being a "read only" society and understand what will happen to our use of the Internet if we allow a war of words to dull our minds. He recounts the introduction of new technology over the past one hundred years in an attempt to illustrate what is happening with Internet technology now in the name of "intellectual property rights" and copyright ownership. He supports the idea of intellectual property and the creator/innovator's property rights to their work and describes a "Free Culture " as one that does the same but "indirectly limits the reach of those rights so follow-on creators remain as free as possible from control of the past". He believes a Free Culture provides a balance between the rights of creators and the burden those rights impose on others who would create after them. Our culture has always thrived on the ability of creative people to use what has been made by improving, adapting or changing it. The copyright laws are today being used by powerful interests to stifle this follow-on creativity. Their argument uses words that conjure powerful images and ideas. Their argument is generally that if something created has value than the owner of that has a right to profit from the value of the property they have created. Anyone else who profits from it is stealing from them-they are guilty of piracy and are stealing property. This argument has great emotional appeal. All of us value what belongs to us and know how strongly we would react if anyone stole it. It is an argument that is ingenious in it's simplicity. Mr. Lessig, however, asks us to pause and take a closer look not only at the argument but what is at stake.
He provides several real world examples of battles over copyright and property. Each involves a plaintiff trying to recover property they argue was taken wrongly. While the best arguments usually take the day, Mr Lessig feels that often those arguments have become more over who has the most power. This has led to powerful companies and groups stifling creativity on the Internet by using the courts to create a no win situation for individuals ans small businesses who simply cannot compete with them to defend themselves.
Mr. Lessig provides us with a history of recent innovations and how each of them infringed on the creative property of others to create something new and innovative- a creative property in it's own right. The movie industry, radio, records and cable TV have all done this. The irony is that these are the very industries and their offshoots that are the powerful forces trying to control creativity on the Internet.
In a history of court decisions involving copyright suits the courts have demonstrated a consistent stand against unlimited control of intellectual property. Their major decisions have balanced the good to be gained from exclusive rights with the burden this exclusivity creates. This is also consistent with what our culture has always been. We have always been a society that learns from the past, learns from "tinkering" with new ideas and technologies and creating something new from what has been.
Mr. Lessig provides very powerful insights into an argument that the media takes the use of emotionally charged words. The arguments against waiting for congress to enact laws and the use of litigation against those who have done no real wrong but cannot prove their innocence should raise a red flag for everyone. Unfortunately, we all to often just believe whatever we hear without considering the source. What if many years ago when culture was spread only by oral communication, someone was not allowed to repeat the story told by another? After all, it was their story and any attempt to retell it would be stealing. I wonder how far mankind would have gotten and how long it would have taken if we had been as litigious as we are now.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Videos,The Virtual World and Education
This is a paper I wrote a few years ago. The topic remains very relevant today especially as our class is discussing video games and what they may contribute to education. Susan Johnson M.D. provided important reference material for me. Her updated link includes the paper I included in my cited works: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/johnson.html
Technology in Elementary Schools: Use or Misuse?
The age of technology has arrived in the elementary classrooms. Personal computers that have become more the norm than the exception in homes are now a part of the school curriculum for
The age of technology has arrived in the elementary classrooms. Personal computers that have become more the norm than the exception in homes are now a part of the school curriculum for
most elementary students. Software companies are falling over themselves to provide educational programs and schools are actively pursuing Internet access for their students. Parents need to take a step back from this alluring package to see it completely. Technology in elementary classrooms may provide many avenues for enhancing education but comes with at
least as much misuse and potential for abuse.
In all honesty, the potential in computers and software programs seems unbounded. The introduction thirty years ago of Sesame Street certainly heralded the arrival of technology specifically aimed at children. More programs, including the Electric Company, followed. These fast paced, visually mesmerizing programs were aimed at children of all ages. Their purpose was to teach without loosing the audience’s attention. From my personal experience at that time, I can attest to the fact that it worked and worked well. No one ventured to question the wisdom of allowing children to watch, for several hours every day, programs which were specifically designed to educate and enlighten them. In addition to this it kept them quite and entertained. Mothers and caregivers were freed up for a few precious hours to complete necessary tasks without leaving their brood unattended.
Around the mid 70’s into the 80’s there was an increase in elementary school children diagnosed with learning disorders and a concurrent development of programs to deal with these problems. This was, of course, accompanied by an increase in funding for school districts that “identified” these children and adopted prescribed special education programs.
Near the same time frame, the social conscience of society was revisited. Programs and schools that dealt selectively with mental, emotional or physical handicaps were being judged exclusive and “main streaming” became the new catch phrase. It must be realized that these programs did indeed benefit many children, especially those with a physical handicaps. These children were no longer defined by their physical disabilities, but by the person they were.
The influx of these children into the public school setting resulted in funds to establish special education curriculum and resource rooms with personnel to address the special needs these children might have. They also served to help integrating them into a broad classroom setting.
I gathered statistical information regarding the types of disabilities included in federally supported programs over the past twenty-five years (Digest of Educational Statistics 1998 and 1999). In doing so I discovered a very interesting and relevant fact about those children included who have “specific learning disabilities.” Because of what the other categories included, it is reasonable to assume that SLD (Special Learning Disabilities) would exclude mental, emotional and physical disabilities including speech and language impairments. Children in this category were diagnosed with or treated for disorders such as hyperactivity, ADHD, and dyslexia to name a few. In 1976, the number of children in this category was a distant third behind speech or language impairments and mental retardation. By 1984-85 SLD included the largest number of children. In the last statistical data available form 1997-98, children with “specific learning disabilities” outnumbered the next two categories by from two, to over four times. This increase was seen by some as an indicator of improved in diagnostic techniques. Children viewed before as unruly and troubled-makers (even if they were only five) now had a defined problem for which treatment could be sought. In the later 80’s and into the 1990’s this frequently included medicating these children so that they could function in a “normal” classroom setting and not be a distraction themselves. In the past five years, this treatment was been revisited (Kozlowski; Detroit News, 04/17/00). Although there are children who benefit greatly form therapy with drugs such as Ritalin, we are now being told that often children were perhaps too quickly or easily diagnosed. Frequently suggested is that normally active children were being quieted to better control elementary classrooms and facilitate learning by all. I do not necessarily fault those in the educational system for this misguided use. Much can be gained from reviewing actions and learning form mistakes. I believe more is to be gained by studying this increase in “Specific Learning Disabilities” and the parallel growth of technology, which has been specifically aimed at elementary school age and younger children.
Television, the first real technology to directly impact younger children, was initially described by its detractors as a “vast wasteland.” The advent of “Sesame Street” in the 1969-70 televisions seemed to legitimize the cooperative effort between entertainment and childhood education. It fostered a genuine enthusiasm for the educational children’s television programs that followed. The 1980’s marked the introduction and by 1989 the widespread use of computers by students in school. In fact the rate of student usage in 1st to 8th grade rose from 69 percent in 1989 to 79 percent in 1997. This is higher than the usage rate for high school or college students in 1997. A compelling fact noted in this same study, however, is that elementary school students were far less likely than high school or college students to use home computers for schoolwork (Resource and Technology 04/00). It should be noted, on the other hand, that there was a proliferation of computer software games introduced onto the market specifically created to be educational. History, math, geography, spelling, the list was as endless as it was promising. Moreover, it was aimed at early learners from preschool through elementary school. As a parent, I can attest to the fact that the lure was irresistible.
As early as 1979, with Jerry Mander’s Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, this supplemental form of education came under close scrutiny. He pointed out the passive relationship viewers have with a television. The point of his book “was not to argue that there are no good programs on television. It was to point out that the consequences of television’s existence in out society are far more significant that its program content” (Haugsjaa, 04/10/00). One reviewer, in fact, suggested that anyone reading this book then rent the movie Network to understand how Mr. Mander’s book complements the manipulating and dehumanizing themes in this movie
In May 1999 Susan R. Johnson M.D. presented a paper as a senior project at Waldorf School of San Francisco. Her paper addressed effects of technology, television and computer technology specifically, on preschool and elementary age children. She carefully and fully describes the sequential development of a child’s brain from infancy through elementary school age. She emphasizes how important it is for children to have experiences that stimulate and integrate the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. We learn that we need to protect them from over stimulation, as they are quite literally sponges and do not, as of yet, have the brain capacity to filter out noxious sense experiences(3).
Dr. Johnson describes the importance of a connection that forms early in childhood between the right hemisphere which is more intellectual and responsive to visual images, and the left hemisphere. The left hemisphere specializes in analytical and sequential thinking and step-by-step logical reasoning(3).
The learning enhancement of computer technology and television with children is closely tied to the visual and auditory stimuli that these programs are meant to generate. Dr. Johnson, however, reminds us of studies on young children which consistently demonstrate that when simultaneously exposed to visual and sound stimuli, they focus on the visual, frequently not absorbing the sound content (Healey 1990)(6).
Her concern becomes clear as we realize that the focus on right hemisphere stimuli results in over stimulation with which a child cannot yet cope. Furthermore, this results in a lack of stimulus for the imagination in the left hemisphere. The child does not create the visual images he or she sees, even if they remember them. Answers are factually based but do not involve the perception or judgment that interaction with other humans and nature is known to foster. We learn that it is difficult to create a picture when we have already been shown the image. How can a child learn to discern the subtle nuances involved in face-to-face interaction from a person viewed on a monitor or screen? Technology can garner emotions, but only as an individual reaction, not as the energy and intelligence found in the “heart” of out brain. This is learned only from a child’s experience interacting face-to-face with another(7).
Dr. Johnson speaks about the importance of a crucial neurological pathway called the corpus callosum. It is a bridge between the right and left hemisphere and one of the latest maturing parts of a child’s brain. “This pathway provides the interplay between the analytic and intuitive thinking, and several neuropsychologists believe the poor development of this pathway affects the right and left hemispheres effective communication with each other and may be a cause of attention and leaning difficulties” (Healey 1990)(4).
And the connection comes around full circle. The content of technology programs is not the issue here. It is of the technology itself and the effect it has on children that must be carefully understood. Even with a closely regulated technology program, the importance of reading and the connection to nature, other people and to our senses cannot be overstated. Technology has a place in the elementary school classroom but it is best kept well regulated and minimal.
Works Cited
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1998.” Digest of Educational Statistics, 1998; Chapter 2, Enrollments, Table 53, 04/05/00
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1999.” Digest
of Educational Statistics, 1999; Elementary/Secondary Chapter,
Page 24, table 54, 04/10/00 <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/majorpub.asp>
Haugsjaa, Erik. ‘Suburbinization of the Mind” online review of Four
Arguments for the Elimination of Television. 04/10/00
Healy, Jane. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and
What We Can Do About It. 1990, New York, Simon and
Schuster
Johnson, Susan R. M.D. “Strangers in Our Homes: TV and Our
Children’s Minds”, 04/04/00
Kozlowski, Kim. “Teen Death Attributed To Ritalin”, Detroit News
Page 1A 04/17/00
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
1978, New York, William Morrow and Co.
“Resource and Technology/1999”. Digest of Educational Statistics
Chapter 7, 04/05/00
In all honesty, the potential in computers and software programs seems unbounded. The introduction thirty years ago of Sesame Street certainly heralded the arrival of technology specifically aimed at children. More programs, including the Electric Company, followed. These fast paced, visually mesmerizing programs were aimed at children of all ages. Their purpose was to teach without loosing the audience’s attention. From my personal experience at that time, I can attest to the fact that it worked and worked well. No one ventured to question the wisdom of allowing children to watch, for several hours every day, programs which were specifically designed to educate and enlighten them. In addition to this it kept them quite and entertained. Mothers and caregivers were freed up for a few precious hours to complete necessary tasks without leaving their brood unattended.
Around the mid 70’s into the 80’s there was an increase in elementary school children diagnosed with learning disorders and a concurrent development of programs to deal with these problems. This was, of course, accompanied by an increase in funding for school districts that “identified” these children and adopted prescribed special education programs.
Near the same time frame, the social conscience of society was revisited. Programs and schools that dealt selectively with mental, emotional or physical handicaps were being judged exclusive and “main streaming” became the new catch phrase. It must be realized that these programs did indeed benefit many children, especially those with a physical handicaps. These children were no longer defined by their physical disabilities, but by the person they were.
The influx of these children into the public school setting resulted in funds to establish special education curriculum and resource rooms with personnel to address the special needs these children might have. They also served to help integrating them into a broad classroom setting.
I gathered statistical information regarding the types of disabilities included in federally supported programs over the past twenty-five years (Digest of Educational Statistics 1998 and 1999). In doing so I discovered a very interesting and relevant fact about those children included who have “specific learning disabilities.” Because of what the other categories included, it is reasonable to assume that SLD (Special Learning Disabilities) would exclude mental, emotional and physical disabilities including speech and language impairments. Children in this category were diagnosed with or treated for disorders such as hyperactivity, ADHD, and dyslexia to name a few. In 1976, the number of children in this category was a distant third behind speech or language impairments and mental retardation. By 1984-85 SLD included the largest number of children. In the last statistical data available form 1997-98, children with “specific learning disabilities” outnumbered the next two categories by from two, to over four times. This increase was seen by some as an indicator of improved in diagnostic techniques. Children viewed before as unruly and troubled-makers (even if they were only five) now had a defined problem for which treatment could be sought. In the later 80’s and into the 1990’s this frequently included medicating these children so that they could function in a “normal” classroom setting and not be a distraction themselves. In the past five years, this treatment was been revisited (Kozlowski; Detroit News, 04/17/00). Although there are children who benefit greatly form therapy with drugs such as Ritalin, we are now being told that often children were perhaps too quickly or easily diagnosed. Frequently suggested is that normally active children were being quieted to better control elementary classrooms and facilitate learning by all. I do not necessarily fault those in the educational system for this misguided use. Much can be gained from reviewing actions and learning form mistakes. I believe more is to be gained by studying this increase in “Specific Learning Disabilities” and the parallel growth of technology, which has been specifically aimed at elementary school age and younger children.
Television, the first real technology to directly impact younger children, was initially described by its detractors as a “vast wasteland.” The advent of “Sesame Street” in the 1969-70 televisions seemed to legitimize the cooperative effort between entertainment and childhood education. It fostered a genuine enthusiasm for the educational children’s television programs that followed. The 1980’s marked the introduction and by 1989 the widespread use of computers by students in school. In fact the rate of student usage in 1st to 8th grade rose from 69 percent in 1989 to 79 percent in 1997. This is higher than the usage rate for high school or college students in 1997. A compelling fact noted in this same study, however, is that elementary school students were far less likely than high school or college students to use home computers for schoolwork (Resource and Technology 04/00). It should be noted, on the other hand, that there was a proliferation of computer software games introduced onto the market specifically created to be educational. History, math, geography, spelling, the list was as endless as it was promising. Moreover, it was aimed at early learners from preschool through elementary school. As a parent, I can attest to the fact that the lure was irresistible.
As early as 1979, with Jerry Mander’s Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, this supplemental form of education came under close scrutiny. He pointed out the passive relationship viewers have with a television. The point of his book “was not to argue that there are no good programs on television. It was to point out that the consequences of television’s existence in out society are far more significant that its program content” (Haugsjaa, 04/10/00). One reviewer, in fact, suggested that anyone reading this book then rent the movie Network to understand how Mr. Mander’s book complements the manipulating and dehumanizing themes in this movie
In May 1999 Susan R. Johnson M.D. presented a paper as a senior project at Waldorf School of San Francisco. Her paper addressed effects of technology, television and computer technology specifically, on preschool and elementary age children. She carefully and fully describes the sequential development of a child’s brain from infancy through elementary school age. She emphasizes how important it is for children to have experiences that stimulate and integrate the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. We learn that we need to protect them from over stimulation, as they are quite literally sponges and do not, as of yet, have the brain capacity to filter out noxious sense experiences(3).
Dr. Johnson describes the importance of a connection that forms early in childhood between the right hemisphere which is more intellectual and responsive to visual images, and the left hemisphere. The left hemisphere specializes in analytical and sequential thinking and step-by-step logical reasoning(3).
The learning enhancement of computer technology and television with children is closely tied to the visual and auditory stimuli that these programs are meant to generate. Dr. Johnson, however, reminds us of studies on young children which consistently demonstrate that when simultaneously exposed to visual and sound stimuli, they focus on the visual, frequently not absorbing the sound content (Healey 1990)(6).
Her concern becomes clear as we realize that the focus on right hemisphere stimuli results in over stimulation with which a child cannot yet cope. Furthermore, this results in a lack of stimulus for the imagination in the left hemisphere. The child does not create the visual images he or she sees, even if they remember them. Answers are factually based but do not involve the perception or judgment that interaction with other humans and nature is known to foster. We learn that it is difficult to create a picture when we have already been shown the image. How can a child learn to discern the subtle nuances involved in face-to-face interaction from a person viewed on a monitor or screen? Technology can garner emotions, but only as an individual reaction, not as the energy and intelligence found in the “heart” of out brain. This is learned only from a child’s experience interacting face-to-face with another(7).
Dr. Johnson speaks about the importance of a crucial neurological pathway called the corpus callosum. It is a bridge between the right and left hemisphere and one of the latest maturing parts of a child’s brain. “This pathway provides the interplay between the analytic and intuitive thinking, and several neuropsychologists believe the poor development of this pathway affects the right and left hemispheres effective communication with each other and may be a cause of attention and leaning difficulties” (Healey 1990)(4).
And the connection comes around full circle. The content of technology programs is not the issue here. It is of the technology itself and the effect it has on children that must be carefully understood. Even with a closely regulated technology program, the importance of reading and the connection to nature, other people and to our senses cannot be overstated. Technology has a place in the elementary school classroom but it is best kept well regulated and minimal.
Works Cited
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1998.” Digest of Educational Statistics, 1998; Chapter 2, Enrollments, Table 53, 04/05/00
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1999.” Digest
of Educational Statistics, 1999; Elementary/Secondary Chapter,
Page 24, table 54, 04/10/00 <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/majorpub.asp>
Haugsjaa, Erik. ‘Suburbinization of the Mind” online review of Four
Arguments for the Elimination of Television. 04/10/00
Healy, Jane. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and
What We Can Do About It. 1990, New York, Simon and
Schuster
Johnson, Susan R. M.D. “Strangers in Our Homes: TV and Our
Children’s Minds”, 04/04/00
Kozlowski, Kim. “Teen Death Attributed To Ritalin”, Detroit News
Page 1A 04/17/00
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
1978, New York, William Morrow and Co.
“Resource and Technology/1999”. Digest of Educational Statistics
Chapter 7, 04/05/00
Friday, February 9, 2007
Learning and Identity
Gee, John Paul. Learning and Identity, Chapter 3, "What Does It Mean To Be Half-Elf?" Arcanium: Learning and Identity, pages 51-71.
Mr Gee's chapter provided the same learning curve for me that he describes video games using.
The educational system in this country provides ample groundwork for debate. Those administering it claim that it is getting better and just needs more commitment (usually money) to be fixed. Those whose children are in it look for hopeful signs of improvement. School administrators tout "Blue Ribbon" awards and rising grades, but what do these really mean and do they really indicate that our children are really becoming better, more critical learners? What is behind this "Blue Ribbon" accolade and how difficult is it to earn an "A"? Standardized tests, for all their flaws, do provide some benchmark for improvement and level of accomplishment for individual students and school systems. But I cannot remember a discussion on how to engage children in their education and improve their skills. This chapter by Mr. Gee does that in a very concrete way for me.
I, like many other parents, have always been concerned with how easily and thoroughly children can immerse themselves in video games. John Paul Gee draws some interesting parallels between what motivates children as they learn and excel at these games and how this motivation could be applied to classroom learning. He reminds us that to learn and master something we must be drawn into it, be able to adapt and try this new learning with minimal risks, have input that is amplified at the output and the learner should discover new insights or powers about themselves as a result of the effort. In video games, Mr Gee describes how we take on virtual identities in the virtual world of the game. He contends there are three identities at stake when playing games. The first is the virtual identity, "one's identity as a virtual character in the virtual world". The second is that of the gameplayer, the real world identity. The third he called the "projective identity". This is a combination of the gameplayer's identity with the virtual person as someone he has chosen and is creating within the limits of the game and a projection of what the gameplayer may be and feel. This is the "interface between the real-world person and the virtual character. While the real person must live within their own limitations, they can project onto their virtual character things outside these personal limits but within the limits of the game. What is tried or done in this virtual world does not have serious consequences in the real world. Additionally, good video games draw the player into them, playing becomes just that as the player learns and masters new moves, techniques and knowledge. This learning is part of the game, not extra work and in the end the player is rewarded with accomplishment and a sense of new value while the game encourages him to go farther. The real person participates in this reward through projection into his creation-his virtual character. As John Paul points out, this identification with one's virtual character is not felt for the characters in books. While we may identify with what those characters are or have done we don't feel personal pride in them or personally associate with any loss they may have suffered. In virtual reality, they are characters the player identifies with personally because of this projected complex. The virtual character develops because of choice made by the real person and effects the future choice of that real person by the way this virtual character develops in the world of the game.
Mr. Gee goes on then to parallel this three person personna and role playing into a very useful tool for the classroom. To learn, children must be enticed into actively participating in a classroom and putting in a lot of effort. Any success they have must be meaningful and encourage them to further expand their efforts. As they enter classrooms not as writers or scientists but children, they must be drawn in and create a personna they can operate through and connect with. This interface gives them the opportunity to choose new tasks and ideas without fear of failure. A classroom must provide learning that draws the student into it, give them the opportunity to choose and learn not only about a subject but project this to learn about themselves. Mr. Gee offers six principles found in good video games that he feels should be applied to classroom learning. they include; providing a space where risk-taking can take place with low real world consequences, students must commit to their learning and this requires an educational world they find compelling and are drawn into, the connection between who a student is when he enters a classroom and who he becomes must involve real choices on the part of the student as they strive toward an identity they have earned from their time in a class -who they are capable of being, a little input should give learners a lot of output and at all levels learners should receive intrinsic rewards for their mastery and achievements.
One of the most important ideas reinforced by video games is the basic principle that "learning for humans is, in large part, a practice effort", we learn most by doing. But if what we are doing is boring, we will resist doing it. Certainly we can't expect any more from children. While educators complain that"video games are compelling and school is not", they repeatedly try to enforce learning by practicing skills which gives no meaningful context or goal to learning and is anything but compelling to students. This learning by practice in video games results in mastery but good games don't leave things there. A player is rewarded for mastery but 'disrewarded' if they remain there. The next level is just around the corner and better then the one you're in. Video games give players an opportunity to operate at the outer edge of their skills without making them play beyond them. Schools would do well to practice the same. Students should be given the opportunity to learn to the edge of their potential but not repeatedly asked to operate beyond their competence. This would require much fine tuning on the part of educators but would benefit students in the long run.
I was a little bit skeptical when I first started reading this chapter. Don't we all agree that children should get their homework done before they play? While this may be true, it belies the fact that playing is very often learning that's fun. John Paul Gee is not encouraging us to let our children play video games all the time, he is enlisting some very basic principle that have made these games as successful as they are and recommending the use of these principles in education. I couldn't agree more. While learning can't always be fun, learning needs to be engaging and purposeful. Learning needs to engage students and draw them into a subject. Humans learn by practice, by doing, but when it is simply repetitive motion there is no learning curve. Children should learn at least as much about themselves as the do about a subject when they are engaged in learning. None of this is easily accomplished but teaching is not an easy job. It is perhaps one of the most important jobs and is worth the extra effort.
Mr Gee's chapter provided the same learning curve for me that he describes video games using.
The educational system in this country provides ample groundwork for debate. Those administering it claim that it is getting better and just needs more commitment (usually money) to be fixed. Those whose children are in it look for hopeful signs of improvement. School administrators tout "Blue Ribbon" awards and rising grades, but what do these really mean and do they really indicate that our children are really becoming better, more critical learners? What is behind this "Blue Ribbon" accolade and how difficult is it to earn an "A"? Standardized tests, for all their flaws, do provide some benchmark for improvement and level of accomplishment for individual students and school systems. But I cannot remember a discussion on how to engage children in their education and improve their skills. This chapter by Mr. Gee does that in a very concrete way for me.
I, like many other parents, have always been concerned with how easily and thoroughly children can immerse themselves in video games. John Paul Gee draws some interesting parallels between what motivates children as they learn and excel at these games and how this motivation could be applied to classroom learning. He reminds us that to learn and master something we must be drawn into it, be able to adapt and try this new learning with minimal risks, have input that is amplified at the output and the learner should discover new insights or powers about themselves as a result of the effort. In video games, Mr Gee describes how we take on virtual identities in the virtual world of the game. He contends there are three identities at stake when playing games. The first is the virtual identity, "one's identity as a virtual character in the virtual world". The second is that of the gameplayer, the real world identity. The third he called the "projective identity". This is a combination of the gameplayer's identity with the virtual person as someone he has chosen and is creating within the limits of the game and a projection of what the gameplayer may be and feel. This is the "interface between the real-world person and the virtual character. While the real person must live within their own limitations, they can project onto their virtual character things outside these personal limits but within the limits of the game. What is tried or done in this virtual world does not have serious consequences in the real world. Additionally, good video games draw the player into them, playing becomes just that as the player learns and masters new moves, techniques and knowledge. This learning is part of the game, not extra work and in the end the player is rewarded with accomplishment and a sense of new value while the game encourages him to go farther. The real person participates in this reward through projection into his creation-his virtual character. As John Paul points out, this identification with one's virtual character is not felt for the characters in books. While we may identify with what those characters are or have done we don't feel personal pride in them or personally associate with any loss they may have suffered. In virtual reality, they are characters the player identifies with personally because of this projected complex. The virtual character develops because of choice made by the real person and effects the future choice of that real person by the way this virtual character develops in the world of the game.
Mr. Gee goes on then to parallel this three person personna and role playing into a very useful tool for the classroom. To learn, children must be enticed into actively participating in a classroom and putting in a lot of effort. Any success they have must be meaningful and encourage them to further expand their efforts. As they enter classrooms not as writers or scientists but children, they must be drawn in and create a personna they can operate through and connect with. This interface gives them the opportunity to choose new tasks and ideas without fear of failure. A classroom must provide learning that draws the student into it, give them the opportunity to choose and learn not only about a subject but project this to learn about themselves. Mr. Gee offers six principles found in good video games that he feels should be applied to classroom learning. they include; providing a space where risk-taking can take place with low real world consequences, students must commit to their learning and this requires an educational world they find compelling and are drawn into, the connection between who a student is when he enters a classroom and who he becomes must involve real choices on the part of the student as they strive toward an identity they have earned from their time in a class -who they are capable of being, a little input should give learners a lot of output and at all levels learners should receive intrinsic rewards for their mastery and achievements.
One of the most important ideas reinforced by video games is the basic principle that "learning for humans is, in large part, a practice effort", we learn most by doing. But if what we are doing is boring, we will resist doing it. Certainly we can't expect any more from children. While educators complain that"video games are compelling and school is not", they repeatedly try to enforce learning by practicing skills which gives no meaningful context or goal to learning and is anything but compelling to students. This learning by practice in video games results in mastery but good games don't leave things there. A player is rewarded for mastery but 'disrewarded' if they remain there. The next level is just around the corner and better then the one you're in. Video games give players an opportunity to operate at the outer edge of their skills without making them play beyond them. Schools would do well to practice the same. Students should be given the opportunity to learn to the edge of their potential but not repeatedly asked to operate beyond their competence. This would require much fine tuning on the part of educators but would benefit students in the long run.
I was a little bit skeptical when I first started reading this chapter. Don't we all agree that children should get their homework done before they play? While this may be true, it belies the fact that playing is very often learning that's fun. John Paul Gee is not encouraging us to let our children play video games all the time, he is enlisting some very basic principle that have made these games as successful as they are and recommending the use of these principles in education. I couldn't agree more. While learning can't always be fun, learning needs to be engaging and purposeful. Learning needs to engage students and draw them into a subject. Humans learn by practice, by doing, but when it is simply repetitive motion there is no learning curve. Children should learn at least as much about themselves as the do about a subject when they are engaged in learning. None of this is easily accomplished but teaching is not an easy job. It is perhaps one of the most important jobs and is worth the extra effort.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
GAM3R7H30RY
Wark, McKenzie. GAM3R 7H30RY / McKenzie Wark / Version 1.1.
http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?cat=1http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?cat=1&paged=2
This story is set up in an easily read short, in fact only paragraph long, chapters. We are immediately drawn into common scenes of a neighborhood, then into a neighborhood store. From here the story darkens quite literally. We have moved into a local area network chain, we are gamers and have been since we were children. We have retreated into a darkened room called The Cave and while admitting there is a real world "out there" we are engrossed in this sensory world of network gaming. Facing the real world proves too dazzling even for those willing to return to it. In the end someone must not only pull us out but keep us there. Gradually we can see the real world and begin to realize the image of reality that has kept other gamers immersed in The Cave. So we go back and try to convince those still in The Cave to come back into the real world beyond the game, to live their lives, not play them. But it seems the more you are in this real world, the more it parallels the shadow world of the games. "You find that this other world is in some curious ways rather like The Cave." I seems in the real world, we are wrapped in images and we become easily obsessed with accumulating commodities. Our lives too easily become a battle of us verses them, our games no longer require a place to play them only the opportunity to play them out. In our real lives we become players, selling out to be a team player. In the end even our children are immersed in team play.At a time when they should be playing only for the sheer enjoyment of it, their lives simply shift from one event or sport to another. And what are they learning? To become a team player or pin unrealistic hopes on what should only be a game. So where is reality and where are the shadows?
Interesting. The world of The Cave is dark and shadow like. It draws us in as children but it draws us in as adults too. And it is in the end only games. Or is it? The images created in each succeeding chapter seem to draw worlds more and more parallel. First it ids the "wisdom of Playstation: 'Live in your world, play in ours'." Then the outside becomes too dazzling, we need help getting out. When we try to help fellow gamers reenter the world we "talk or text to other gamers about this outside world." But the world, we find is "in some curious ways rather like The Cave. If there is a difference, it may not be quite what it seems." While McKenzie remembers " the immense, immersive games of The Cave and what passes for wisdom amongst those still stuck there", he seems equally concerned about the dog-eat-dog world our children often have to inhabit as an alternative. But I don't think he feels all is lost, not here or in the gaming world. Mostly, I believe, we need to realize that our concerns about internet games and fantasizing are the concerns we need to have in real life in real life.
http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?cat=1http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?cat=1&paged=2
This story is set up in an easily read short, in fact only paragraph long, chapters. We are immediately drawn into common scenes of a neighborhood, then into a neighborhood store. From here the story darkens quite literally. We have moved into a local area network chain, we are gamers and have been since we were children. We have retreated into a darkened room called The Cave and while admitting there is a real world "out there" we are engrossed in this sensory world of network gaming. Facing the real world proves too dazzling even for those willing to return to it. In the end someone must not only pull us out but keep us there. Gradually we can see the real world and begin to realize the image of reality that has kept other gamers immersed in The Cave. So we go back and try to convince those still in The Cave to come back into the real world beyond the game, to live their lives, not play them. But it seems the more you are in this real world, the more it parallels the shadow world of the games. "You find that this other world is in some curious ways rather like The Cave." I seems in the real world, we are wrapped in images and we become easily obsessed with accumulating commodities. Our lives too easily become a battle of us verses them, our games no longer require a place to play them only the opportunity to play them out. In our real lives we become players, selling out to be a team player. In the end even our children are immersed in team play.At a time when they should be playing only for the sheer enjoyment of it, their lives simply shift from one event or sport to another. And what are they learning? To become a team player or pin unrealistic hopes on what should only be a game. So where is reality and where are the shadows?
Interesting. The world of The Cave is dark and shadow like. It draws us in as children but it draws us in as adults too. And it is in the end only games. Or is it? The images created in each succeeding chapter seem to draw worlds more and more parallel. First it ids the "wisdom of Playstation: 'Live in your world, play in ours'." Then the outside becomes too dazzling, we need help getting out. When we try to help fellow gamers reenter the world we "talk or text to other gamers about this outside world." But the world, we find is "in some curious ways rather like The Cave. If there is a difference, it may not be quite what it seems." While McKenzie remembers " the immense, immersive games of The Cave and what passes for wisdom amongst those still stuck there", he seems equally concerned about the dog-eat-dog world our children often have to inhabit as an alternative. But I don't think he feels all is lost, not here or in the gaming world. Mostly, I believe, we need to realize that our concerns about internet games and fantasizing are the concerns we need to have in real life in real life.
The Institute for the Future of the Book and McKenzie Work
Wark, McKenzie. GAM3R 7H30RY / McKenzie Wark / Version 1.1. ; About this project
http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?page_id=2
The Institute for the Future of the Book is a web site whose stated mission is to chronicle the passage of the printed page to the network screen and "impact this development in a positive direction". McKenzie Work has joined the effort to develop this networked book in new and innovative patterns and to make writing a book a collaborative work of art. He brings his experience writing on and about the web, in particular web based games. Much of the initial work dealt with how to present the book. Concerns included how to keep the book flowing and generate feedback from the readers. They wanted a format that would encourage "equitable discussion" and place comments with the text, not a click away. A card-shuffle interface that was decided on was the result of inventive collabotation,"some sideways luck" and the adapting some borrowed ideas.
I have always been a little skeptical of online texts. I treasure the image of "curling up with a good book". But a closer look at online "networked books" gives me with optimism. Books and games still need authors but the online books give many writers the opportunity to have a hand in a work in progress. The pooling of talent by the Foundation provides a groundwork that is meant to capture the reader and make it easy for anyone who wishes to contribute.
One result of this joint effort was Agony. The "card-shuffle interface" had exactly the desired effect on me. The short chapters made for easy reading. With each chapter building on the next, a reader is quickly drawn into the storyline. I could find it very easy to contribute. "Placing the book and its discussion on an equal footing" emphasizes the attempt to make all of us authors.
In the end most of my fears were quite handily put to rest. While we "see what happens when authors and readers are brought into conversation over an evolving text...when the book is 'finished,' it will be published in print by a conventional press." The I can still curl up in a chair and read it if I want.
http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/?page_id=2
The Institute for the Future of the Book is a web site whose stated mission is to chronicle the passage of the printed page to the network screen and "impact this development in a positive direction". McKenzie Work has joined the effort to develop this networked book in new and innovative patterns and to make writing a book a collaborative work of art. He brings his experience writing on and about the web, in particular web based games. Much of the initial work dealt with how to present the book. Concerns included how to keep the book flowing and generate feedback from the readers. They wanted a format that would encourage "equitable discussion" and place comments with the text, not a click away. A card-shuffle interface that was decided on was the result of inventive collabotation,"some sideways luck" and the adapting some borrowed ideas.
I have always been a little skeptical of online texts. I treasure the image of "curling up with a good book". But a closer look at online "networked books" gives me with optimism. Books and games still need authors but the online books give many writers the opportunity to have a hand in a work in progress. The pooling of talent by the Foundation provides a groundwork that is meant to capture the reader and make it easy for anyone who wishes to contribute.
One result of this joint effort was Agony. The "card-shuffle interface" had exactly the desired effect on me. The short chapters made for easy reading. With each chapter building on the next, a reader is quickly drawn into the storyline. I could find it very easy to contribute. "Placing the book and its discussion on an equal footing" emphasizes the attempt to make all of us authors.
In the end most of my fears were quite handily put to rest. While we "see what happens when authors and readers are brought into conversation over an evolving text...when the book is 'finished,' it will be published in print by a conventional press." The I can still curl up in a chair and read it if I want.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Second Life
Cummons, Neil. Digital Culture: A Second Life to Live. National Public Radio, All Things Considered, February 1,2007. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6375226
NPR offered an interesting look at Second Life, the virtual reality online world sponsored by Linden Labs out of California. Neil Cummon interviewed radio personalities Mark Glaser and John Hassek who both have experience with online worlds. He also had a number of people who called in to voice their opinions and experience with this phenomenon. Second Life is a virtual world. Those who join can become whoever they wish by creating an avatar-a representative. It is an "interactive, internet environment that can be accessed online." Some view it as an avenue for creativity, an opportunity to build everything in your 'world' yourself. This world even has Linden Dollars that can be exchanged for U.S. currency, the virtual banking world. Participants can buy virtual commodities that include real estate, cars clothes and retail goods, all of which can be created to be and do things 'real' goods could not. One concern voiced was this world was created by Linden Lab, this world and all of the tools in it. They control what's in Second Life. They control accounts in this virtual world, they are the Government in Second Life. It's part of this virtual world that the participant can't control and it appears a little like a dark side to me along with the appearance of crime, sex and terrorism in this world. But there is a lot of promise that was voiced; better communication over distance and an opportunity to get diverse input from different backgrounds located all over the world , the ability to present goods and ideas to a worldwide audience and receive immediate feedback.
The very tools used in this virtual world, however give it it's most impressive drawback, connection requires broadband and a high end computer. Even as we speak of the virtual world in the Worldwide Web and it's potential, we must understand that these requirements will often reduce or eliminate participation from many groups. But this is a new but not brand new technology. It is still evolving and will continue to do so over time. There may still come a day that all who want to participate and can benefit from this and new virtual worlds will have access to it.
NPR offered an interesting look at Second Life, the virtual reality online world sponsored by Linden Labs out of California. Neil Cummon interviewed radio personalities Mark Glaser and John Hassek who both have experience with online worlds. He also had a number of people who called in to voice their opinions and experience with this phenomenon. Second Life is a virtual world. Those who join can become whoever they wish by creating an avatar-a representative. It is an "interactive, internet environment that can be accessed online." Some view it as an avenue for creativity, an opportunity to build everything in your 'world' yourself. This world even has Linden Dollars that can be exchanged for U.S. currency, the virtual banking world. Participants can buy virtual commodities that include real estate, cars clothes and retail goods, all of which can be created to be and do things 'real' goods could not. One concern voiced was this world was created by Linden Lab, this world and all of the tools in it. They control what's in Second Life. They control accounts in this virtual world, they are the Government in Second Life. It's part of this virtual world that the participant can't control and it appears a little like a dark side to me along with the appearance of crime, sex and terrorism in this world. But there is a lot of promise that was voiced; better communication over distance and an opportunity to get diverse input from different backgrounds located all over the world , the ability to present goods and ideas to a worldwide audience and receive immediate feedback.
The very tools used in this virtual world, however give it it's most impressive drawback, connection requires broadband and a high end computer. Even as we speak of the virtual world in the Worldwide Web and it's potential, we must understand that these requirements will often reduce or eliminate participation from many groups. But this is a new but not brand new technology. It is still evolving and will continue to do so over time. There may still come a day that all who want to participate and can benefit from this and new virtual worlds will have access to it.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
A View From Second Life
Hockenberry, John, Vega, Suzanne. "A View From Second Life", Second City. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6375226
The virtual interview we listened to this week was a real eyeopener, and that's quite a stretch for a radio program. The program itself was light and entertaining with conversation between John Hockenberry and Suzanne Vega and several songs performed by Suzanne. The difference was that this was a "live taping of a radio show" in a virtual context. We could see everything on this radio show-the audience, the host and his guest, all their props-but we understood that this was not real but virtual. The characters talked and moved about , but their lips never moved. Suzanne had trouble getting her guitar in place, John forgot to put in his wheelchair and at one point disapeared from the screen. Through it all we were provided with genuine entertainment.
The program itself was especially entertaining. The interview was relaxed and engaging and Suzanne Vega is a wonderful entertainer. The presence of a virtual reality not only added to the show but brought the listener into the program in a personal way. Who among us could not relate to the computer glitches that John and Suzanne were confronted with and what about the way each created their own "avatar" and had so much fun with it. Remember John's metaphor about forgetting his wheelchair? He said it made him feel "like a plant unbounded from its roots" and now was free. Suzanne commented that now she could let her avatar deal with stage fright. In the end they reminded us that when things go wrong, and they did, "it's only radio".
The virtual interview we listened to this week was a real eyeopener, and that's quite a stretch for a radio program. The program itself was light and entertaining with conversation between John Hockenberry and Suzanne Vega and several songs performed by Suzanne. The difference was that this was a "live taping of a radio show" in a virtual context. We could see everything on this radio show-the audience, the host and his guest, all their props-but we understood that this was not real but virtual. The characters talked and moved about , but their lips never moved. Suzanne had trouble getting her guitar in place, John forgot to put in his wheelchair and at one point disapeared from the screen. Through it all we were provided with genuine entertainment.
The program itself was especially entertaining. The interview was relaxed and engaging and Suzanne Vega is a wonderful entertainer. The presence of a virtual reality not only added to the show but brought the listener into the program in a personal way. Who among us could not relate to the computer glitches that John and Suzanne were confronted with and what about the way each created their own "avatar" and had so much fun with it. Remember John's metaphor about forgetting his wheelchair? He said it made him feel "like a plant unbounded from its roots" and now was free. Suzanne commented that now she could let her avatar deal with stage fright. In the end they reminded us that when things go wrong, and they did, "it's only radio".
Is There a There in Cyberspace?
Barlow, John Perry. Is There A There in Cyberspace? http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/HTML/utne_community.html
Mr. Barlow takes us along on a journey he has traveled, "from pushing cows around in a remote Wyoming ranch to my present occupation...a Cyberspace Cadet". He described the hardships of trying to maintain a family farm while the economy turned from a rural to an urban one. People followed the jobs and he felt that we lost much of our 'community' way of life in the process. As he struggled to keep afloat, he was able to make a living writing songs for the Grateful Dead and made a name for himself with the band's nomadic followers, the Deadheads. It was during this time that he discovered the online community of the Deadheads and other Grateful Dead followers. He lamented their lack of a physical presence, he celebrated the fact that "they could put down roots which could not be ripped out by forces of economic history". Since that time he has devoted much of his time to these "communities of Cyberspace", but still felt the lack of physical connection a small community gave him. Then the story takes on real texture. Mr Barlow shares what he feels has been the greatest tragedy of his life. He unexpectedly lost the "great love of his life". It was at this time that he felt an overwhelming need for a community that could engulf him and carry him when he could not bear to walk on his own. It was the Cybernet community that was there for him. His eulogy, posted online, was reposted around the world and the unbelievable outpouring of genuine empathy, sharing and goodwill from those he might have otherwise never heard from carried him through him tragedy.
Mr. Barlow engages us in another positive aspect of the online community. It's always hard to accept new things. We tend to see them as 'less than' the 'real thing'. We tend to see the negative about what is new and be suspect of it's real value. The internet has great potential, both for good and bad. But that potential is in everything new. The internet has the ability to reach farther than any community ever has before, and can bring people together in a way and scope that was never possible in the past. As with the proverbial step-child, when it is good it's very, very good but when it is bad, it is very bad. Then again though, "nothing tried, nothing gained".
Mr. Barlow takes us along on a journey he has traveled, "from pushing cows around in a remote Wyoming ranch to my present occupation...a Cyberspace Cadet". He described the hardships of trying to maintain a family farm while the economy turned from a rural to an urban one. People followed the jobs and he felt that we lost much of our 'community' way of life in the process. As he struggled to keep afloat, he was able to make a living writing songs for the Grateful Dead and made a name for himself with the band's nomadic followers, the Deadheads. It was during this time that he discovered the online community of the Deadheads and other Grateful Dead followers. He lamented their lack of a physical presence, he celebrated the fact that "they could put down roots which could not be ripped out by forces of economic history". Since that time he has devoted much of his time to these "communities of Cyberspace", but still felt the lack of physical connection a small community gave him. Then the story takes on real texture. Mr Barlow shares what he feels has been the greatest tragedy of his life. He unexpectedly lost the "great love of his life". It was at this time that he felt an overwhelming need for a community that could engulf him and carry him when he could not bear to walk on his own. It was the Cybernet community that was there for him. His eulogy, posted online, was reposted around the world and the unbelievable outpouring of genuine empathy, sharing and goodwill from those he might have otherwise never heard from carried him through him tragedy.
Mr. Barlow engages us in another positive aspect of the online community. It's always hard to accept new things. We tend to see them as 'less than' the 'real thing'. We tend to see the negative about what is new and be suspect of it's real value. The internet has great potential, both for good and bad. But that potential is in everything new. The internet has the ability to reach farther than any community ever has before, and can bring people together in a way and scope that was never possible in the past. As with the proverbial step-child, when it is good it's very, very good but when it is bad, it is very bad. Then again though, "nothing tried, nothing gained".
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Wikipedia Assignment
Strenski, Ellen. The Wikipedia/Encyclopedia Britannica Controversy. A Dialectical timeline. WR 139W, Fall 2006, UC Irvine
http://compositioncafe.com/?25950/wikicontroversy.html
Schneider, K.G.. Free Range Librarian. http://freeangelibrarian.com/archives/052905/wikipedia.php
Colbert, Stephen. The Colbert Report:Wikiality. The Colbert Report: The Word Season Z Archive, Sunday 07/30/2006. http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=72347
After reading the discussion board this evening, I checked out our assignments. I started reading the postings in the text of the assignment. The first site connects with articles chronicling a rather heated argument between Nature magazine and Encyclopedia Britannica. The gist of the problem is that the magazine did a semi-scholarly study and published their results in an article which basically claims that the Internet Wikipedia has an accuracy close to the noted Encyclopedia, after a number of entries were reviewed from both sources. Following the article in Nature, several rebuttals were written by former staff and by representatives of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In an official rebuttal, the Britannica cited numerous mistakes, mis/information and erroneous conclusions they say were made in the Nature article. They ended by demanding the story be recanted. Nature, of course, would have no part of this. In the end, those representing Encyclopedia Britannica seem mostly appalled that a source this scholarly, impeccably well-written and eminently respected could be remotely paralleled with the unscholarly and edit-as-you-like reliability of Wikipedia. The second link in part 1 of the assignment links to an article written by a librarian . She takes issue with the reliability of Wikipedia's information. Her career involves providing information to the public and researching the sources she recommends to give the public an idea of the accuracy of that information. She expresses reasonable concerns about Wikipedia's edit-on-the-fly policy but mostly in regards to the possibility of misinformation being 'digested' by readers who do not use a critical eye or check their sources with other sources. She compared it to students who do research and write a paper from only one source-an encyclopedia.
As I read through the links I couldn't help but chuckle. Embedded in both sides of the argument was the fact that overall there were only eight errors of real significance discovered in both sources, five in Wikipedia and three in Encyclopedia Britannica. Both sides readily admitted that they make mistakes and take measures to correct any mistakes immediately when brought to their attention. Nature complains that the reviews were done by experts who did not know the source of the information they were reviewing. They claim their results were unbiased and any mistakes should have evened out in the long run. It appears that these two publications are stuck in a pissing match and the only one on the winning side is not in the argument at all-Wikipedia! The librarian's message is reasonable and well thought out, she bashes no one and her arguments stand on their own. They are in support of one side over the other and should be seen as such, but she points out the importance of information being available to all. She reminds us that too few people check their sources and in the case of the young don't yet have the critical thinking skills to evaluate information and sources.
Perhaps the most important overall point of these articles is that Wikipedia is not advertised as an authority on all subjects, it is an information source for a very large number of subjects. I cannot believe that it represents a real threat to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I fact the whole idea of this is quite preposterous. The Encyclopedia is historically recognized as an authority and takes this responsibility very seriously. Wikipedia is a new and very novel source of information. They also take responsibility for the information they disseminate as is evidenced by the low number of errors reported in the Nature article and their willingness to correct any errors they find. I have to believe that the editors at Encyclopedia Britannica have taken themselves a bit too seriously. The value of Wikipedia is in the open format that is used. While anyone may post information on a subject others are just as free to add to or correct the information. All of this adding and editing takes place in the open and in public. Reading these links reminds me of a quote I heard attributed to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He stated that "the answer to bad speech is more speech".
http://compositioncafe.com/?25950/wikicontroversy.html
Schneider, K.G.. Free Range Librarian. http://freeangelibrarian.com/archives/052905/wikipedia.php
Colbert, Stephen. The Colbert Report:Wikiality. The Colbert Report: The Word Season Z Archive, Sunday 07/30/2006. http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=72347
After reading the discussion board this evening, I checked out our assignments. I started reading the postings in the text of the assignment. The first site connects with articles chronicling a rather heated argument between Nature magazine and Encyclopedia Britannica. The gist of the problem is that the magazine did a semi-scholarly study and published their results in an article which basically claims that the Internet Wikipedia has an accuracy close to the noted Encyclopedia, after a number of entries were reviewed from both sources. Following the article in Nature, several rebuttals were written by former staff and by representatives of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In an official rebuttal, the Britannica cited numerous mistakes, mis/information and erroneous conclusions they say were made in the Nature article. They ended by demanding the story be recanted. Nature, of course, would have no part of this. In the end, those representing Encyclopedia Britannica seem mostly appalled that a source this scholarly, impeccably well-written and eminently respected could be remotely paralleled with the unscholarly and edit-as-you-like reliability of Wikipedia. The second link in part 1 of the assignment links to an article written by a librarian . She takes issue with the reliability of Wikipedia's information. Her career involves providing information to the public and researching the sources she recommends to give the public an idea of the accuracy of that information. She expresses reasonable concerns about Wikipedia's edit-on-the-fly policy but mostly in regards to the possibility of misinformation being 'digested' by readers who do not use a critical eye or check their sources with other sources. She compared it to students who do research and write a paper from only one source-an encyclopedia.
As I read through the links I couldn't help but chuckle. Embedded in both sides of the argument was the fact that overall there were only eight errors of real significance discovered in both sources, five in Wikipedia and three in Encyclopedia Britannica. Both sides readily admitted that they make mistakes and take measures to correct any mistakes immediately when brought to their attention. Nature complains that the reviews were done by experts who did not know the source of the information they were reviewing. They claim their results were unbiased and any mistakes should have evened out in the long run. It appears that these two publications are stuck in a pissing match and the only one on the winning side is not in the argument at all-Wikipedia! The librarian's message is reasonable and well thought out, she bashes no one and her arguments stand on their own. They are in support of one side over the other and should be seen as such, but she points out the importance of information being available to all. She reminds us that too few people check their sources and in the case of the young don't yet have the critical thinking skills to evaluate information and sources.
Perhaps the most important overall point of these articles is that Wikipedia is not advertised as an authority on all subjects, it is an information source for a very large number of subjects. I cannot believe that it represents a real threat to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I fact the whole idea of this is quite preposterous. The Encyclopedia is historically recognized as an authority and takes this responsibility very seriously. Wikipedia is a new and very novel source of information. They also take responsibility for the information they disseminate as is evidenced by the low number of errors reported in the Nature article and their willingness to correct any errors they find. I have to believe that the editors at Encyclopedia Britannica have taken themselves a bit too seriously. The value of Wikipedia is in the open format that is used. While anyone may post information on a subject others are just as free to add to or correct the information. All of this adding and editing takes place in the open and in public. Reading these links reminds me of a quote I heard attributed to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He stated that "the answer to bad speech is more speech".
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Identity Management in Cyberspace
Suler, John. "Identity Management in Cyberspace." Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 4, 455-460.
Mr Suler gives some important insights to consider when weighing in who we will present as ourselves in cyberspace. Often much depends on the group we are joining. Different groups expect different aspects or levels of identity. A professional group wants to see you 'as you really are', a fantasy or gaming group expects you to take on an 'avatar', a chat group expects each partipicant to decide for themselves. We often tend to overanalyze ourselves and forget that our identity is a very complex aspect of who we are. Cyberspace allows us to present all or parts of ourselves in a medium of our own choice. We should remember, though, that often the choices we make reveal things about us we were not intending to show.
Who am I? Who do I want to be? What do I want others to see in me? These are all questions we deal with almost automatically in our everyday lives. But when we enter cyberspace we worry because here we are creating ourselves to be seen by others. We all have parts of ourself that we view as negative, that we don't like, and parts that we see positively, that we like. Cyberspace allows us to present the person we like, become the person we fantasize and examine the person we don't like. This can be a very good thing.
"A single person's identity embodies multiplicity." It is important to take a step back once in a while and examine ourselves objectively. We need to realize that all the roles we have played and tasks we have taken on contribute to who we are. Cyberspace allows us to present all or part of that person. This article gives relavent points we should consider and utilize when entering this 'space'. But what is important to remember is what Mr. Suler describes as "the hallmark of mental health...bringing together the various components of online and offline identity into one balanced, harmonious whole."
Mr Suler gives some important insights to consider when weighing in who we will present as ourselves in cyberspace. Often much depends on the group we are joining. Different groups expect different aspects or levels of identity. A professional group wants to see you 'as you really are', a fantasy or gaming group expects you to take on an 'avatar', a chat group expects each partipicant to decide for themselves. We often tend to overanalyze ourselves and forget that our identity is a very complex aspect of who we are. Cyberspace allows us to present all or parts of ourselves in a medium of our own choice. We should remember, though, that often the choices we make reveal things about us we were not intending to show.
Who am I? Who do I want to be? What do I want others to see in me? These are all questions we deal with almost automatically in our everyday lives. But when we enter cyberspace we worry because here we are creating ourselves to be seen by others. We all have parts of ourself that we view as negative, that we don't like, and parts that we see positively, that we like. Cyberspace allows us to present the person we like, become the person we fantasize and examine the person we don't like. This can be a very good thing.
"A single person's identity embodies multiplicity." It is important to take a step back once in a while and examine ourselves objectively. We need to realize that all the roles we have played and tasks we have taken on contribute to who we are. Cyberspace allows us to present all or part of that person. This article gives relavent points we should consider and utilize when entering this 'space'. But what is important to remember is what Mr. Suler describes as "the hallmark of mental health...bringing together the various components of online and offline identity into one balanced, harmonious whole."
Friday, January 26, 2007
My Website, Myself
Daum, Meghan. "My Website, Myself" July 27th, 2004, 11:45AM http://www.meghandaum.com
Meghan's website article tells about the struggles she faced personally and as a professional writer in creating a website for her work. As she worried about how to present herself, she wondered if she might find herself creating another person entirely. While she told us how much effort went into her decisions, she lamented that her site came up short in comparison to other websites. Ms. Daum realized the importance of creating a website for herself and her work. She states that it is "an opportunity for creative people to explain ourselves, to set the record straight, to recreate our images by suggesting that we are in fact something entirely different from what our publicist, agent or mother assumes us to be." But she worries that writers don't entirely trust the reader to understand on their own, that they perhaps need a "reader's guide". Meghan expresses lament about a time when written ideas "resided soley in the work itself".
Meghan writes about her worries in describing not only herself but also her work. She wants to present the real picture on her website but has found out how difficult that can be. What has not changed is that "all artists grapple with the fallout of presenting work to the public...The value of artists websites will probably remain, like the work itself, in the eye of the beholder".
I feel Meghan may have come to grips with the concerns she had about creating a website for her work. She knows that no matter what her site looks like, she will always find a better one. As a writer, she faces the same lack of control all writers face regarding how well her work will be understood and received. She sees the website as a way not only to promote but to help readers understand her work. In the end, however readers will see what 'they' see and interpret in their own minds. And Meghan is who she is,no matter how others see her on her website. And she can live with that.
Meghan's website article tells about the struggles she faced personally and as a professional writer in creating a website for her work. As she worried about how to present herself, she wondered if she might find herself creating another person entirely. While she told us how much effort went into her decisions, she lamented that her site came up short in comparison to other websites. Ms. Daum realized the importance of creating a website for herself and her work. She states that it is "an opportunity for creative people to explain ourselves, to set the record straight, to recreate our images by suggesting that we are in fact something entirely different from what our publicist, agent or mother assumes us to be." But she worries that writers don't entirely trust the reader to understand on their own, that they perhaps need a "reader's guide". Meghan expresses lament about a time when written ideas "resided soley in the work itself".
Meghan writes about her worries in describing not only herself but also her work. She wants to present the real picture on her website but has found out how difficult that can be. What has not changed is that "all artists grapple with the fallout of presenting work to the public...The value of artists websites will probably remain, like the work itself, in the eye of the beholder".
I feel Meghan may have come to grips with the concerns she had about creating a website for her work. She knows that no matter what her site looks like, she will always find a better one. As a writer, she faces the same lack of control all writers face regarding how well her work will be understood and received. She sees the website as a way not only to promote but to help readers understand her work. In the end, however readers will see what 'they' see and interpret in their own minds. And Meghan is who she is,no matter how others see her on her website. And she can live with that.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Yours Truly
Ogunnaike, Lola. “’Yours Truly,’ the E-Variations.” New York Times November 26, 2006
This article deals with salutations in e-mail communications. With the age of internet communications Ms. Ogunnaike makes several good points. Email needs an appropriate opening and an appropriate sign-off. We need to keep in mind the purpose of our message and who it is being sent to. Does it need to be formal or convey respect? Do we need to be friendly and intimate or friendly but at a distance. All of this is influenced by our own personality but we need to remember that the person who receives this receives only this message not the sender personally.
Ms. Ogunaike writes that “the final few words above your name are where relationships and hierarchies are established”, that salutations and sign-offs can be “a land mine”. We are cautioned that “it is important that the closing is in keeping with the spirit of the message”.
Dealing with emails today can sometimes challenge one’s imagination. Greetings should reflect the status of the person we are contacting and the importance of our message. Sign-offs need to be somewhere between friendly and courteous but never rude or abrupt.
Hargittai, Eszter. “A Primer on Electronic Communication.” News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education November 28
Ms. Hargittai discusses the importance of writing emails in a way that improves the chances they will be read and not relegated ‘trash’. This is especially important if a response is needed. We imagine that everyone gives the same importance to our emails that we do but in today’s world people and especially professionals and businesses are often swamped with correspondence. We need to find a way to ensure our message gets priority on that end.
The author gives an outline form of suggestions to follow to “optimize the chances of receiving a response to emails to unknown people. The following is that list taken directly from her article:
-Descriptive subject line
-Polite point-of-contact
-Succinct statement of the message’s purpose
-Brief introduction of yourself
-Acknowledging other attempts at finding an answer or solution
-Restatement of question
-Gratitude for assistance
We are reminded by the author that “all of these sections should be very brief and to read the letter ourselves before sending it off. First impressions are still the most lasting.
There is also a caution to “make sure that whatever you send off is something that would not be a cause for embarrassment if people other than the recipient were to see it”. This is certainly a good reminder because of the ease with which the sender click and send your message off to others.
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. “Bards Of the Internet.” TIME, July 04, 1994. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,981013,00.html
Mr. Elmer-Dewitt has presented a view of internet communication that I had never considered. He applauds it as “the greatest boom in letter writing since the 18th century”. While many of us have been appalled by what we see as bad writing, especially with ‘instant messaging’, he reminds us that popular sites have become “so crowded with writers crying for attention that a Darwinian survival principle has started to prevail.”
Writers need to be better to make an impact. I hadn’t thought about the fact that it is very difficult to be published even today. The internet offers an opportunity for anyone to express their thoughts and ideas but actually encourages better writing through competition to be read. He feels that those who are netwriters because they can and do “write, write and write". Isn’t this what I learned in my first writing class?
This article deals with salutations in e-mail communications. With the age of internet communications Ms. Ogunnaike makes several good points. Email needs an appropriate opening and an appropriate sign-off. We need to keep in mind the purpose of our message and who it is being sent to. Does it need to be formal or convey respect? Do we need to be friendly and intimate or friendly but at a distance. All of this is influenced by our own personality but we need to remember that the person who receives this receives only this message not the sender personally.
Ms. Ogunaike writes that “the final few words above your name are where relationships and hierarchies are established”, that salutations and sign-offs can be “a land mine”. We are cautioned that “it is important that the closing is in keeping with the spirit of the message”.
Dealing with emails today can sometimes challenge one’s imagination. Greetings should reflect the status of the person we are contacting and the importance of our message. Sign-offs need to be somewhere between friendly and courteous but never rude or abrupt.
Hargittai, Eszter. “A Primer on Electronic Communication.” News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education November 28
Ms. Hargittai discusses the importance of writing emails in a way that improves the chances they will be read and not relegated ‘trash’. This is especially important if a response is needed. We imagine that everyone gives the same importance to our emails that we do but in today’s world people and especially professionals and businesses are often swamped with correspondence. We need to find a way to ensure our message gets priority on that end.
The author gives an outline form of suggestions to follow to “optimize the chances of receiving a response to emails to unknown people. The following is that list taken directly from her article:
-Descriptive subject line
-Polite point-of-contact
-Succinct statement of the message’s purpose
-Brief introduction of yourself
-Acknowledging other attempts at finding an answer or solution
-Restatement of question
-Gratitude for assistance
We are reminded by the author that “all of these sections should be very brief and to read the letter ourselves before sending it off. First impressions are still the most lasting.
There is also a caution to “make sure that whatever you send off is something that would not be a cause for embarrassment if people other than the recipient were to see it”. This is certainly a good reminder because of the ease with which the sender click and send your message off to others.
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. “Bards Of the Internet.” TIME, July 04, 1994. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,981013,00.html
Mr. Elmer-Dewitt has presented a view of internet communication that I had never considered. He applauds it as “the greatest boom in letter writing since the 18th century”. While many of us have been appalled by what we see as bad writing, especially with ‘instant messaging’, he reminds us that popular sites have become “so crowded with writers crying for attention that a Darwinian survival principle has started to prevail.”
Writers need to be better to make an impact. I hadn’t thought about the fact that it is very difficult to be published even today. The internet offers an opportunity for anyone to express their thoughts and ideas but actually encourages better writing through competition to be read. He feels that those who are netwriters because they can and do “write, write and write". Isn’t this what I learned in my first writing class?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Reading assignments
Cut and paste this into your wordprocessor or straight into your blog, or use an alternative format.[1] The notes gathered here should illustrate that you have read the week’s assignment. However, they are also for your own use for future thinking, research, and writing. It thus should exhibit your personal style and fresh approaches to that material. You will also use this format when gathering research for your research paper.
Complete citation in MLA form:
Main idea of reading (in your own words):
YOUR thoughts about the reading overall:
Useful quotes—be sure to use quotation marks and page numbers—followed by your reactions to quotes:[2]
[1] The goal is to make the ideas from the source and your own thoughts clearly and visibly distinct, to avoid confusion while drafting. Some ideas: Create a dialogue. Write “source:” followed by source info, then underneath “me:” followed by your thoughts. OR make format distinctions such as putting either the source ideas or yours in bold, italics, underlined, or in different colors, while the other is plain.
[2] Let the text inspire your own thinking. Ask yourself: why am I jotting down this information? Why do I think it’s important? Write that answer down. If this is for your research paper, you may also want to include notes to yourself about how you want to use the information—e.g., “this would be a great opening quote” or “I should follow this with some statistics to give more evidence.” This step is important whether you agree with your source or if you disagree. Sometimes reading and thinking about the latter helps you clarify your opinions more precisely, and including and refuting counter-claims makes a stronger paper.
Complete citation in MLA form:
Main idea of reading (in your own words):
YOUR thoughts about the reading overall:
Useful quotes—be sure to use quotation marks and page numbers—followed by your reactions to quotes:[2]
[1] The goal is to make the ideas from the source and your own thoughts clearly and visibly distinct, to avoid confusion while drafting. Some ideas: Create a dialogue. Write “source:” followed by source info, then underneath “me:” followed by your thoughts. OR make format distinctions such as putting either the source ideas or yours in bold, italics, underlined, or in different colors, while the other is plain.
[2] Let the text inspire your own thinking. Ask yourself: why am I jotting down this information? Why do I think it’s important? Write that answer down. If this is for your research paper, you may also want to include notes to yourself about how you want to use the information—e.g., “this would be a great opening quote” or “I should follow this with some statistics to give more evidence.” This step is important whether you agree with your source or if you disagree. Sometimes reading and thinking about the latter helps you clarify your opinions more precisely, and including and refuting counter-claims makes a stronger paper.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Rhetoric
http://www.brightrockpress.com/popsample.htm#chapter1
This is the address for a very interesting reading about rhetoric. It was my source when I replied to the first weeks thread.
This is the address for a very interesting reading about rhetoric. It was my source when I replied to the first weeks thread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)