Sorry to be stuck in the past…I have much catching up to do.
Thanks for you comment, Anna, that was exactly where I was going. I too feel that people who might be disadvantaged technologically, can in many ways be better enabled socially. But the fact remains that there may be some important techno-social groups that a disadvantaged person might be locked out of by not having access (like quick medical information in Rheingold’s case, or perhaps important job or government information). This gets back to both the Bowling Alone issue (from the other John): On some level, weak social ties can be a benefit…but I would argue only to a limited extent. Weak social ties IRL might widen your social network helping you find some kind of employment or a babysitter, but strong ties are usually the kind that offer more traditional readily available benefits. Similarly, weak online ties are largely interest-based with not much social benefit (just socializing), but a strong online relationship might be more likely to turn into some real-life benefit. Perhaps I am arguing more that the strength of a relationship matters more than the medium it is carried out in.
I was also captivated by the (long since passed?) discussion about the social utility of online communication. Abhiyan proposed the Marxist perspective that the language of letter-writing was a tool of the elite forced upon the people, which is true at some level. However, structured letter writing has in the past had such utility in the exchange of well-thought-out, structured ideas which have greatly benefited society (I think of Jefferson’s letters). In some ways I would think that all of this online writing might have some of the same benefit, but the conversational tone like the one I’m writing in right now must limit that to some degree. Sure we’re all being social online, but how much real thought goes into what’s written? Is there anything that is benefiting society as a whole, or is it a lot of psychological purging?
Threading might have been much more organized and easy to follow, but in retrospect it seems this long list of posts has helped people comment to one another instead of just one thread. More later, -john
Sunday, February 29, 2004
I believe this is a good place to end - the library, the once known "house of information," now the pickup window and computer access center. Oh what an obscure and unpredictable future for libraries. I would like to move us on into next week's questions though. Here they are:
Question 1: We have seen trolling exampled as a negative phenomenon in online communities. Although it does produce a distrustful environment resulting in possible hesitation by its participants to share intimate thoughts, etc, I think trolling may also carry a positive outcome as well, sort of a ying and yang. In an earlier chapter it was mentioned that conflict in moderation results in strength. Trolling or mention of sensitive subjects then should also strengthen its members (whether it moves people towards apathy or betterment, we cannot really know), and I think we can extend this to also identifying and shaping the community's ethos. Although it forces the ethos to be shaped, can these conflicts that we see so negatively also have a positive impact?
Question 2: Big Sky Telegraph was an example of someone motivating technology into one room schools for education purposes. Although it had its failures and successes, it makes me wonder how a similar project would work in a different field, possibly something such as forest rangers. These people can become very isolated, and how would Internet connectivity improve their situation or worsen it? Would the same problems ensue? I would think something like this could be very useful for weather reports/patterns and connection to other rangers and the outside world, but costs would most likely be phenominal.
Question 3: First, out of curiosity, I wanted to find out what happened at Jervay Place. From www.beazer.com/OutReach/metroDetail.asp?MetroProjectID=9 I found this statement: "The new development will consist of 14 homeownership units in Phase I; 100 rental units as well as two community buildings in Phase II and 40 units of Lease Purchase/Ownership in Phase III. All of these will be built on four sites within four (4) miles of each other. Beazer’s current portion of the project consists of 100 units and two community centers - two 21-unit and one 18-unit all brick apartment buildings on Jervay Place; three duplexes on Water Tower; two all brick 15-unit buildings and one four-unit building with a community room on Covil Avenue; and three single family houses and four multi-family units on Dove Meadows." I am not sure who "won" the battle according to this statement, maybe someone can find more information on it. As for my question, has having this information access increased minority group's involvement overall, even when it does not necessariliy pertain to them? We can see in the examples that it has given minority groups a voice when no one would listen, but has this changed their overall involvement? Is this an important thing to be thinking about, or is it just important that a minority group was able to be heard?
Question 1: We have seen trolling exampled as a negative phenomenon in online communities. Although it does produce a distrustful environment resulting in possible hesitation by its participants to share intimate thoughts, etc, I think trolling may also carry a positive outcome as well, sort of a ying and yang. In an earlier chapter it was mentioned that conflict in moderation results in strength. Trolling or mention of sensitive subjects then should also strengthen its members (whether it moves people towards apathy or betterment, we cannot really know), and I think we can extend this to also identifying and shaping the community's ethos. Although it forces the ethos to be shaped, can these conflicts that we see so negatively also have a positive impact?
Question 2: Big Sky Telegraph was an example of someone motivating technology into one room schools for education purposes. Although it had its failures and successes, it makes me wonder how a similar project would work in a different field, possibly something such as forest rangers. These people can become very isolated, and how would Internet connectivity improve their situation or worsen it? Would the same problems ensue? I would think something like this could be very useful for weather reports/patterns and connection to other rangers and the outside world, but costs would most likely be phenominal.
Question 3: First, out of curiosity, I wanted to find out what happened at Jervay Place. From www.beazer.com/OutReach/metroDetail.asp?MetroProjectID=9 I found this statement: "The new development will consist of 14 homeownership units in Phase I; 100 rental units as well as two community buildings in Phase II and 40 units of Lease Purchase/Ownership in Phase III. All of these will be built on four sites within four (4) miles of each other. Beazer’s current portion of the project consists of 100 units and two community centers - two 21-unit and one 18-unit all brick apartment buildings on Jervay Place; three duplexes on Water Tower; two all brick 15-unit buildings and one four-unit building with a community room on Covil Avenue; and three single family houses and four multi-family units on Dove Meadows." I am not sure who "won" the battle according to this statement, maybe someone can find more information on it. As for my question, has having this information access increased minority group's involvement overall, even when it does not necessariliy pertain to them? We can see in the examples that it has given minority groups a voice when no one would listen, but has this changed their overall involvement? Is this an important thing to be thinking about, or is it just important that a minority group was able to be heard?
Hello, It's Anna writing in response to the Johns. John T first: He asks 'Do people who are not online miss out on any benefits of online social connections, or can they reap the same benefits from a local social group?' I like that John brings back the digital divide issue to the discussion. Injustice, in terms of missing out on interaction if you're off-line, occurs with marginalized people. Whether they are marginalized because of where they live or who they are or what they look like, linking with people that have experienced similar treatment or feelings is feasible on-line, probably more so than off-line. For instance, this might occur with people who are gay or disabled in a world where they don't find many other gay or disabled people. On the other hand, the digital divide usually occurs between the wealthy and the poor. People living in poverty often do have strong social connections with the people around them. They have to reciprocate with their neigbhbors for food, child care, protection, etc. in order to get by. Maybe they don't need the types of relationships they could have on-line. I'm not making the point that they don't need web access so it's okay that they don't have it. I am making the point that they may already have the social and emotional support they need from the people they related to face-to-face. Maybe because wealthier people don't relate with their neighbors out of necessity, they feel they need to relate to people somehow and satisfy this on-line.
And John Baken's description of the woman sitting next to him at the computer lab cracked me up. We all use labs and sit at our stations, focused and solitary. Yet there are usually people sitting about two feet away from us on either side with whom we rarely interact. The same thing can happen with a roomful of people reading books so this isn't strictly a modern occurence. It does change the perception of the library as a communal and shared place, which is part of its original conception. Libraries are becoming more techy and less book-oriented. You can request your books on-line and then just pop in to pick them up at the circulation desk (does this remind anyone of a fast-food drive through?) without actually spending any time at the library with the people who live near you. As convenient as it is, this is moving away from viewing the library as a vital place in the community...
And John Baken's description of the woman sitting next to him at the computer lab cracked me up. We all use labs and sit at our stations, focused and solitary. Yet there are usually people sitting about two feet away from us on either side with whom we rarely interact. The same thing can happen with a roomful of people reading books so this isn't strictly a modern occurence. It does change the perception of the library as a communal and shared place, which is part of its original conception. Libraries are becoming more techy and less book-oriented. You can request your books on-line and then just pop in to pick them up at the circulation desk (does this remind anyone of a fast-food drive through?) without actually spending any time at the library with the people who live near you. As convenient as it is, this is moving away from viewing the library as a vital place in the community...
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Back at Anna:
Your last points are very well taken, especially about Miles Davis. I've always been fascinated by what a difference it makes to hear music live. Some music I genuinely dislike hearing through speakers, but then when I hear it in person I'm able to enjoy it because of the immediacy of the experience. (Never noticed this before, but the word 'immediacy' looks like it pretty much suggests live as opposed to conveyed via media like TV, radio, books, computers... that's either interesting or a simple-minded observation, and my brain's so fatigued I can't tell which.)
The only lingering thought I have is that we're still left with the other example, a written copy of a Shakespeare sonnet. It is purely mediated yet potentially greatly affecting. I guess you can read it out loud or hear somebody read it to you, and that improves the experience. We can make the example tougher by considering instead one of his plays. With those the purpose is more to see and hear the play performed, but I must admit that I am often more affected by reading them because I can take them at my own pace, and I have time to reflect on the meaning and the artistry of the language.
Due to aforementioned fatigue I can't quite spell out how that ties back to monitors, keyboards and wires, but I guess its that I don't see how you can dis computer-mediated interaction without indirectly criticizing books to an even greater extent. Nobody can deny that both are worthless unless they are enjoyed within the context of an otherwise rich and fulfulling, and unmediated, life, but nevertheless they both have astounding potential to enrich life as well.
Your last points are very well taken, especially about Miles Davis. I've always been fascinated by what a difference it makes to hear music live. Some music I genuinely dislike hearing through speakers, but then when I hear it in person I'm able to enjoy it because of the immediacy of the experience. (Never noticed this before, but the word 'immediacy' looks like it pretty much suggests live as opposed to conveyed via media like TV, radio, books, computers... that's either interesting or a simple-minded observation, and my brain's so fatigued I can't tell which.)
The only lingering thought I have is that we're still left with the other example, a written copy of a Shakespeare sonnet. It is purely mediated yet potentially greatly affecting. I guess you can read it out loud or hear somebody read it to you, and that improves the experience. We can make the example tougher by considering instead one of his plays. With those the purpose is more to see and hear the play performed, but I must admit that I am often more affected by reading them because I can take them at my own pace, and I have time to reflect on the meaning and the artistry of the language.
Due to aforementioned fatigue I can't quite spell out how that ties back to monitors, keyboards and wires, but I guess its that I don't see how you can dis computer-mediated interaction without indirectly criticizing books to an even greater extent. Nobody can deny that both are worthless unless they are enjoyed within the context of an otherwise rich and fulfulling, and unmediated, life, but nevertheless they both have astounding potential to enrich life as well.
Hi--Anna here... In response to Ben who responded to me:
When people sit at a computer to communicate, to learn, to explore, whatever, it is a very individual activity, at least in the physical sense. Even if they're communicating with somebody, their eyes are focused straight ahead on the monitor, their body is turned into the keyboard, and they are concentrating on the electronic activity. This posture and focus means they are not paying primary attention to what is physically surrounding them. They are not sharing a physical space with anybody and I believe sharing a physical space and physical sensations makes us more connected and accountable to each other. My concern with electronic communication is that this medium removes us from the physical world and, in some sense, each other. We can share experiences intellectually and emotionally on-line and there is value to that. But I feel the immediateness of physical proximity leads us to connect with people we may not have otherwise. Who hasn't smiled at a stranger and then high-fived them at a sporting event? I'm sure there is some electronic acronym that equates this in cyberspace, but it just isn't the same. The medium takes away a sense of intimacy that, as human beings living in the same world, we in some way share. And, as Ben pointed out, Miles Davis did play a chunk of brass with some buttons, but he played it in front of people and people listened to it while sitting in the same space with each other. Anyone can hear Davis play by downloading his music and playing it while they sit alone at their computer terminal. It is powerful even then. But how much more powerful would it be if you were sitting in front of him, or any musician for that matter, at watching his hands move, his forehead sweat, and his glances to his bandmates? There is a richness in physical proximity that is lost on-line. The music may be the same, but the medium matters.
And about Rheindgold's scene with his daughter--I don't think I explained myself well enough in my initial posting. It's a shallow scene for his daughter, not him. He certainly demonstrated the emotional and entertainment value of on-line relationships and I don't mean to be critical of his friendships. They're real to me. But to have a primary person in your life be hunched over a computer screen and interacting with it in a way you don't understand because you're not involved, is detrimental. This could happen with any hobby, but most people do not gain the same kind of emotional interaction from a hobby as they do from electronic interaction. When people are interacting so much emotionally with electronic friends, I have to wonder if they somehow ignore other face-to-face relationships in their lives.
When people sit at a computer to communicate, to learn, to explore, whatever, it is a very individual activity, at least in the physical sense. Even if they're communicating with somebody, their eyes are focused straight ahead on the monitor, their body is turned into the keyboard, and they are concentrating on the electronic activity. This posture and focus means they are not paying primary attention to what is physically surrounding them. They are not sharing a physical space with anybody and I believe sharing a physical space and physical sensations makes us more connected and accountable to each other. My concern with electronic communication is that this medium removes us from the physical world and, in some sense, each other. We can share experiences intellectually and emotionally on-line and there is value to that. But I feel the immediateness of physical proximity leads us to connect with people we may not have otherwise. Who hasn't smiled at a stranger and then high-fived them at a sporting event? I'm sure there is some electronic acronym that equates this in cyberspace, but it just isn't the same. The medium takes away a sense of intimacy that, as human beings living in the same world, we in some way share. And, as Ben pointed out, Miles Davis did play a chunk of brass with some buttons, but he played it in front of people and people listened to it while sitting in the same space with each other. Anyone can hear Davis play by downloading his music and playing it while they sit alone at their computer terminal. It is powerful even then. But how much more powerful would it be if you were sitting in front of him, or any musician for that matter, at watching his hands move, his forehead sweat, and his glances to his bandmates? There is a richness in physical proximity that is lost on-line. The music may be the same, but the medium matters.
And about Rheindgold's scene with his daughter--I don't think I explained myself well enough in my initial posting. It's a shallow scene for his daughter, not him. He certainly demonstrated the emotional and entertainment value of on-line relationships and I don't mean to be critical of his friendships. They're real to me. But to have a primary person in your life be hunched over a computer screen and interacting with it in a way you don't understand because you're not involved, is detrimental. This could happen with any hobby, but most people do not gain the same kind of emotional interaction from a hobby as they do from electronic interaction. When people are interacting so much emotionally with electronic friends, I have to wonder if they somehow ignore other face-to-face relationships in their lives.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Anna writes:
"Second comment: Our readings have established that the web can foster meaningful relationships that have a great deal to offer people--emotionally, intellectually, for entertainment, and otherwise. This is positive in itself, but the benefit is gained through the sterility of a monitor, a keyboard, and network of wires or waves keeping it all connected. In contrast, there is an entire sensual world of wonder beyond the networks."
I totally agree that it's a mistake to ignore the real world in favor of online interaction, but at the same time I feel like you're underestimating what can be done with a monitor, a keyboard, and a bunch of wires. A sonnet by Shakespeare is just ink applied by quill to dried, flattened wood pulp. That's how a Beethoven sonata starts too, and then it's played on a machine composed of keys, wires, and hammer-thingies. Miles Davis' trumpet is a chunk of brass with three buttons. I experience the sensual world by means of photons hitting my eyes, soundwaves hitting my ears, chemicals touching my nose and mouth, and pressure on my skin. (I'm not sure how that third eye on my forehead operates.) Computers engage three of our five senses, books and pianos only one each. And you can read a sonnet on a computer, or connect a musical instrument to it and do things you couldn't otherwise.
If Rheingold is moved by music or reads a sonnet, and his daughter discovers him crying, is that a shallow scene? What if the reincarnation of Shakespeare is a member of his online group, does that make his emotional reaction less shallow?
"Second comment: Our readings have established that the web can foster meaningful relationships that have a great deal to offer people--emotionally, intellectually, for entertainment, and otherwise. This is positive in itself, but the benefit is gained through the sterility of a monitor, a keyboard, and network of wires or waves keeping it all connected. In contrast, there is an entire sensual world of wonder beyond the networks."
I totally agree that it's a mistake to ignore the real world in favor of online interaction, but at the same time I feel like you're underestimating what can be done with a monitor, a keyboard, and a bunch of wires. A sonnet by Shakespeare is just ink applied by quill to dried, flattened wood pulp. That's how a Beethoven sonata starts too, and then it's played on a machine composed of keys, wires, and hammer-thingies. Miles Davis' trumpet is a chunk of brass with three buttons. I experience the sensual world by means of photons hitting my eyes, soundwaves hitting my ears, chemicals touching my nose and mouth, and pressure on my skin. (I'm not sure how that third eye on my forehead operates.) Computers engage three of our five senses, books and pianos only one each. And you can read a sonnet on a computer, or connect a musical instrument to it and do things you couldn't otherwise.
If Rheingold is moved by music or reads a sonnet, and his daughter discovers him crying, is that a shallow scene? What if the reincarnation of Shakespeare is a member of his online group, does that make his emotional reaction less shallow?
In considering some of the questions posed by Seung-Hyun Lee on the differences between real and virtual social networks, I am struck by some of the more apparent similarities pointed out in Communities in Cyberspace. For instance, chapter 6 illustrated how tools from the real world can be adapted to virtual communities. Chapters 4 and 7, showed how people bring there own baggage to online interactions, which affects online identity and anonymity. I guess online communication and interaction is so ingrained in my daily life that I have to remember to what extent cyberspace was perceived as "unmarked territory." I do not find it surprising that, "we are nonetheless mapping this frontier with the same social categories of distinction that we have used to chart modern reality" (page 88). Yes, the differences are very important and real-- it is just that we have moved so far from the notion and surprise that "computing is a social activity" (Rheingold). While I was searching for computer advertisements for our earlier homework assignment, I read the Time Magazine, which declared the Computer the "Machine of the Year." The article was fun to read, especially the various prevailing declarations and ideas of what impact the computer would have on society. There was such a wide gambit; it was seen as dehumanizing as well as the "electric hearth" or focal point of the home. They were right to recognize its revolutionizing effects, but some enthusiasts did over step it. One chancellor predicted it would conquer illiteracy in the Third World and be a source of new life.
I'm a little behind this week... still on the first round of posts. Replies will come this weekend.
- I feel a little bit as though I am repeating issues from week to week, but this weeks readings seemed to circle around an unspoken difference between social and functional online activity. To my satisfaction, Kollock’s article seemed to merge these two issues in examining the motivating factors for individuals to share information and work (arguably a social and functional activity). This leaves me with the questions: how does being on the wrong side of the divide for social activity differ from some of the more obvious drawbacks from being left out from functional online activities? Do people who are not online miss out on any benefits of online social connections, or can they reap the same benefits from a local social group?
- 2) A devil’s advocate question (courtesy of Cass Sunstein): When people are so greatly able to cater their media consumption into their own very specific interests, where are the common cultural/social activities? Especially when the technology that enables this specialization can be so expensive, what are the consequences for those left out?
Thursday, February 26, 2004
To reply to Ben:
Comment 1:
Virtual communities give more opportunities and freedom to the online users to join or leave them than real world communities, and virtual communities have their own rules and regulations. They are different from real world communities. However, when we talk about censorship and social control over virtual communities, we need to conceptualize them first. What are the definitions of social control and censorship? Who will or can have social control and censorship? What is a boundary line between freedom of expression online and social control and censorship? What can make them symmetrical?
And, how powerful and how different is a social network in cyberspace comparing with in real world?
Comment 2:
If other people don’t have a lot of enthusiasm to read lots of posts and to post their opinions or comments, the blog as a cyber discussion place can be occupied by only those enthusiastic people, and not really a place of exchanging opinion or discussion place. So here, we may be able to see who or what type of people mostly use the blog or BBC.
Seung-Hyun Lee
Comment 1:
Virtual communities give more opportunities and freedom to the online users to join or leave them than real world communities, and virtual communities have their own rules and regulations. They are different from real world communities. However, when we talk about censorship and social control over virtual communities, we need to conceptualize them first. What are the definitions of social control and censorship? Who will or can have social control and censorship? What is a boundary line between freedom of expression online and social control and censorship? What can make them symmetrical?
And, how powerful and how different is a social network in cyberspace comparing with in real world?
Comment 2:
If other people don’t have a lot of enthusiasm to read lots of posts and to post their opinions or comments, the blog as a cyber discussion place can be occupied by only those enthusiastic people, and not really a place of exchanging opinion or discussion place. So here, we may be able to see who or what type of people mostly use the blog or BBC.
Seung-Hyun Lee
To reply (briefly, efficiently) to responses by Seunghyun, Abhiyan, and Anna regarding social control...
My view on this is similar to Amy's. She writes, 'This leads more into central control with communities. It was mentioned about censorship being a possible issue by online community "gods," but what we seem to skip over is that no matter what we do, there are always underlying rules. [...] we use these rules to engage with people, and each community has to express how to engage with each other. Since the "god" literally created that community for people to voluntarily join, these restrictions are used in a good constructive way (at least I think so). These powers can be abused, yes, but then you just go to another community or build your own.'
I also regard it as a fact of society that voluntarily joining groups usually means acknowledging and observing the rules of those groups (unless you want to crash the party, which is of course lots of fun).
A religious group can racially discriminate in their admission of new members, and I don't like that, but I consider it an acceptable consequence of a free society. I would rather live in a society with exclusionary groups as long as I am free to join or form my own inclusive alternative. Wouldn't it be totalitarian for the government to say, "Hereafter no person shall host a social engagement in which the male guests are required to wear black ties"? Isn't that the only way to limit people's ability to gain power over others in their social groups? To do something like that in the online realm would ruin cyberspace as surely as it would ruin our real-world society.
Is the social control of these online groups even different from real-world examples? Now that I think about it, how many groups don't have either official hierarchies (CEOs, Chancellors, Chief Justices) or unofficial ones (the head of the cheerleading squad, the resident expert on Cicero)? Many companies are as totalitarian as a MUD could ever be ("You're fired," "Get me coffee," "Black suits, white shirts and blue ties only," etc.), and that's not typically regarded as remarkable...
My view on this is similar to Amy's. She writes, 'This leads more into central control with communities. It was mentioned about censorship being a possible issue by online community "gods," but what we seem to skip over is that no matter what we do, there are always underlying rules. [...] we use these rules to engage with people, and each community has to express how to engage with each other. Since the "god" literally created that community for people to voluntarily join, these restrictions are used in a good constructive way (at least I think so). These powers can be abused, yes, but then you just go to another community or build your own.'
I also regard it as a fact of society that voluntarily joining groups usually means acknowledging and observing the rules of those groups (unless you want to crash the party, which is of course lots of fun).
A religious group can racially discriminate in their admission of new members, and I don't like that, but I consider it an acceptable consequence of a free society. I would rather live in a society with exclusionary groups as long as I am free to join or form my own inclusive alternative. Wouldn't it be totalitarian for the government to say, "Hereafter no person shall host a social engagement in which the male guests are required to wear black ties"? Isn't that the only way to limit people's ability to gain power over others in their social groups? To do something like that in the online realm would ruin cyberspace as surely as it would ruin our real-world society.
Is the social control of these online groups even different from real-world examples? Now that I think about it, how many groups don't have either official hierarchies (CEOs, Chancellors, Chief Justices) or unofficial ones (the head of the cheerleading squad, the resident expert on Cicero)? Many companies are as totalitarian as a MUD could ever be ("You're fired," "Get me coffee," "Black suits, white shirts and blue ties only," etc.), and that's not typically regarded as remarkable...
I've got a series of posts forthcoming (I am guessing we'll reach a fever pitch this afternoon during our usual classroom time), but first I'll pick up on the off-topic thread between AbHiyan and me. Justification (i.e., pretense): I'll use it to illustrate points about our online experiment and the readings for this week. But first the digression:
As part of our discussion of Godel, Newton, and Bertrand Russell (who's the real subtext here), AbHiyan says, "Newton's book was called Principia." In fact the full title of his book on gravitation and (Newtonian) mechanics is Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and it is traditionally shortened to either Principia Mathematica or just plain Principia.
AbHiyan also says (er, types), "I know what Godel is talking about, remember infinite regress I was talking about, the same thing!!!"
Godel, like any mathematician examing set theory, has much to say about infinity (his second biggest piece of work deals with the continuum hypothesis, which is all about infinity). His most important work and the one I mentioned to Abhiyan, however, demonstrates the inherent incompleteness of any internally consistent system of axioms. (He manages to illustrate his proof with reference to Martians trying to interpret a language of Earthlings.)
Since constructing such a system of axioms (to reduce all mathematics to logic) was Bertrand Russell's raison d'etre from the beginning of his career until 1931, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem basically made 98% of Russell's work to that time obsolete, metaphysically speaking. Russell continued to be a ridiculously prolific writer (he lived to be 97 and averaged something like 10,000 words PER DAY), but his raison d'etre after 1931 was mostly to be a political activist and philosophical popularizer.
When Russell realized his whole philosophical program was bunk, he didn't take the hint and evolve into a pragmatist (as had his former student Wittgenstein). He just shrugged and changed the subject. Add to that the fact that Russell was pure D-minus as a family man, and I just find it hard to like the guy.
***
Now if you don't respond to the name Ben or Abhiyan (or, reluctantly, Abiyan), the above was no doubt supremely annoying. And as Abhiyan said, "people if you do not follow the conversation try gaging us!!!"
The point here is that you pretty much can't gag us. Once Greg gave us permission to join this blog, we gained the ability to post pretty much whatever we want. I could if I wanted just go on about how disappointing the Boston Celtics are. Abhiyan could respond to my Godel/Russell comments at even greater length, taking our blog even further off topic. Greg could later remove our Godel/Russell posts, but maybe he's waiting until the end of the week to see the whole blog at once, and he won't see the problem until Abhiyan and I have ruined it. The rest of the class might well get totally pissed off and either tune out or respond by bombarding us with numerous expressions of annoyance. Because we have to deal with each other in class, there are limits to how bad that could get, but imagine if we never had to deal with each other face to face. There'd be nothing stopping us from degenerating into a nasty flame-war that would totally ruin the LIS810 blog.
***
This post is also an illustration of other points made by Smith in Chapter 4. First, messages online are far more subject to preservation than is the spoken word. For instance, from Abhiyan's post below, ("Newton's book was called Principia"), one might suppose I had disputed that at some point. What we had really disputed, though, was the name of Betrand Russell's titanic failure of a book that attempted to capture mathematics in a finite set of axioms. I said Russell's book was Principia Mathematica, and he expressed disbelief, suggesting I was confusing it with the book by Newton. If that part of our discussion happened online, I could point back to our words, prove it and say, "Ha!" Alas, all I've got to rely on is heresay (unless the secret police were bugging the sidewalk in front of Stillwaters at the time, and 20 years from now I accessed their records with a FOIA request).
***
This message also illustrates one of the theories cited to explain why people bother to offer their expertise in online communities, which I will call the "peacock syndrome." Most of the above is amazingly off-topic and, for most people, totally trivial. But since I could not resist the opportunity to, well, massage my ego, I went ahead and did it anyway. Since it wasn't offered by way of assistance, it will most likely backfire, provoking rolling eyes, causing me to be ostracized and the like, but, well...
***
Final point: this message also exemplifies a point made on p. 155, that there is a different sort of "communication edge" online (and hence I guess another sort of digital divide) because this sort of interaction is all about typing and reading. In face-to-face interactions I could be a total heel, have a savage speech impediment, be mortally afraid to leave my house or prefer to operate as a social recluse. But because this blog is all about reading and typing, my love of both means I approach a forum like this with a lot of enthusiasm, I will carefully read every other post, I will respond to questions in great detail, and my posts will go on and on, like, unfortunately, this one has.
Okay, no more long-winded messages, I swear.
As part of our discussion of Godel, Newton, and Bertrand Russell (who's the real subtext here), AbHiyan says, "Newton's book was called Principia." In fact the full title of his book on gravitation and (Newtonian) mechanics is Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and it is traditionally shortened to either Principia Mathematica or just plain Principia.
AbHiyan also says (er, types), "I know what Godel is talking about, remember infinite regress I was talking about, the same thing!!!"
Godel, like any mathematician examing set theory, has much to say about infinity (his second biggest piece of work deals with the continuum hypothesis, which is all about infinity). His most important work and the one I mentioned to Abhiyan, however, demonstrates the inherent incompleteness of any internally consistent system of axioms. (He manages to illustrate his proof with reference to Martians trying to interpret a language of Earthlings.)
Since constructing such a system of axioms (to reduce all mathematics to logic) was Bertrand Russell's raison d'etre from the beginning of his career until 1931, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem basically made 98% of Russell's work to that time obsolete, metaphysically speaking. Russell continued to be a ridiculously prolific writer (he lived to be 97 and averaged something like 10,000 words PER DAY), but his raison d'etre after 1931 was mostly to be a political activist and philosophical popularizer.
When Russell realized his whole philosophical program was bunk, he didn't take the hint and evolve into a pragmatist (as had his former student Wittgenstein). He just shrugged and changed the subject. Add to that the fact that Russell was pure D-minus as a family man, and I just find it hard to like the guy.
***
Now if you don't respond to the name Ben or Abhiyan (or, reluctantly, Abiyan), the above was no doubt supremely annoying. And as Abhiyan said, "people if you do not follow the conversation try gaging us!!!"
The point here is that you pretty much can't gag us. Once Greg gave us permission to join this blog, we gained the ability to post pretty much whatever we want. I could if I wanted just go on about how disappointing the Boston Celtics are. Abhiyan could respond to my Godel/Russell comments at even greater length, taking our blog even further off topic. Greg could later remove our Godel/Russell posts, but maybe he's waiting until the end of the week to see the whole blog at once, and he won't see the problem until Abhiyan and I have ruined it. The rest of the class might well get totally pissed off and either tune out or respond by bombarding us with numerous expressions of annoyance. Because we have to deal with each other in class, there are limits to how bad that could get, but imagine if we never had to deal with each other face to face. There'd be nothing stopping us from degenerating into a nasty flame-war that would totally ruin the LIS810 blog.
***
This post is also an illustration of other points made by Smith in Chapter 4. First, messages online are far more subject to preservation than is the spoken word. For instance, from Abhiyan's post below, ("Newton's book was called Principia"), one might suppose I had disputed that at some point. What we had really disputed, though, was the name of Betrand Russell's titanic failure of a book that attempted to capture mathematics in a finite set of axioms. I said Russell's book was Principia Mathematica, and he expressed disbelief, suggesting I was confusing it with the book by Newton. If that part of our discussion happened online, I could point back to our words, prove it and say, "Ha!" Alas, all I've got to rely on is heresay (unless the secret police were bugging the sidewalk in front of Stillwaters at the time, and 20 years from now I accessed their records with a FOIA request).
***
This message also illustrates one of the theories cited to explain why people bother to offer their expertise in online communities, which I will call the "peacock syndrome." Most of the above is amazingly off-topic and, for most people, totally trivial. But since I could not resist the opportunity to, well, massage my ego, I went ahead and did it anyway. Since it wasn't offered by way of assistance, it will most likely backfire, provoking rolling eyes, causing me to be ostracized and the like, but, well...
***
Final point: this message also exemplifies a point made on p. 155, that there is a different sort of "communication edge" online (and hence I guess another sort of digital divide) because this sort of interaction is all about typing and reading. In face-to-face interactions I could be a total heel, have a savage speech impediment, be mortally afraid to leave my house or prefer to operate as a social recluse. But because this blog is all about reading and typing, my love of both means I approach a forum like this with a lot of enthusiasm, I will carefully read every other post, I will respond to questions in great detail, and my posts will go on and on, like, unfortunately, this one has.
Okay, no more long-winded messages, I swear.
SUBJECT:
John BAKEN replies to Anna, re: Italy "house fellow" comments, etc.
Hey, I hear you! When I took 450 with the infamous Wayne Wiegand, who has since retired from the UW-Madison SLIS department and has gone on to greener pastures in Florida (re: more money), the book Bowling Alone was discussed, especially in relation to U.S. communities that no longer hang out in the front yard having discussions with neighbors, but instead hover around the TV and/or computer screen and never get to know their actual neighbors. I'm ashamed to say I can't remember the author's name (aha--the amazing "techno" computer comes through again--Robert Putnam is the author, answer served up in 1st hit, on Google..), but anyway.. we're losing out in the interpersonal relationships of community because of technology! I suppose we all do it (meaning me too--I did it while living in Japan, though I was out to the "izakaya," or bar/restaurant, on a regular basis, where I did interact with many Japanese people, albeit "intoxicated interactions" much of the time..). But what about that?? It's scary, isn't it??
P.S. As I write this, I'm in a computer lab with perhaps 100 other very interesting looking people in very close proximity to me, and yet none of us has exchanged a single word with one another in over an hour. I'm wondering where the young woman beside me is from. What's with that crazy ring on her left hand, that somehow doesn't seem to impede her keyboarding dexterity, as her fingers nimbly tap out a rhythmic pattern (that somehow has a "social cadence" to it). Must be a friend she's e-mailing (now she's checking the message portion of her cell phone)..
John BAKEN replies to Anna, re: Italy "house fellow" comments, etc.
Hey, I hear you! When I took 450 with the infamous Wayne Wiegand, who has since retired from the UW-Madison SLIS department and has gone on to greener pastures in Florida (re: more money), the book Bowling Alone was discussed, especially in relation to U.S. communities that no longer hang out in the front yard having discussions with neighbors, but instead hover around the TV and/or computer screen and never get to know their actual neighbors. I'm ashamed to say I can't remember the author's name (aha--the amazing "techno" computer comes through again--Robert Putnam is the author, answer served up in 1st hit, on Google..), but anyway.. we're losing out in the interpersonal relationships of community because of technology! I suppose we all do it (meaning me too--I did it while living in Japan, though I was out to the "izakaya," or bar/restaurant, on a regular basis, where I did interact with many Japanese people, albeit "intoxicated interactions" much of the time..). But what about that?? It's scary, isn't it??
P.S. As I write this, I'm in a computer lab with perhaps 100 other very interesting looking people in very close proximity to me, and yet none of us has exchanged a single word with one another in over an hour. I'm wondering where the young woman beside me is from. What's with that crazy ring on her left hand, that somehow doesn't seem to impede her keyboarding dexterity, as her fingers nimbly tap out a rhythmic pattern (that somehow has a "social cadence" to it). Must be a friend she's e-mailing (now she's checking the message portion of her cell phone)..
As I am reading the comments new issues are coming into light.
People from different places have their own unique cultural identity. The cultural identity is an integral part of their existence and society. With the advent of television and especially the MTV culture the cultural identity has been decreasing, as Neil Postman would argue. People seem to watch same programs, wear same clothes, and talk in same way online from all over the world. In a way, easy availability of information is good, but what does Internet communication and forms of communication used online do to our cultural identity.
If I am talking to someone from Australia, I would like him or her to use their cultural identity markers, for example ‘no worries mate’ or something. If use of symbols and slang is going to make a homogenous online culture of expression it is perhaps the worst and disastrous effect it may have on our society. How does someone from Bangladesh preserve their cultural identity? They are talking/typing in English, which is not their language, what ways you have to know and understand their culture and society and hence diversity of viewpoints in forms of online communication?
I read on BBC, as we speak 50 languages every six months are becoming extinct. And as languages go extinct, all forms of expression, clothes and the entire culture dies.
Abhiyan
People from different places have their own unique cultural identity. The cultural identity is an integral part of their existence and society. With the advent of television and especially the MTV culture the cultural identity has been decreasing, as Neil Postman would argue. People seem to watch same programs, wear same clothes, and talk in same way online from all over the world. In a way, easy availability of information is good, but what does Internet communication and forms of communication used online do to our cultural identity.
If I am talking to someone from Australia, I would like him or her to use their cultural identity markers, for example ‘no worries mate’ or something. If use of symbols and slang is going to make a homogenous online culture of expression it is perhaps the worst and disastrous effect it may have on our society. How does someone from Bangladesh preserve their cultural identity? They are talking/typing in English, which is not their language, what ways you have to know and understand their culture and society and hence diversity of viewpoints in forms of online communication?
I read on BBC, as we speak 50 languages every six months are becoming extinct. And as languages go extinct, all forms of expression, clothes and the entire culture dies.
Abhiyan
John BAKEN here again
SHAREWARE: PURE GENEROSITY OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES 101?
From the discussions in Chapter 9 of Communities in Cyberspace ("The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace").
Kollach discusses the seemingless unending plethora of free information given out in almost all virtual communities. I often use a program called the Slate Citation Machine to create proper citation and bibliography styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) for citing resources, creating a "Works Cited" page, etc. When magnanimous (sp?) individuals put "shareware" out for the general virtual population to just use, are they really THAT generous, or do you think that usually there is an ulterior motive behind the gesture? By the way, if you don't know the program, it might be worth a look/see--just type "Slate Citation Machine" into Google and you'll see it. Very handy program (for me, anyway).
John BAKEN
SHAREWARE: PURE GENEROSITY OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES 101?
From the discussions in Chapter 9 of Communities in Cyberspace ("The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace").
Kollach discusses the seemingless unending plethora of free information given out in almost all virtual communities. I often use a program called the Slate Citation Machine to create proper citation and bibliography styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) for citing resources, creating a "Works Cited" page, etc. When magnanimous (sp?) individuals put "shareware" out for the general virtual population to just use, are they really THAT generous, or do you think that usually there is an ulterior motive behind the gesture? By the way, if you don't know the program, it might be worth a look/see--just type "Slate Citation Machine" into Google and you'll see it. Very handy program (for me, anyway).
John BAKEN
John BAKEN here again
SHAREWARE: PURE GENEROSITY OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES 101?
From the discussions in Chapter 9 of Communities in Cyberspace ("The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace").
Kollach discusses the seemingless unending plethora of free information given out in almost all virtual communities. I often use a program called the Slate Citation Machine to create proper citation and bibliographic styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) for citing resources. When magnanimous (sp?) individuals put "shareware" out for the general virtual population to just use, are they really THAT generous, or do you think that usually there is an ulterior motive behind the gesture? By the way, if you don't know the program, it might be worth a look/see--just type "Slate Citation Machine" into Google and you'll see it. Very handy program (for me, anyway).
John BAKEN
SHAREWARE: PURE GENEROSITY OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES 101?
From the discussions in Chapter 9 of Communities in Cyberspace ("The Economics of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace").
Kollach discusses the seemingless unending plethora of free information given out in almost all virtual communities. I often use a program called the Slate Citation Machine to create proper citation and bibliographic styles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) for citing resources. When magnanimous (sp?) individuals put "shareware" out for the general virtual population to just use, are they really THAT generous, or do you think that usually there is an ulterior motive behind the gesture? By the way, if you don't know the program, it might be worth a look/see--just type "Slate Citation Machine" into Google and you'll see it. Very handy program (for me, anyway).
John BAKEN
Continuation of my questions and comments:
1. As Marc Smith points out in chapter 8 of Communities in cyberspace, discussion group system in cyberspace may be the tools displaying only chains of messages and responses, not trees and forest. However, don’t you think that is a difference between physical discussion systems and virtual discussion systems? For instance, physical discussion groups generally have a moderator or a discussion leader to manage discussion, but in cyberspace, there is no moderator or discussion leader. Different network interaction media may have different social structural and functions.
2. What kinds of interaction patterns are present in social cyberspaces? How are social cyberspaces transformed? How do virtual communities change our experience of the real world?
3. As Emily found from Rheingold, it also seems to me that Rheingold at least in the part of Introduction and Chapter I overly brings into relief and admires only about the amazing parts of new technology such as CMC and virtual communities such as WELL. Rheingold said “People in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind.” In addition to it, he argues that “there is no such thing as a single, monolithic, online subculture; it’s more like an ecosystem of subcultures.” However, we should not be chaotic between the real world and the virtual world. Two worlds are different, but some or many (I don’t know how many are there) adolescents and adults who are serious and addictive to cyberworld are in a chaotic state, and they don’t distinguish between the real world and the virtual world. It arises social problem. Some students don’t go to school and stay with cyberworld all day in their room, and some adults feel uneasy if they don’t use the Internet or don’t check emails or weblog.
Rheingold argues that the technology has the potential “to bring enormous leverage to ordinary citizens at relatively little cost—intellectual leverage, social leverage, commercial leverage, and most important, political leverage.” It may be true, but we have to think about the digital divide here. Who will get most those enormous leverages?
Moreover, he points out that “big power and big money will find a way to control access to virtual communities.” How do you think about this opinion?
Seung-Hyun Lee
1. As Marc Smith points out in chapter 8 of Communities in cyberspace, discussion group system in cyberspace may be the tools displaying only chains of messages and responses, not trees and forest. However, don’t you think that is a difference between physical discussion systems and virtual discussion systems? For instance, physical discussion groups generally have a moderator or a discussion leader to manage discussion, but in cyberspace, there is no moderator or discussion leader. Different network interaction media may have different social structural and functions.
2. What kinds of interaction patterns are present in social cyberspaces? How are social cyberspaces transformed? How do virtual communities change our experience of the real world?
3. As Emily found from Rheingold, it also seems to me that Rheingold at least in the part of Introduction and Chapter I overly brings into relief and admires only about the amazing parts of new technology such as CMC and virtual communities such as WELL. Rheingold said “People in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind.” In addition to it, he argues that “there is no such thing as a single, monolithic, online subculture; it’s more like an ecosystem of subcultures.” However, we should not be chaotic between the real world and the virtual world. Two worlds are different, but some or many (I don’t know how many are there) adolescents and adults who are serious and addictive to cyberworld are in a chaotic state, and they don’t distinguish between the real world and the virtual world. It arises social problem. Some students don’t go to school and stay with cyberworld all day in their room, and some adults feel uneasy if they don’t use the Internet or don’t check emails or weblog.
Rheingold argues that the technology has the potential “to bring enormous leverage to ordinary citizens at relatively little cost—intellectual leverage, social leverage, commercial leverage, and most important, political leverage.” It may be true, but we have to think about the digital divide here. Who will get most those enormous leverages?
Moreover, he points out that “big power and big money will find a way to control access to virtual communities.” How do you think about this opinion?
Seung-Hyun Lee
Few additional thoughts:
The language used on Internet is determined by technology available for communication. The keyboard has 108 keys and 23 functions. That limits communication.
On the Internet, people not just talk, or publish to online blogs or chat. They are multitasking. So, when doing something else, just to respond to a post or an instant message people may find it easier to express them in ‘alternative’ or ‘slang’ form of English.
Typing is cumbersome process, especially when you are chatting or messaging to many people at the same time. Use of ‘slang’ does seem logical then. To keep communication flowing smoothly and linearly, one has to type faster and express emotions and feelings efficiently, especially when there is a ‘lag’. Hence the use of fast pace language seems to be desirable.
In commercial use of instant messaging, it’s a fast paced world, just to tell anyone that some meeting is happening at some other place or someone is coming for a presentation right now would take a long while to type in a formal letter format. But, with slang, ‘ur’ saved.
Blogs and Usenets groups might be slightly different. As, people could format their reply offline and then post.
Abhiyan
The language used on Internet is determined by technology available for communication. The keyboard has 108 keys and 23 functions. That limits communication.
On the Internet, people not just talk, or publish to online blogs or chat. They are multitasking. So, when doing something else, just to respond to a post or an instant message people may find it easier to express them in ‘alternative’ or ‘slang’ form of English.
Typing is cumbersome process, especially when you are chatting or messaging to many people at the same time. Use of ‘slang’ does seem logical then. To keep communication flowing smoothly and linearly, one has to type faster and express emotions and feelings efficiently, especially when there is a ‘lag’. Hence the use of fast pace language seems to be desirable.
In commercial use of instant messaging, it’s a fast paced world, just to tell anyone that some meeting is happening at some other place or someone is coming for a presentation right now would take a long while to type in a formal letter format. But, with slang, ‘ur’ saved.
Blogs and Usenets groups might be slightly different. As, people could format their reply offline and then post.
Abhiyan
JOHN BAKEN HERE (why don't these weblogs automatically put the writer's name at the top? I find it bothersome to have to cursor down to see who's writing what--does anyone else do that, or do you just read it and find out at the end who wrote it, and no big deal?)
Regarding one of Seunghyun's comments, regarding restrictions on some group posts (Usenet, Blogs, MUDs, etc.), I am not really sure why they need such controls except for the fact that, as the book mentioned early on in this last section of reading, when they tried it without any controls, it seems a lot of adolescents (they always blame it on the adolescents, don't they?? Usually, named "little Johnny..") abused their "privileges" and wrote a bunch of corny, nasty, offensive stuff, and this bothered the MUD gods, or whomever so they disallowed it. I don't claim to have any answers to these large questions (or the even larger question of FILTERING of public internet terminals in public libraries), but mostly I guess I advocate the complete non-restriction of computers, which is to say I'm in favor of total unrestricted use and no filters and nothing that resembles CENSORSHIP in any way, shape, or form. In the end, I believe that our young people (and middle aged people, for that matter; old people can do whatever they want) need to have community in the form of REAL PEOPLE, and that that community and being in touch with others, so that they are aware of the person in question here, even while they're at work on a computer, should be enough to influence one in a positive manner (that sentence is a mouthful--did I make it understandable?). Is this total idealism or what? What's your answer?? Total or partial restriction? None at all? Something in the middle?
Thanks, John BAKEN
Regarding one of Seunghyun's comments, regarding restrictions on some group posts (Usenet, Blogs, MUDs, etc.), I am not really sure why they need such controls except for the fact that, as the book mentioned early on in this last section of reading, when they tried it without any controls, it seems a lot of adolescents (they always blame it on the adolescents, don't they?? Usually, named "little Johnny..") abused their "privileges" and wrote a bunch of corny, nasty, offensive stuff, and this bothered the MUD gods, or whomever so they disallowed it. I don't claim to have any answers to these large questions (or the even larger question of FILTERING of public internet terminals in public libraries), but mostly I guess I advocate the complete non-restriction of computers, which is to say I'm in favor of total unrestricted use and no filters and nothing that resembles CENSORSHIP in any way, shape, or form. In the end, I believe that our young people (and middle aged people, for that matter; old people can do whatever they want) need to have community in the form of REAL PEOPLE, and that that community and being in touch with others, so that they are aware of the person in question here, even while they're at work on a computer, should be enough to influence one in a positive manner (that sentence is a mouthful--did I make it understandable?). Is this total idealism or what? What's your answer?? Total or partial restriction? None at all? Something in the middle?
Thanks, John BAKEN
Response to Amy:
I understand that the quality and use of lexical language is deteriorating on the Internet, and this may in fact affect communication skills. However, one can argue this point from classical Marxist perspective.
The language used in letter writing, or used for formal communication is ‘elite’, forced upon people by few who dictate its grammar and rules, and people without a choice have been made to conform to it.
The Internet, on the other hand is the perfect example of how much egalitarian and democratic we can actually get. Everyone seems to contribute in some ways, people can express themselves in ways they feel comfortable, and they do not have to follow the ‘social structure’ of the offline world for communication.
In addition, there is always a danger of spill over effects. That is, when do we question the effects of Internet communication, how do we come to the terms that language is a tool for expression, and no single person has authority over it, so who corrects whom, and why?
There is faint line here, which extrapolates to the arguments of digital divide, access and spill over effects of online structure over offline structure and vice versa.
What do you bloggers think?
Abhiyan
I understand that the quality and use of lexical language is deteriorating on the Internet, and this may in fact affect communication skills. However, one can argue this point from classical Marxist perspective.
The language used in letter writing, or used for formal communication is ‘elite’, forced upon people by few who dictate its grammar and rules, and people without a choice have been made to conform to it.
The Internet, on the other hand is the perfect example of how much egalitarian and democratic we can actually get. Everyone seems to contribute in some ways, people can express themselves in ways they feel comfortable, and they do not have to follow the ‘social structure’ of the offline world for communication.
In addition, there is always a danger of spill over effects. That is, when do we question the effects of Internet communication, how do we come to the terms that language is a tool for expression, and no single person has authority over it, so who corrects whom, and why?
There is faint line here, which extrapolates to the arguments of digital divide, access and spill over effects of online structure over offline structure and vice versa.
What do you bloggers think?
Abhiyan
February 26, 2004 (12:44 PM)
SUBJECT: I FEEL SO DISINHIBITED WHEN I DO E-MAIL IN MY UNDERWEAR!!
Disinhibited vs. Uninhibited/re: the language of MUDs
As I understand it, DISINHIBITED bears a close relationship to the word UNINHIBITED though uninhibited is more implicit in someone who has no inhibitions "around other people" ; whereas, DISINHIBITED means having no inhibitions "within a virtual world" (where the chances of meeting are so so very remote as to be considered nill). Is my understanding of this nuance in meaning correct? Explain or elaborate further, please (i.e. which is more radically NOT INHIBITED?).
Thanks.
John BAKEN
The Disinhibited One
P.S. I am wearing all my clothes as I write this (I'm in Memorial Library's computer lab).
SUBJECT: I FEEL SO DISINHIBITED WHEN I DO E-MAIL IN MY UNDERWEAR!!
Disinhibited vs. Uninhibited/re: the language of MUDs
As I understand it, DISINHIBITED bears a close relationship to the word UNINHIBITED though uninhibited is more implicit in someone who has no inhibitions "around other people" ; whereas, DISINHIBITED means having no inhibitions "within a virtual world" (where the chances of meeting are so so very remote as to be considered nill). Is my understanding of this nuance in meaning correct? Explain or elaborate further, please (i.e. which is more radically NOT INHIBITED?).
Thanks.
John BAKEN
The Disinhibited One
P.S. I am wearing all my clothes as I write this (I'm in Memorial Library's computer lab).
Overall comment:
As Amy points out, this kind of discussion on the weblog may not be a sufficient way to discuss on some topics because not everybody was on the weblog at the same time, so it took a while to think about from where or to whom I have to start to comment when I joined this discussion later. Although, the weblog provides us a convenient tool, it is not really helpful to discuss and exchange our opinions simultaneously. Discussion in the face-to-face may give more direct and immediate responses.
Also, as Anna points out, web interaction may reduce face-to-face contact, but instead, it may increase virtual contact regardless of time and place between people who cannot make physical contact. In some parts, cyberspace provides more opportunities to build a social network and to contact among people who never met before in face-to-face. For example, people have more chances to discuss about the important social issues in the cyberspace, and they build a social network, then in some cases, they gather together to protest. It was very powerful and was successful in my country, so the cyberspace played the important role as a public space to discuss the important social issues and to build a social network.
So, how do you think whether or not cyberspace can replace the physical public space for the discussion?
Second comment to cyber censoring: (probably comment to Ben’s question):
First of all, cyber censoring may infringe the freedom of expression. However, we have to think about a lot of bad things such as cyber crimes, children pornographies, defamation without any evidence, bogus companies, thousands of spam mails, etc. which are happening in the cyberspace now. How can we prevent those bad things in the cyberspace?
Seung-Hyun Lee
As Amy points out, this kind of discussion on the weblog may not be a sufficient way to discuss on some topics because not everybody was on the weblog at the same time, so it took a while to think about from where or to whom I have to start to comment when I joined this discussion later. Although, the weblog provides us a convenient tool, it is not really helpful to discuss and exchange our opinions simultaneously. Discussion in the face-to-face may give more direct and immediate responses.
Also, as Anna points out, web interaction may reduce face-to-face contact, but instead, it may increase virtual contact regardless of time and place between people who cannot make physical contact. In some parts, cyberspace provides more opportunities to build a social network and to contact among people who never met before in face-to-face. For example, people have more chances to discuss about the important social issues in the cyberspace, and they build a social network, then in some cases, they gather together to protest. It was very powerful and was successful in my country, so the cyberspace played the important role as a public space to discuss the important social issues and to build a social network.
So, how do you think whether or not cyberspace can replace the physical public space for the discussion?
Second comment to cyber censoring: (probably comment to Ben’s question):
First of all, cyber censoring may infringe the freedom of expression. However, we have to think about a lot of bad things such as cyber crimes, children pornographies, defamation without any evidence, bogus companies, thousands of spam mails, etc. which are happening in the cyberspace now. How can we prevent those bad things in the cyberspace?
Seung-Hyun Lee
First, let me apologize for one of my questions. I guess I did not finish the last chapter of part 4, and it seems to cover it enough where the rest is more sociology than what we are discussing (in reference to my question about online contributions to individuals' personal problems such as debt).
I think Emily makes a really good point in her experiences in Italy, and to possibly answer a question or two about etiquette and language. Last semester I wrote a paper on this, how online interactions may be affecting our communication skills. One thing I notice a lot is a younger people (I do not know many, however) are unable to formulate ideas verbally. I would like to blame this on the fact that instant messaging and emailing are not taken as a formal way of communication, and a lot of people use it to communicate now. How many people do you know who are writing an email in letter style? Or even with punctuation and capitalization for that matter? These may be subtle things, emailing friends, etc, but if it is so commonplace, I think it almost begins to take over our speech as well. I think the informalization of our language has worked its way into several other aspects of our society, such as the workplace (not many wear business suits or "dress up" nowadays - from my own experience).
I am curious to see how other nations, such as Italy, have changed if at all. I know some of you may be thinking that it is the natural course of a spoken language to change, and that is true. But this type of change is a little different because it seems to be more of a lack of grammar than a changing of word meanings and word additions. Maybe the digital divide can also be seen as those who can maintain formality while using the Internet, and those who are caught up in the fast pace slang language of the gtg/ttyl/brb/lol style and cannot separate that with the real world (or at least spoken language). Where television and radio invites us into the "upper class" speech, does the Internet (instant message/email)bring us back down? Is it possibly creating another language divide then?
I think Emily makes a really good point in her experiences in Italy, and to possibly answer a question or two about etiquette and language. Last semester I wrote a paper on this, how online interactions may be affecting our communication skills. One thing I notice a lot is a younger people (I do not know many, however) are unable to formulate ideas verbally. I would like to blame this on the fact that instant messaging and emailing are not taken as a formal way of communication, and a lot of people use it to communicate now. How many people do you know who are writing an email in letter style? Or even with punctuation and capitalization for that matter? These may be subtle things, emailing friends, etc, but if it is so commonplace, I think it almost begins to take over our speech as well. I think the informalization of our language has worked its way into several other aspects of our society, such as the workplace (not many wear business suits or "dress up" nowadays - from my own experience).
I am curious to see how other nations, such as Italy, have changed if at all. I know some of you may be thinking that it is the natural course of a spoken language to change, and that is true. But this type of change is a little different because it seems to be more of a lack of grammar than a changing of word meanings and word additions. Maybe the digital divide can also be seen as those who can maintain formality while using the Internet, and those who are caught up in the fast pace slang language of the gtg/ttyl/brb/lol style and cannot separate that with the real world (or at least spoken language). Where television and radio invites us into the "upper class" speech, does the Internet (instant message/email)bring us back down? Is it possibly creating another language divide then?
Ben,
I know what Godel is talking about, remember infinite regress I was talking about, the same thing!!!
Lobachevsky did the same thing to Kant's theory of Transcendental space, which was derived from Euclid axioms, same thing Godel went on to prove in a different, discrete and amazing way.
Abhiyan
PS: people if you do not follow the conversation try gaging us!!!
I know what Godel is talking about, remember infinite regress I was talking about, the same thing!!!
Lobachevsky did the same thing to Kant's theory of Transcendental space, which was derived from Euclid axioms, same thing Godel went on to prove in a different, discrete and amazing way.
Abhiyan
PS: people if you do not follow the conversation try gaging us!!!
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Ok, my comments are out of sync. A lot of discussion went on while I was composing my thoughts and email also distracted me. I will post it anyway, although I feel like the Mike Myer’s character on SNL who was always five minutes behind the conversation. Your patience please and hopefully this won’t be inane. I must say that so far I don’t mind the blog… but maybe emailing would be easier. we shall see.
In regards to Anna's first comment, I never realized the extent I was used to twenty-four hour convenience until I went to Italy. I ended up studying there several times and began to enjoy the differences-- the stores having shorter hours and the town shutting down on Sundays or major holidays. When I was a House Fellow in Florence, one of my duties was to try and get the American students interested and aware of different aspects of Italian culture. I found that most students spent more time emailing their friends in the US than in trying to meet Italian students. While there is a certain fear in meeting other students (especially in a different country), I wonder if I would have been more successful if students were 'cut off' from home and became more involved in the here and now. Online activities can be very secluding. Even the cell phone can become a means of avoidance, whether you are chatting, checking your email, or playing a game- it says, "don't bother me." It is weird to sit in a train car full of people without anyone interacting with one another.
When does it become a crutch? Interpersonal skills needed in face-to-face contact are such a necessity. And I do think it is easier to communicate online because you are more in control. You select the topic/ area of interest, or if it public or private. It is a selective means of finding your peer group. There is less risk and can allow for more open communication.
I found Rheingold to be overly enthusiastic and romantic in his description of virtual communities. Certainly, it was amazing what he found online- information, contacts, and comfort. I think it is an overstatement that it is a “hark back to times before social community began to crumble.” I found his sense of communion overdone.
At the same time, I did find the chapters an interesting read and worthy of comment. Rheingold states that "a sense of place requires imagination." So what skills are people picking up in their involvement within the virtual community? Does it require greater imagination? How is it changing our use of language and etiquette? Does it require more critical skills? I like how elements of body language make it into online communication- where the smiley face or frown stand in place for our physical facial expression and help to ensure that there is no misinterpretation.
In regards to Anna's first comment, I never realized the extent I was used to twenty-four hour convenience until I went to Italy. I ended up studying there several times and began to enjoy the differences-- the stores having shorter hours and the town shutting down on Sundays or major holidays. When I was a House Fellow in Florence, one of my duties was to try and get the American students interested and aware of different aspects of Italian culture. I found that most students spent more time emailing their friends in the US than in trying to meet Italian students. While there is a certain fear in meeting other students (especially in a different country), I wonder if I would have been more successful if students were 'cut off' from home and became more involved in the here and now. Online activities can be very secluding. Even the cell phone can become a means of avoidance, whether you are chatting, checking your email, or playing a game- it says, "don't bother me." It is weird to sit in a train car full of people without anyone interacting with one another.
When does it become a crutch? Interpersonal skills needed in face-to-face contact are such a necessity. And I do think it is easier to communicate online because you are more in control. You select the topic/ area of interest, or if it public or private. It is a selective means of finding your peer group. There is less risk and can allow for more open communication.
I found Rheingold to be overly enthusiastic and romantic in his description of virtual communities. Certainly, it was amazing what he found online- information, contacts, and comfort. I think it is an overstatement that it is a “hark back to times before social community began to crumble.” I found his sense of communion overdone.
At the same time, I did find the chapters an interesting read and worthy of comment. Rheingold states that "a sense of place requires imagination." So what skills are people picking up in their involvement within the virtual community? Does it require greater imagination? How is it changing our use of language and etiquette? Does it require more critical skills? I like how elements of body language make it into online communication- where the smiley face or frown stand in place for our physical facial expression and help to ensure that there is no misinterpretation.
This is not a question or a reply but a declaration. In honor of the fact that our class this week will take place in cyberspace, I hereby declare that I will wear my pajamas all day tomorrow!
More questions, answers and non sequiturs to follow.
***
Abiyan: the guy I told you about is Kurt Godel. I just read the funniest thing about him, too, remind me to tell it to you. (Also, despite your disbelief, I confirmed that Russell's book was indeed called Principia Mathematica.)
And: having experienced the same problem you did with the multiple posts, I also know how to fix it. I don't have permission to fix it myself (Greg D. having monopolized the part of God in this act), but I can tell you how to fix it. Email me @ bgsayre@wisc or give me a call and I'll explain.
More questions, answers and non sequiturs to follow.
***
Abiyan: the guy I told you about is Kurt Godel. I just read the funniest thing about him, too, remind me to tell it to you. (Also, despite your disbelief, I confirmed that Russell's book was indeed called Principia Mathematica.)
And: having experienced the same problem you did with the multiple posts, I also know how to fix it. I don't have permission to fix it myself (Greg D. having monopolized the part of God in this act), but I can tell you how to fix it. Email me @ bgsayre@wisc or give me a call and I'll explain.
What exactly counts as meaningful interaction?
According to my understanding it is not necessary for it to have an universal definition.
What I mean is that, meaningful interaction is situation specific, should be seen within the concrete context it is happening in. Cause every interaction inherently starts with certain dispositions, certain expectations and it follows an impromptu interaction order, as Goffman and some symbolic interactionist would say.
People invest at the least some effort into interaction cause they have an idea of the returns they would be getting back, however small. Returns could be in form emotional support, information or just simply companionship.
Keep it coming!
Abhiyan
According to my understanding it is not necessary for it to have an universal definition.
What I mean is that, meaningful interaction is situation specific, should be seen within the concrete context it is happening in. Cause every interaction inherently starts with certain dispositions, certain expectations and it follows an impromptu interaction order, as Goffman and some symbolic interactionist would say.
People invest at the least some effort into interaction cause they have an idea of the returns they would be getting back, however small. Returns could be in form emotional support, information or just simply companionship.
Keep it coming!
Abhiyan
What exactly counts as meaningful interaction?
The way I see it, it is not necessary for it to have an universal definition.
What I mean is that, meaningful interaction is situation specific, should be seen within the concrete context it is happening in. Cause every interaction inherently starts with certain dispositions, certain expectations and it follows an impromptu interaction order, Goffman and some sybolic interactionist would say.
People invest at the least some effort into interaction cause they have an idea of the returns they would be getting back, however small.
Keep it coming!
Abhiyan
The way I see it, it is not necessary for it to have an universal definition.
What I mean is that, meaningful interaction is situation specific, should be seen within the concrete context it is happening in. Cause every interaction inherently starts with certain dispositions, certain expectations and it follows an impromptu interaction order, Goffman and some sybolic interactionist would say.
People invest at the least some effort into interaction cause they have an idea of the returns they would be getting back, however small.
Keep it coming!
Abhiyan
What exactly counts as meaningful interaction?
The way I see it, it is not necessary for it to have an universal definition.
What I mean is that, meaningful interaction is situation specific, should be seen within the concrete context it is happening in. Cause every interaction inherently starts with certain dispositions, certain expectations and it follows an impromptu interaction order, Goffman and some sybolic interactionist would say.
People invest at the least some effort into interaction cause they have an idea of the returns they would be getting back, however small.
Keep it coming!
Abhiyan
The way I see it, it is not necessary for it to have an universal definition.
What I mean is that, meaningful interaction is situation specific, should be seen within the concrete context it is happening in. Cause every interaction inherently starts with certain dispositions, certain expectations and it follows an impromptu interaction order, Goffman and some sybolic interactionist would say.
People invest at the least some effort into interaction cause they have an idea of the returns they would be getting back, however small.
Keep it coming!
Abhiyan
Since the readings discussed online social structure and social network, let me be the devil’s advocate again!
We have been posting on the blog, people have been reading and commenting, it is an online social network, and has a certain structure to it with Greg being the ‘GOD’.
What do you people think of their experiences while posting or responding to peoples’ comments? Given the fact that we are online and we have offline interaction; does this affect your readings and comments to the blog?
Do you bring to your minds the characteristics of the offline person while your reading certain people’s comments?
How convenient this reading and commenting has been? Does it get too verbose, would you prefer to discuss the issue in class, or face-to-face or simply by e-mailing.
What technical factors impede or foster this process of reading peoples’ blog?
Do you comment ‘online’ or you gather your thoughts, make your arguments offline and then post?
Need a lil' help from my 'friends'. Abhiyan
We have been posting on the blog, people have been reading and commenting, it is an online social network, and has a certain structure to it with Greg being the ‘GOD’.
What do you people think of their experiences while posting or responding to peoples’ comments? Given the fact that we are online and we have offline interaction; does this affect your readings and comments to the blog?
Do you bring to your minds the characteristics of the offline person while your reading certain people’s comments?
How convenient this reading and commenting has been? Does it get too verbose, would you prefer to discuss the issue in class, or face-to-face or simply by e-mailing.
What technical factors impede or foster this process of reading peoples’ blog?
Do you comment ‘online’ or you gather your thoughts, make your arguments offline and then post?
Need a lil' help from my 'friends'. Abhiyan
Pertaining to our online structure, I do not think this is a very sufficient way to have a conversation. Although it gives me more time to think through what the message is, I do not feel as involved in the discussion. Also, this blog is a horrible way to communicate because it definitely does not define the possible multiple conversations that can now occur between the group. It is strictly linear in total postings, whereas other "threads" provide a heirarchical structure to provide visual aid and allow us to select the conversation we wish to follow. Topical divisions are not the only problem, since I have a hard time actually seeing each message division. I do not know how many message total there are, who posted them, etc. without scrolling and analyzing the format to see each division.
This leads more into central control with communities. It was mentioned about censorship being a possible issue by online community "gods," but what we seem to skip over is that no matter what we do, there are always underlying rules. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" or something along those lines, we use these rules to engage with people, and each community has to express how to engage with each other. Since the "god" literally created that community for people to voluntarily join, these restrictions are used in a good constructive way (at least I think so). These powers can be abused, yes, but then you just go to another community or build your own. The fact that you can build your own is the real beauty of online communities.
Back to my original train of thought, I do prefer our in class discussions a lot more because I can see a lot more meaning to an individual's message. I do not feel provoked to answer these online messages, even though it is to my advantage because it is not as spontaneous. I reiterate, however, the structure is bad, and if it was laid out differently I might be more inclined to participate. I hope this answers a few questions.
In peace,
Amy
This leads more into central control with communities. It was mentioned about censorship being a possible issue by online community "gods," but what we seem to skip over is that no matter what we do, there are always underlying rules. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" or something along those lines, we use these rules to engage with people, and each community has to express how to engage with each other. Since the "god" literally created that community for people to voluntarily join, these restrictions are used in a good constructive way (at least I think so). These powers can be abused, yes, but then you just go to another community or build your own. The fact that you can build your own is the real beauty of online communities.
Back to my original train of thought, I do prefer our in class discussions a lot more because I can see a lot more meaning to an individual's message. I do not feel provoked to answer these online messages, even though it is to my advantage because it is not as spontaneous. I reiterate, however, the structure is bad, and if it was laid out differently I might be more inclined to participate. I hope this answers a few questions.
In peace,
Amy
My questions for class:
Since the readings discussed online social structure and social network, let me be the devil’s advocate again!
We have been posting on the blog, people have been reading and commenting, it is an online social network, and has a certain structure to it with Greg being the ‘GOD’.
What do you people think of their experiences while posting or responding to peoples’ comments? Given the fact that we are online and we have offline interaction; does this affect your readings and comments to the blog?
Do you bring to your minds the characteristics of the offline person while your reading certain people’s comments?
How convenient this reading and commenting has been? Does it get too verbose, would you prefer to discuss the issue in class, or face-to-face or simply by e-mailing. Have you been responding to individuals on the blog, or generally to the entire class? ( I know i have been responding to individuals).
What technical factors impede or foster this process of reading peoples’ blog and the commenting on them?
Do you comment ‘online’ or you gather your thoughts, make your arguments offline and then post?
Need a lil' help from my 'friends'. Abhiyan
Since the readings discussed online social structure and social network, let me be the devil’s advocate again!
We have been posting on the blog, people have been reading and commenting, it is an online social network, and has a certain structure to it with Greg being the ‘GOD’.
What do you people think of their experiences while posting or responding to peoples’ comments? Given the fact that we are online and we have offline interaction; does this affect your readings and comments to the blog?
Do you bring to your minds the characteristics of the offline person while your reading certain people’s comments?
How convenient this reading and commenting has been? Does it get too verbose, would you prefer to discuss the issue in class, or face-to-face or simply by e-mailing. Have you been responding to individuals on the blog, or generally to the entire class? ( I know i have been responding to individuals).
What technical factors impede or foster this process of reading peoples’ blog and the commenting on them?
Do you comment ‘online’ or you gather your thoughts, make your arguments offline and then post?
Need a lil' help from my 'friends'. Abhiyan
In response to Ben's first question...I realize the danger of censorship coming from a higher authority, but I also have some uneasiness with rules set by cyber community users. There is a sort of exaggerated sense of power from being able to construct your own world. For instance, celebrities have the means to do this and often appear to be arrogant or above the law/social norms. I have a concern with people being able to set explicit parameters for their interactions--it's just not what we encounter in the physical world. Will this lead to a partial loss of our ability to civilly interact with each other? This brings me to my first comment....
We, especially U.S. residents, live in a culture of extreme convenience. 24 hour service, same day delivery, overnight shipping, etc. are all part of our everyday experiences. We're pampered which is comfortable, but I also think that it is causing us to be less tolerant when our needs are not met. Consider road rage--if somebody doesn't have command of the road as they see fit, somewhat frightening anger ensues. Web interaction is part of the convenience culture. In the 'Virtual Communities as Communities' chapter, it's mentioned that people prefer email contact over face-to-face contact because they do not have to deal with people immediately. They can choose when and how they respond. My concern is that this removal from physical contact will affect how we treat each other when faced with immediate situations. If we experience little demand for immediate communication, will we lose the skills to do so reasonably? How will people deal with the demands of their children? with an annoying neighbor?
Second comment: Our readings have established that the web can foster meaningful relationships that have a great deal to offer people--emotionally, intellectually, for entertainment, and otherwise. This is positive in itself, but the benefit is gained through the sterility of a monitor, a keyboard, and network of wires or waves keeping it all connected. In contrast, there is an entire sensual world of wonder beyond the networks. I agree that web communication can facilitate experiencing the physical world; this is evident in physical meetings between initially on-line friends or learning more about a place you are going to travel to, etc. But what about the people and experiences who are already in your physical realm? I was struck with this thought when I read Rheingold's account of his daughter finding him weeping at his computer screen over an interaction with his on-line community. Not to discredit his honest emotion, but it is a shallow scene. It is one thing to have personal interests. Usually, those interests can be shared or explained to other people in your life. But on-line interaction is different; it is an activity that exists for the computer-user only. To pull this in, on-line interaction, whether it is shopping, socializing, reading, etc., removes us from the sensual world, including the people around us. I find that world too compelling to ignore and wonder exactly what people are missing by not interacting with it. Any insight from you all?
We, especially U.S. residents, live in a culture of extreme convenience. 24 hour service, same day delivery, overnight shipping, etc. are all part of our everyday experiences. We're pampered which is comfortable, but I also think that it is causing us to be less tolerant when our needs are not met. Consider road rage--if somebody doesn't have command of the road as they see fit, somewhat frightening anger ensues. Web interaction is part of the convenience culture. In the 'Virtual Communities as Communities' chapter, it's mentioned that people prefer email contact over face-to-face contact because they do not have to deal with people immediately. They can choose when and how they respond. My concern is that this removal from physical contact will affect how we treat each other when faced with immediate situations. If we experience little demand for immediate communication, will we lose the skills to do so reasonably? How will people deal with the demands of their children? with an annoying neighbor?
Second comment: Our readings have established that the web can foster meaningful relationships that have a great deal to offer people--emotionally, intellectually, for entertainment, and otherwise. This is positive in itself, but the benefit is gained through the sterility of a monitor, a keyboard, and network of wires or waves keeping it all connected. In contrast, there is an entire sensual world of wonder beyond the networks. I agree that web communication can facilitate experiencing the physical world; this is evident in physical meetings between initially on-line friends or learning more about a place you are going to travel to, etc. But what about the people and experiences who are already in your physical realm? I was struck with this thought when I read Rheingold's account of his daughter finding him weeping at his computer screen over an interaction with his on-line community. Not to discredit his honest emotion, but it is a shallow scene. It is one thing to have personal interests. Usually, those interests can be shared or explained to other people in your life. But on-line interaction is different; it is an activity that exists for the computer-user only. To pull this in, on-line interaction, whether it is shopping, socializing, reading, etc., removes us from the sensual world, including the people around us. I find that world too compelling to ignore and wonder exactly what people are missing by not interacting with it. Any insight from you all?
Amy:
According to me Part 3 of Communities in Cyberspace dealt with online social structure and network. Once a 'structure' has been established, it has to come up with certain norms, rules and regulations; it cannot exist as anarchy. However the dynamics of that structure, it characteristics and rules are completely in the hands of the person(s) who creates it. People who exist in that social network must comply with the rules of the structure.
Hence, the language used in that particular social structure depicts the ‘structure’ with its formal rules and regulations. So, instead if your member of social MUD, whose members’ deal with fantasia, such as The Wizard of Ozz, I doubt you will find such strong language
According to me Part 3 of Communities in Cyberspace dealt with online social structure and network. Once a 'structure' has been established, it has to come up with certain norms, rules and regulations; it cannot exist as anarchy. However the dynamics of that structure, it characteristics and rules are completely in the hands of the person(s) who creates it. People who exist in that social network must comply with the rules of the structure.
Hence, the language used in that particular social structure depicts the ‘structure’ with its formal rules and regulations. So, instead if your member of social MUD, whose members’ deal with fantasia, such as The Wizard of Ozz, I doubt you will find such strong language
Ben:
Now if I get your question you are saying that constructing domains within the network with its rules and regulation is being prejudiced, that the structure will exclude some people from accessing it, but people should have this freedom?
Also, what would happen if you do not wear a black tie to the party? The congress gets you?
Abhiyan (post the author's name we discussed the other night)
Now if I get your question you are saying that constructing domains within the network with its rules and regulation is being prejudiced, that the structure will exclude some people from accessing it, but people should have this freedom?
Also, what would happen if you do not wear a black tie to the party? The congress gets you?
Abhiyan (post the author's name we discussed the other night)
Proposal:
I want to extend my MA theses, by getting some audience data, primarily to see who engages in different kinds of information dissemination on the Internet. Information dissemination as I want to conceptualize is people disseminating general information, writing mails, mailing ‘links’ of web pages that provides information, sending the web page with information itself, or e-mail news articles (I am mostly interested in this).
The second part of the study would try to measure the predictors or antecedents that lead to information dissemination, especially what makes people to e-mail links of web pages and e-mail news articles that they find on news web sites.
The theoretical argument is, people who are self-efficacious, have a high desirability of control, high self-esteem, have a large social network, online as well as offline would be primary information disseminators of general information as well as of news articles to others.
I think this seems to be beyond the scope of the class; however, I can start with the literature review, building up the argument for the study, thus providing the theoretical base. I hope to move beyond this to conceptualizing, explication concepts, dimensions, writing down various indicators, and hopefully coming up with certain definite items to be included in the survey.
Somehow try to answer, why and what kind of people e-mail news articles and disseminate information?
I want to extend my MA theses, by getting some audience data, primarily to see who engages in different kinds of information dissemination on the Internet. Information dissemination as I want to conceptualize is people disseminating general information, writing mails, mailing ‘links’ of web pages that provides information, sending the web page with information itself, or e-mail news articles (I am mostly interested in this).
The second part of the study would try to measure the predictors or antecedents that lead to information dissemination, especially what makes people to e-mail links of web pages and e-mail news articles that they find on news web sites.
The theoretical argument is, people who are self-efficacious, have a high desirability of control, high self-esteem, have a large social network, online as well as offline would be primary information disseminators of general information as well as of news articles to others.
I think this seems to be beyond the scope of the class; however, I can start with the literature review, building up the argument for the study, thus providing the theoretical base. I hope to move beyond this to conceptualizing, explication concepts, dimensions, writing down various indicators, and hopefully coming up with certain definite items to be included in the survey.
Somehow try to answer, why and what kind of people e-mail news articles and disseminate information?
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
I'm going to bring out questions one at a time to play with the flow of this experiment. First Q: The initial examples we're told about in Part 3 of Communities in Cyberspace are all imposed by people constructing their own domains within the larger network. My question is why that should matter? It reminds me of people setting rules like, "Wear a black tie to come to my party." Nobody considers that a danger to society. Doesn't this issue get serious only when the topmost authorities (not MUD gods but Congress, the courts, etc.) censor online expression?
(Welcome to the club, Abiyan.)
(Welcome to the club, Abiyan.)
Hello fellow colleagues:
I guess I will start the show with my three questions. After reading the Communities in Cyberspace chapters, I felt there should have been more to the Virtual Communities chapters, but I could not see any questions coming from it (although the nun story was interesting). Here are my three questions:
Question 1: This is more of a technical question. Can anyone explain what is being described as MU*s better? Several times I had to question whether the things happening were "real" or not. I just cannot see the things described by Anna DuVal Smith as all happening text-based (building a ship, e.g.)... and also she made a huge reference to Trojan War characters - did the author design these pseudonyms or did these people have to choose names from a list, etc? I could not fully understand that chapter due to these misunderstandings.
Question 2: Another one pertaining to Chapter 6. Smith also describes these people as having a Citizen Council, arresting people, exile, etc. This language feels very strong and rooted in the "real" world to me (and not something I would associate with online interactions). I know when I think of online places to socialize I do not think so seriously about it to use the term "arrest," etc (excluding some email listservs for their serious discussions). Is it just me, just her, or have views of the "seriousness" (based on descriptive language used) shifted so there are clearer distinctions between the "real" and virtual?
Question 3: The last chapter in Part 4 deals with online contributions. About a year or two ago, a number of sites began popping up that asked people for donations to either help that person get out of debt or even just to go on a dream vacation (and people did donate!). Now, although the World Wide Web may be considered a virtual community to some degree, donaters were not given any real sort of gain. It may be that they had sympathy having a similar situation and wanting to help a fellow debtee, but how can we explain the donaters to the travelling funds of a student? Those situations, I feel, were not covered in any of the categories suggested. Any suggestions?
I guess I will start the show with my three questions. After reading the Communities in Cyberspace chapters, I felt there should have been more to the Virtual Communities chapters, but I could not see any questions coming from it (although the nun story was interesting). Here are my three questions:
Question 1: This is more of a technical question. Can anyone explain what is being described as MU*s better? Several times I had to question whether the things happening were "real" or not. I just cannot see the things described by Anna DuVal Smith as all happening text-based (building a ship, e.g.)... and also she made a huge reference to Trojan War characters - did the author design these pseudonyms or did these people have to choose names from a list, etc? I could not fully understand that chapter due to these misunderstandings.
Question 2: Another one pertaining to Chapter 6. Smith also describes these people as having a Citizen Council, arresting people, exile, etc. This language feels very strong and rooted in the "real" world to me (and not something I would associate with online interactions). I know when I think of online places to socialize I do not think so seriously about it to use the term "arrest," etc (excluding some email listservs for their serious discussions). Is it just me, just her, or have views of the "seriousness" (based on descriptive language used) shifted so there are clearer distinctions between the "real" and virtual?
Question 3: The last chapter in Part 4 deals with online contributions. About a year or two ago, a number of sites began popping up that asked people for donations to either help that person get out of debt or even just to go on a dream vacation (and people did donate!). Now, although the World Wide Web may be considered a virtual community to some degree, donaters were not given any real sort of gain. It may be that they had sympathy having a similar situation and wanting to help a fellow debtee, but how can we explain the donaters to the travelling funds of a student? Those situations, I feel, were not covered in any of the categories suggested. Any suggestions?
Monday, February 23, 2004
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Research Proposals:
1. I would like to see if there is a digital divide among library schools. I was just curious to see if there is a wide spread difference in the adoption or incorporation of technology classes into the curriculums. When and how did the curriculums change? Along the same vein, how many schools have changed the name from library to information studies, and who hasn’t? I am not sure if this would be a feasible topic. I would need to look at previous course catalogues. I just get the feeling the profression is dealing with a lot of change and I wanted to get more of a background on it.
2. For a previous class, I worked on a group project where we wrote a fictitious Internet filtering policy for Iraq. At first I had trouble with assignment, even if it was fictitious. The information I came across was really interesting. So much change was occurring in such little time, especially for a society where the government restricted information and whose infrastructure was damaged in war. The Iraqi people went from having no access to information, to unrestricted access via satellite. While the infrastructure is being rebuilt and there are many other complications (to say the least), I would like to take a more in-depth look and compare the before and after. What were the major forms of communication before 2000 and after? How widespread is Internet access? Is there any basis for the belief that access to information will help spread democracy? Is it myth? How does Iraq compare with other countries in the region? I find this topic to be more intriguing, but it will be a matter of seeing what information is available and from what sources. The Coalition Provisional Authority, while not unbiased, does provide research. What else it out there?
Questions:
1. In online interaction, language can become a character attribute or an identifier. Language becomes an “identification badge” (page 39). How much will online abbreviations or slang impact spoken language? What other effects will this have or what skills does this teach? Do we become more critical readers?
2. While traveling outside of the US, I have felt much more aware of my identity as an American and how I am perceived as an American. At the same time, I have felt more free and anonymous. In Italy, for example, most people did not know if I was European or American unless I spoke English. I had a high degree of comfort in day-to-day interactions and not everyone could pick up the cues that would identify me as American. Do online communities work in the same way? Is there more freedom with anonymity? Or does it work to place more emphasis on identity?
3. Do you agree that stereotypes are more influential and resilient online (page 75)? Is “fantasy freed” in cyberspace or do we translate our identity, gender, race, etc. online because it is so ingrained in real life? Do you agree with this quote from page 78: “Online interactions provide an excellent site for observing the dislocation of mind and body. In this interactional realm it is possible to observe how persons categorize self/other and structure interaction in absence of embodied characteristics.”
1. I would like to see if there is a digital divide among library schools. I was just curious to see if there is a wide spread difference in the adoption or incorporation of technology classes into the curriculums. When and how did the curriculums change? Along the same vein, how many schools have changed the name from library to information studies, and who hasn’t? I am not sure if this would be a feasible topic. I would need to look at previous course catalogues. I just get the feeling the profression is dealing with a lot of change and I wanted to get more of a background on it.
2. For a previous class, I worked on a group project where we wrote a fictitious Internet filtering policy for Iraq. At first I had trouble with assignment, even if it was fictitious. The information I came across was really interesting. So much change was occurring in such little time, especially for a society where the government restricted information and whose infrastructure was damaged in war. The Iraqi people went from having no access to information, to unrestricted access via satellite. While the infrastructure is being rebuilt and there are many other complications (to say the least), I would like to take a more in-depth look and compare the before and after. What were the major forms of communication before 2000 and after? How widespread is Internet access? Is there any basis for the belief that access to information will help spread democracy? Is it myth? How does Iraq compare with other countries in the region? I find this topic to be more intriguing, but it will be a matter of seeing what information is available and from what sources. The Coalition Provisional Authority, while not unbiased, does provide research. What else it out there?
Questions:
1. In online interaction, language can become a character attribute or an identifier. Language becomes an “identification badge” (page 39). How much will online abbreviations or slang impact spoken language? What other effects will this have or what skills does this teach? Do we become more critical readers?
2. While traveling outside of the US, I have felt much more aware of my identity as an American and how I am perceived as an American. At the same time, I have felt more free and anonymous. In Italy, for example, most people did not know if I was European or American unless I spoke English. I had a high degree of comfort in day-to-day interactions and not everyone could pick up the cues that would identify me as American. Do online communities work in the same way? Is there more freedom with anonymity? Or does it work to place more emphasis on identity?
3. Do you agree that stereotypes are more influential and resilient online (page 75)? Is “fantasy freed” in cyberspace or do we translate our identity, gender, race, etc. online because it is so ingrained in real life? Do you agree with this quote from page 78: “Online interactions provide an excellent site for observing the dislocation of mind and body. In this interactional realm it is possible to observe how persons categorize self/other and structure interaction in absence of embodied characteristics.”
(By the way, as several of you have figured out, we'll be holding discussion until about 10 minutes to 4pm today, and then taking a "class field trip" over to Vilas to see the panel discussion which I'm participating in. Don't worry, it actually will have plenty to do with our class topic of "digital divides," and I apologize that I didn't have any control over when it was scheduled.)
Reading the articles gave me an impression that the groups of people who were marginalized or discriminated offline seem to have the same fate online, specifically women, and people of race. The digital divide is more of an Intra-digital divide, within certain online community and cultures.
1. My major concern is how certain 'cyber-cultures, 'etiquettes' and way of speaking or communicating came into existence online. When Internet was introduced, access itself was stratified across the US as well as across the world, as people with certain SES and class having access. These people could have contributed to the culture or communication etiquettes that exist online today, as no one else or hardly anyone else is online. There could have been a homogeneous group of people who shared ideas and opinions. There seems to be a socialization process taken place, where 'their' way of communication becomes the dominant culture, and these homogeneous people could have set benchmarks and standards for textual communication. Hence defeating the idea itself that Internet is more democratic medium as compared to others, at least in cultural and societal expression arena. This reflects back to 'Intra digital divide', a divide in the online culture or community per se, as to what is acceptable and what is not, and who set these rules.
2. O'Brien's murky conceptualization of how genders transcribes from offline to online behavior with embodiment needs to be discussed more and carefully explicated; there are certain aspects of it she has completely avoided. For example, embodiment includes all bodily actions and their relation to cognition and perception. The way 'you' sit, move 'your' hand to type on keyboard, the 'movement' of mouse, your bodily state at that particular time is all embodied in the actions you perform, and since all these actions are gender specific and at some abstract level influenced by gender, one would expect some effects of embodiment. Also, she contradicts the embodiment approach by moving back and forth into the body-soul, and body-mind dichotomy. I am not sure if I have explained this in a clear manner, but hey, embodiment itself is an abstract philosophical concept!
3. I have been in chat rooms like IRC, or on programs like Pirch. Almost all programs offer an option to protect your identity if you register. Your age, gender, and location are not known. However, when I been in discussion and sometimes I felt the need to ask the person's gender, the person would reply, "does it matter?" and I would say "no". Now this has happened to me several times, it makes me question that; personally your perspectives, ideas, and opinions online could be influenced by gender, but how much does it matter to other people? Is there a shift in the gender paradigm?, Do peoples' perception of gender online has been changing?
Thank you, see you later.
Abhiyan
1. My major concern is how certain 'cyber-cultures, 'etiquettes' and way of speaking or communicating came into existence online. When Internet was introduced, access itself was stratified across the US as well as across the world, as people with certain SES and class having access. These people could have contributed to the culture or communication etiquettes that exist online today, as no one else or hardly anyone else is online. There could have been a homogeneous group of people who shared ideas and opinions. There seems to be a socialization process taken place, where 'their' way of communication becomes the dominant culture, and these homogeneous people could have set benchmarks and standards for textual communication. Hence defeating the idea itself that Internet is more democratic medium as compared to others, at least in cultural and societal expression arena. This reflects back to 'Intra digital divide', a divide in the online culture or community per se, as to what is acceptable and what is not, and who set these rules.
2. O'Brien's murky conceptualization of how genders transcribes from offline to online behavior with embodiment needs to be discussed more and carefully explicated; there are certain aspects of it she has completely avoided. For example, embodiment includes all bodily actions and their relation to cognition and perception. The way 'you' sit, move 'your' hand to type on keyboard, the 'movement' of mouse, your bodily state at that particular time is all embodied in the actions you perform, and since all these actions are gender specific and at some abstract level influenced by gender, one would expect some effects of embodiment. Also, she contradicts the embodiment approach by moving back and forth into the body-soul, and body-mind dichotomy. I am not sure if I have explained this in a clear manner, but hey, embodiment itself is an abstract philosophical concept!
3. I have been in chat rooms like IRC, or on programs like Pirch. Almost all programs offer an option to protect your identity if you register. Your age, gender, and location are not known. However, when I been in discussion and sometimes I felt the need to ask the person's gender, the person would reply, "does it matter?" and I would say "no". Now this has happened to me several times, it makes me question that; personally your perspectives, ideas, and opinions online could be influenced by gender, but how much does it matter to other people? Is there a shift in the gender paradigm?, Do peoples' perception of gender online has been changing?
Thank you, see you later.
Abhiyan
Week 5: Digital differences: Discussion questions
1. In the book ‘Communities in cyberspace,’ it is said that “O’Brien points that “hyper-gendering” is prevalent among those who attempt to “cross-dress”(i.e. males presenting themselves as females)” (p.12). How do you think about “gender-switching” online if someone who contacts with you online is not “really” the gender he or she presents himself / herself?
Why is gender a central feature in interaction throughout the Internet?
What is the crucial importance of gender identity in cyberspace?
2. According to O’Brein point, “there is a strain between those who view online interaction as an opportunity to “perform” a variety of fabricated roles versus those who see cyberspace as a new communication medium between real people” (p.12). How do you view online interaction and what is the frame of interaction in cyberspace?
3. How do you think about whether cyberspace enhances or erodes social order and control that already exist in human societies? How does social control work in cyberspace? Do you think that some form of monitoring and sanctioning would be necessary in online groups? Do you agree or disagree with ‘the system of real name use on the Internet’ that users should use their real name when they write and post their opinions online? Do you think that the system of real name use online infringes the public constitutional rights of the freedom of expression and information human rights?
(P.S.: My proposal is below and was posted on Tuesday)
1. In the book ‘Communities in cyberspace,’ it is said that “O’Brien points that “hyper-gendering” is prevalent among those who attempt to “cross-dress”(i.e. males presenting themselves as females)” (p.12). How do you think about “gender-switching” online if someone who contacts with you online is not “really” the gender he or she presents himself / herself?
Why is gender a central feature in interaction throughout the Internet?
What is the crucial importance of gender identity in cyberspace?
2. According to O’Brein point, “there is a strain between those who view online interaction as an opportunity to “perform” a variety of fabricated roles versus those who see cyberspace as a new communication medium between real people” (p.12). How do you view online interaction and what is the frame of interaction in cyberspace?
3. How do you think about whether cyberspace enhances or erodes social order and control that already exist in human societies? How does social control work in cyberspace? Do you think that some form of monitoring and sanctioning would be necessary in online groups? Do you agree or disagree with ‘the system of real name use on the Internet’ that users should use their real name when they write and post their opinions online? Do you think that the system of real name use online infringes the public constitutional rights of the freedom of expression and information human rights?
(P.S.: My proposal is below and was posted on Tuesday)
February 19, 2004 (Central Time Zone)
John BAKEN here--here are my reseach ideas:
1) I'd like to survey American Indians regarding their Internet behavior/habits. I made connections with about 10 tribal librarians in the Fall of '02, and it'd be nice touching bases with them again (in the form of a letter and short attached survey that would aid me in my research). If I get it sent out soon, the return rate might be high enough to get somewhat of a representative sample.
2) My other choice would be with the same "marginalized" group of users, but this time I'd use a survey to get at how the Gates Foundation Grants providing electronic access (e.g. free computers, printers, servers, training, etc. in reservation libraries) have made the respective communities better for the opportunities the computers have provided (plus questions on survey re: how computers are being utilized). Or perhaps some feel the communities haven't necessarily benefitted from the bequests.
BIG QUESTIONS, REGARDING THE COMMUNITIES IN CYBERSPACE READINGS:
1) Because I'm from Montana, the "huge and sparsely populated state" in which the Big Sky Telegraph project was conducted (Ch. 1: Communities in Cyberspace, Introduction), I was curious about the results of this particular study. As you'll recall, there were 114 rural, one-room schoolhouses attempting to be connected via the Internet; yet with equipment provided and system in place, only 30 of the 114 schools were active on the network two years into its existence. What reasons might you give for such a poor showing, percentage-wise, for technology linking these remote locales?
2) From Chapter 2: Identity and deception in the virtual community, we learn all about Usenet and its users, esp. regarding "identity" and possible deception of identity. On this subject: when my first son was born, I e-mailed pictures of him "in the buff " to several friends, without a concern or second thought about it. Some time later, I received a warning from (what I thought was) the FBI, warning me that I was under surveillance for distributing pornography involving children over the Internet. The return address was faked but read as the actual FBI.gov or whatever.. it had me scared!! Of course, it turned out to be my friend/former colleague from Japan, who was computer savvy enough to pull it off (didn't take much to fool me). Whew..
But, MY QUESTION: Have you been victim or have you been culpable in any similar schemes, regarding a faked identity and/or other type of deception? Explain.
3) From Chapter 3: Reading Race Online, I am reminded of an instance or two where race came up in online discussions (mainly through e-mail correspondence). When do you feel it's important to reveal one's ethnicity/race to someone else online? Perhaps you don't feel it ever is necessary, or shouldn't be necessary. Let's discuss it in class tomorrow, and I'll relate the few instances (maybe just one?) that I can recall asking my correspondent to identify their race.
That's all. See you later today (Greg, will we be meeting until 4:00 PM only, since you have that Cluster Group Discussion thing-y?). Thanks.
John BAKEN here--here are my reseach ideas:
1) I'd like to survey American Indians regarding their Internet behavior/habits. I made connections with about 10 tribal librarians in the Fall of '02, and it'd be nice touching bases with them again (in the form of a letter and short attached survey that would aid me in my research). If I get it sent out soon, the return rate might be high enough to get somewhat of a representative sample.
2) My other choice would be with the same "marginalized" group of users, but this time I'd use a survey to get at how the Gates Foundation Grants providing electronic access (e.g. free computers, printers, servers, training, etc. in reservation libraries) have made the respective communities better for the opportunities the computers have provided (plus questions on survey re: how computers are being utilized). Or perhaps some feel the communities haven't necessarily benefitted from the bequests.
BIG QUESTIONS, REGARDING THE COMMUNITIES IN CYBERSPACE READINGS:
1) Because I'm from Montana, the "huge and sparsely populated state" in which the Big Sky Telegraph project was conducted (Ch. 1: Communities in Cyberspace, Introduction), I was curious about the results of this particular study. As you'll recall, there were 114 rural, one-room schoolhouses attempting to be connected via the Internet; yet with equipment provided and system in place, only 30 of the 114 schools were active on the network two years into its existence. What reasons might you give for such a poor showing, percentage-wise, for technology linking these remote locales?
2) From Chapter 2: Identity and deception in the virtual community, we learn all about Usenet and its users, esp. regarding "identity" and possible deception of identity. On this subject: when my first son was born, I e-mailed pictures of him "in the buff " to several friends, without a concern or second thought about it. Some time later, I received a warning from (what I thought was) the FBI, warning me that I was under surveillance for distributing pornography involving children over the Internet. The return address was faked but read as the actual FBI.gov or whatever.. it had me scared!! Of course, it turned out to be my friend/former colleague from Japan, who was computer savvy enough to pull it off (didn't take much to fool me). Whew..
But, MY QUESTION: Have you been victim or have you been culpable in any similar schemes, regarding a faked identity and/or other type of deception? Explain.
3) From Chapter 3: Reading Race Online, I am reminded of an instance or two where race came up in online discussions (mainly through e-mail correspondence). When do you feel it's important to reveal one's ethnicity/race to someone else online? Perhaps you don't feel it ever is necessary, or shouldn't be necessary. Let's discuss it in class tomorrow, and I'll relate the few instances (maybe just one?) that I can recall asking my correspondent to identify their race.
That's all. See you later today (Greg, will we be meeting until 4:00 PM only, since you have that Cluster Group Discussion thing-y?). Thanks.
Question 1: Smith and Kollock list a number of online "communities" in the first chapter of the book. What has changed from then are the large gaming communities that are graphic-based that started appearing around 2001. These, almost "virtual worlds," represent the participant visually, and they can be based not only on actions and appearances, but levels of involvedness (person at level 30 vs. level 95). How does this affect the sense of online "communities?"
Question 2: The book also mentions the problem of identity issues and "trolls." Recently some states have begun enacting anti-spam laws, moving their jurisdiction into the virtual realm. Is it possible that in the near future, legislatives might begin enacting digital identity "theft" laws, or trying to control how people are representing themselves online? Or is it inevitable that no matter how hard something tries to control identity problems, it will always be a problem? Are there any laws or guidelines out there now that are trying to solve this problem?
Question 3: The book issues a lot of problems based on the identity problem (since that is the section we are reading). One interesting aspect is that people are now able to impersonate other people. Although television has done a lot of the work in blending speech and appearance, written communication was not something easily learned. Are people losing their own identity then because they are learning how to "speak" different online (text appearance, grammar, terminology, language, etc), and are our many diverse cultures melding more and more? Although we are diverse individuals, I wonder if our diversity gets caught up in these online communities (sorry if this last one is very vague/broad, but I am just having a hard time coming up with these questions).
***
Upon more thought, I think my initial proposal questions were highly influenced on last week's conversation. Although I am very interested in school (primarily post-secondary institutions) use of technology, I am equally (if not more so) interested in why technology is failing them. I believe I have more resources available to look at this, and I am planning on focusing my own career on administration and information architecture. I do hold many reservations about blind love for technology, but I do believe we should try to manipulate it in a useful way. So, I guess the question would be how is technology failing our students and faculty? What needs to be done to make software more approachable and machines more affordable? I did not introduce this idea earlier because I am not sure just how closely related it has to deal with actual digital divides or differences, so please let me know! Thank you.
Question 2: The book also mentions the problem of identity issues and "trolls." Recently some states have begun enacting anti-spam laws, moving their jurisdiction into the virtual realm. Is it possible that in the near future, legislatives might begin enacting digital identity "theft" laws, or trying to control how people are representing themselves online? Or is it inevitable that no matter how hard something tries to control identity problems, it will always be a problem? Are there any laws or guidelines out there now that are trying to solve this problem?
Question 3: The book issues a lot of problems based on the identity problem (since that is the section we are reading). One interesting aspect is that people are now able to impersonate other people. Although television has done a lot of the work in blending speech and appearance, written communication was not something easily learned. Are people losing their own identity then because they are learning how to "speak" different online (text appearance, grammar, terminology, language, etc), and are our many diverse cultures melding more and more? Although we are diverse individuals, I wonder if our diversity gets caught up in these online communities (sorry if this last one is very vague/broad, but I am just having a hard time coming up with these questions).
***
Upon more thought, I think my initial proposal questions were highly influenced on last week's conversation. Although I am very interested in school (primarily post-secondary institutions) use of technology, I am equally (if not more so) interested in why technology is failing them. I believe I have more resources available to look at this, and I am planning on focusing my own career on administration and information architecture. I do hold many reservations about blind love for technology, but I do believe we should try to manipulate it in a useful way. So, I guess the question would be how is technology failing our students and faculty? What needs to be done to make software more approachable and machines more affordable? I did not introduce this idea earlier because I am not sure just how closely related it has to deal with actual digital divides or differences, so please let me know! Thank you.
Discussion Questions
Paper Proposals
-john t
- In the articles which examined online activities in areas which were attached to a certain demographic to some degree (be it geeks in a MUD or Asians in soc.culture.asian.american), to what extent is identity overproblematized because of the fact that these are largely forums where individuals get to assert/play around with their identity? How does online identity formation play out in other spaces which are not so identity driven (IM, e-mail, surfing)?
- A major issue that I felt did not receive enough attention in these readings was trust (although it was arguably an underlying theme). I am curious how trust or suspicion of one's online identity plays into its formation. It brings to mind the encryption technique which builds on trust to validate information from others, sometimes of remote relation. With the mutability of identity online, how can we form trust of those we don't really know?
- I liked O'Brien's ideas surrounding "allowable multiplicity" of gender because it seems to allow for a less binary definition of the term. But, in a world which is typically divided in these terms, what happens to the divides? Do they still exist? Are new divides created? Are some of the traditional divides broken down?
Paper Proposals
- My first paper idea is an exploration of how the architecture of the Internet, and the regulation and laws supporting that architecture, has contributed to the creation of a digital divide. By architecture, I mean the embedded characteristics that make the Internet work 'how it works.' A few relevant examples that I can think of off the top of my head are: a need for technical know-how, expensive equipment needed to interface, and imposing English standard (in addresses). I would like to explore how the technical roots of these "traditions" and their tacit acceptance in regulation have helped create a digital divide.
- A somewhat related issue would be an analysis of what the Internet might look like if it were conceived of as a universal access utility. The Internet has been created in a structure where people can get online at home only if they can afford a computer and access. Telephone service, to my knowledge, was created with centralized control and an eventual non-commercial assumption that everyone needed a phone. I am wondering how divides played out in the historical case of the telephone, and how the differences in access models affect the creation of the digital divide.
-john t
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Proposal #1: to examine the debate between cyber-utopians and cyber-pessimists, those who think that on balance digital media will enhance democracy and those who think it will harm the democratic process. I will outline the principle claims of each group and the principle ways each group argues against the claims of the opposite camp. I want to pursue this because it is a good way to study how new media may affect society, which I see as a potential thesis topic for next year.
Proposal #2: to review some potential future architectures of the World Wide Web (those being promoted by industry, government, interest groups), and to assess the possible effects these architectures may have on the political economy. (Is that vague-sounding? Example of a potential architecture: the audio/video components of the current system could be corralled into a ‘video-on-demand’ format.) I want to pursue this one because I am interested in the efforts being made right now to determine the future shape of the Internet. And, again, I would like to test the viability of this topic as a thesis.
Proposal #2: to review some potential future architectures of the World Wide Web (those being promoted by industry, government, interest groups), and to assess the possible effects these architectures may have on the political economy. (Is that vague-sounding? Example of a potential architecture: the audio/video components of the current system could be corralled into a ‘video-on-demand’ format.) I want to pursue this one because I am interested in the efforts being made right now to determine the future shape of the Internet. And, again, I would like to test the viability of this topic as a thesis.
1. On page 56 of Communities in Cyberspace the author cites the possibility that it may become more difficult in the future to deceptively establish identities online. If we agree that the potential for deception is tied up with the general flexibility of the internet, and possibly also with the ability to interact anonymously, would it be on balance a good thing if deception were more difficult?
2. In a couple different places, the author of “Reading Race Online” makes the following observation: whereas in the real world people make character assumptions based on race, online people make race assumptions based on character traits. There is a fundamental shift from deductive to inductive reasoning. Is this shift reflected in other areas? What does it mean in the long term for the way people think? (I’m thinking of McLuhan with this question. Literacy, according to his work, fundamentally changed the perception and thinking of societies, and I wonder if the shift from deductive to inductive reasoning suggests what changes new media may bring.)
3. On page 86 is the passage: “The probability of the perpetuation or demise of gender differentiation cannot be ascertained without first establishing, at least theoretically, whether gender is a feature of the flesh or a figment of the mind.” I have two questions about this. First, am I misreading her, or is she actually entertaining the possibility of the demise of gender differentiation because of the Internet? Second, is she now proposing to resolve the same binary opposition which she dismissed as a “truth trap” back on page 78?
Them's my three questions. Research proposals to arrive shortly (after I doctor one so it doesn't resemble one of Anna's ideas so much!).
Ben
2. In a couple different places, the author of “Reading Race Online” makes the following observation: whereas in the real world people make character assumptions based on race, online people make race assumptions based on character traits. There is a fundamental shift from deductive to inductive reasoning. Is this shift reflected in other areas? What does it mean in the long term for the way people think? (I’m thinking of McLuhan with this question. Literacy, according to his work, fundamentally changed the perception and thinking of societies, and I wonder if the shift from deductive to inductive reasoning suggests what changes new media may bring.)
3. On page 86 is the passage: “The probability of the perpetuation or demise of gender differentiation cannot be ascertained without first establishing, at least theoretically, whether gender is a feature of the flesh or a figment of the mind.” I have two questions about this. First, am I misreading her, or is she actually entertaining the possibility of the demise of gender differentiation because of the Internet? Second, is she now proposing to resolve the same binary opposition which she dismissed as a “truth trap” back on page 78?
Them's my three questions. Research proposals to arrive shortly (after I doctor one so it doesn't resemble one of Anna's ideas so much!).
Ben
Hi there--Here are some cybercommunity thoughts for you all.
In the 'identity and deception' chapter, Donath writes that cyberfolk are uncomfortable with other users remaining anonymous. I find this amusing and somewhat refreshing. Amusing because nobody really knows who anybody else on-line is anyway. Refreshing because, in the electronic and plastic world we live in, it is so necessarily human to ascribe a name to something. I was actually puzzled by a lot of the cybercommunity behavior. This spiffy web log is the first sort of organized on-line place I've contributed to and I think my lack of experience with on-line communities leaves me a little in the dark. For instance, sniffing out trolls or being a troll--why bother?
The web is praised by some as a place where people will not be judged by their physical characteristics. The notion that our culture or our world needs such a place reveals a large defect in how we interact with each other. Instead of turning to the web for partiality, what about promoting tolerant behavior or presenting people with more opportunities? Does an anonymous web sustain prejudices by giving people an interactive space where they can avoid confronting them? People who interact on the web still have prejudices (everybody does), but when they're on-line they can, in many instances, pretend not to have them.
How do cybercommunities figure into the digital divide debate? Are those off-line missing out on a vital means of communication or is this merely luxurious entertainment? It seems as though many group members receive practical and emotional benefit from their web-friends. Maybe injustice occurs when off-line people who do not have other opportunities for traditional interactions (the homebound, disabled, introverts) are denied web interaction. Yet this would be a hard line to draw.
In the 'identity and deception' chapter, Donath writes that cyberfolk are uncomfortable with other users remaining anonymous. I find this amusing and somewhat refreshing. Amusing because nobody really knows who anybody else on-line is anyway. Refreshing because, in the electronic and plastic world we live in, it is so necessarily human to ascribe a name to something. I was actually puzzled by a lot of the cybercommunity behavior. This spiffy web log is the first sort of organized on-line place I've contributed to and I think my lack of experience with on-line communities leaves me a little in the dark. For instance, sniffing out trolls or being a troll--why bother?
The web is praised by some as a place where people will not be judged by their physical characteristics. The notion that our culture or our world needs such a place reveals a large defect in how we interact with each other. Instead of turning to the web for partiality, what about promoting tolerant behavior or presenting people with more opportunities? Does an anonymous web sustain prejudices by giving people an interactive space where they can avoid confronting them? People who interact on the web still have prejudices (everybody does), but when they're on-line they can, in many instances, pretend not to have them.
How do cybercommunities figure into the digital divide debate? Are those off-line missing out on a vital means of communication or is this merely luxurious entertainment? It seems as though many group members receive practical and emotional benefit from their web-friends. Maybe injustice occurs when off-line people who do not have other opportunities for traditional interactions (the homebound, disabled, introverts) are denied web interaction. Yet this would be a hard line to draw.
Potential research topics...
My first choice is to study the somewhat recent wave of political action that is happening on the net. Hopeful presidential candidates, Howard Dean especially, are using the web substantially to rally support and spread their word. Yet, there is the off-line population to consider. I want to answer the questions: How has political campaigning changed with the prevelance of the Internet? How are campaign organizers compensating for two populations: one on-line and one off?
My back-up plan is to look at case studies from a developing nation, perhaps one in Africa, that has strong technology programs in order to shed light on what makes a country's technology programs successful. I would like to integrate the political climate, social practices, and economy of the nation and perhaps identify some criteria for success. I would also like to distinguish between the technological infrastructure itself and its actual impact on people's lives.
My first choice is to study the somewhat recent wave of political action that is happening on the net. Hopeful presidential candidates, Howard Dean especially, are using the web substantially to rally support and spread their word. Yet, there is the off-line population to consider. I want to answer the questions: How has political campaigning changed with the prevelance of the Internet? How are campaign organizers compensating for two populations: one on-line and one off?
My back-up plan is to look at case studies from a developing nation, perhaps one in Africa, that has strong technology programs in order to shed light on what makes a country's technology programs successful. I would like to integrate the political climate, social practices, and economy of the nation and perhaps identify some criteria for success. I would also like to distinguish between the technological infrastructure itself and its actual impact on people's lives.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
By Seunghyun Lee
Week 5: Digital differences: Discussion questions
1. In the book ‘Communities in cyberspace,’ it is said that “O’Brien points that “hyper-gendering” is prevalent among those who attempt to “cross-dress”(i.e. males presenting themselves as females)” (p.12). How do you think about “gender-switching” online if someone who contacts with you online is not “really” the gender he or she presents himself / herself?
Why is gender a central feature in interaction throughout the Internet?
What is the crucial importance of gender identity in cyberspace?
2. According to O’Brein point, “there is a strain between those who view online interaction as an opportunity to “perform” a variety of fabricated roles versus those who see cyberspace as a new communication medium between real people” (p.12). How do you view online interaction and what is the frame of interaction in cyberspace?
3. How do you think about whether cyberspace enhances or erodes social order and control that already exist in human societies? How does social control work in cyberspace? Do you think that some form of monitoring and sanctioning would be necessary in online groups? Do you agree or disagree with ‘the system of real name use on the Internet’ that users should use their real name when they write and post their opinions online? Do you think that the system of real name use online infringes the public constitutional rights of the freedom of expression and information human rights?
Proposal for the final paper: New Technology and its impact on education
As new technology is developed rapidly, the environment of education also demands changes through new technologies in modern society. Innovations in education that incorporate new technologies affect not only teaching strategies, but also learning environment. This trend in the information age is transforming the environment of education. In other words, technological innovation requires changes for success in education. For the final paper, I will focus on how the use of new technologies in class can affect learning and teaching of a second language.
In a second language education, new technology and visual tools such as the Internet and video are useful in practicing language skills, conveying the meaning of words, and showing different cultures which are related to language learning. These new technologies are becoming important tools for the education. For the use of visual and cultural materials through new multimedia technologies in foreign language education, a wireless network technology can create a new mobile language learning environment. That is, it is useful to use a visual and auditory technology based on a computer and the Internet. It is assumed that this mobile and interactive language-learning environment can increase an opportunity of an interaction between an instructor and students. Also, it can improve students’ learning skills more effectively in which it can make students more active in class. Namely, it is assumed that innovative visual and auditory technology is effective in learning a foreign language and in making students understand it easily.
In sum, I will explore the relationship between new technology and education, and how it will affect learning and teaching.
Research Questions:
¨Is the use of multimedia technology in class useful and effective for learning and teaching?
¨Does it improve students’ abilities of a foreign language learning?
Methods:
I will conduct interviews with an instructor and a few students who have been using new technology for learning and teaching in class and/or out of class. I will examine whether new technology fits into improving students’ learning ability, focusing on students’ access to and use of technology in class. The first stage of this paper will involve a questionnaire survey through email about how much it is helpful and effective to the students in learning a foreign language. In other word, within a case-study, I will undertake a questionnaire survey of college students who are taking a foreign language class, and this will be followed by observation work in a case-study class, if it is allowed. In-dept interviews with the students and a teacher will be carried out.
Week 5: Digital differences: Discussion questions
1. In the book ‘Communities in cyberspace,’ it is said that “O’Brien points that “hyper-gendering” is prevalent among those who attempt to “cross-dress”(i.e. males presenting themselves as females)” (p.12). How do you think about “gender-switching” online if someone who contacts with you online is not “really” the gender he or she presents himself / herself?
Why is gender a central feature in interaction throughout the Internet?
What is the crucial importance of gender identity in cyberspace?
2. According to O’Brein point, “there is a strain between those who view online interaction as an opportunity to “perform” a variety of fabricated roles versus those who see cyberspace as a new communication medium between real people” (p.12). How do you view online interaction and what is the frame of interaction in cyberspace?
3. How do you think about whether cyberspace enhances or erodes social order and control that already exist in human societies? How does social control work in cyberspace? Do you think that some form of monitoring and sanctioning would be necessary in online groups? Do you agree or disagree with ‘the system of real name use on the Internet’ that users should use their real name when they write and post their opinions online? Do you think that the system of real name use online infringes the public constitutional rights of the freedom of expression and information human rights?
Proposal for the final paper: New Technology and its impact on education
As new technology is developed rapidly, the environment of education also demands changes through new technologies in modern society. Innovations in education that incorporate new technologies affect not only teaching strategies, but also learning environment. This trend in the information age is transforming the environment of education. In other words, technological innovation requires changes for success in education. For the final paper, I will focus on how the use of new technologies in class can affect learning and teaching of a second language.
In a second language education, new technology and visual tools such as the Internet and video are useful in practicing language skills, conveying the meaning of words, and showing different cultures which are related to language learning. These new technologies are becoming important tools for the education. For the use of visual and cultural materials through new multimedia technologies in foreign language education, a wireless network technology can create a new mobile language learning environment. That is, it is useful to use a visual and auditory technology based on a computer and the Internet. It is assumed that this mobile and interactive language-learning environment can increase an opportunity of an interaction between an instructor and students. Also, it can improve students’ learning skills more effectively in which it can make students more active in class. Namely, it is assumed that innovative visual and auditory technology is effective in learning a foreign language and in making students understand it easily.
In sum, I will explore the relationship between new technology and education, and how it will affect learning and teaching.
Research Questions:
¨Is the use of multimedia technology in class useful and effective for learning and teaching?
¨Does it improve students’ abilities of a foreign language learning?
Methods:
I will conduct interviews with an instructor and a few students who have been using new technology for learning and teaching in class and/or out of class. I will examine whether new technology fits into improving students’ learning ability, focusing on students’ access to and use of technology in class. The first stage of this paper will involve a questionnaire survey through email about how much it is helpful and effective to the students in learning a foreign language. In other word, within a case-study, I will undertake a questionnaire survey of college students who are taking a foreign language class, and this will be followed by observation work in a case-study class, if it is allowed. In-dept interviews with the students and a teacher will be carried out.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
It took me quite a while to decide what I would like to propose as a final paper, and try to find a narrow enough focus. I finally decided on these two topics in the end (albeit focused mostly on schools instead of other topics we may cover), and I do like my first one more.
1. Recent studies have shown the United States high school test scores to be even lower than before, ranking into the teens. In the 70s, the US was ranked near the top, and it has been steadily decreasing ever since. How does technology play a role in the numbing and dumbing of our future generations? Are schools focused too much in trying to incorporate technology into the classroom instead of the curriculum of the classroom, or are other nations using technology in a better teaching manner?
2. Many of the materials we read pointed out different uses of technology in schools. I would like to know what the schools in America are using their computers for: as tools for the students to "improve" their current curricula materials, or as another "class" to teach them how to use the computer effectively. And if not one of those, what they really are doing now that they have these technologies. Are they making a difference, positively or negatively?
::The kingdom of God is within you and all around you.
It is not within buildings of wood or stone.
Split a piece of wood and you will find me.
Look beneath a stone and I am there. ::
1. Recent studies have shown the United States high school test scores to be even lower than before, ranking into the teens. In the 70s, the US was ranked near the top, and it has been steadily decreasing ever since. How does technology play a role in the numbing and dumbing of our future generations? Are schools focused too much in trying to incorporate technology into the classroom instead of the curriculum of the classroom, or are other nations using technology in a better teaching manner?
2. Many of the materials we read pointed out different uses of technology in schools. I would like to know what the schools in America are using their computers for: as tools for the students to "improve" their current curricula materials, or as another "class" to teach them how to use the computer effectively. And if not one of those, what they really are doing now that they have these technologies. Are they making a difference, positively or negatively?
::The kingdom of God is within you and all around you.
It is not within buildings of wood or stone.
Split a piece of wood and you will find me.
Look beneath a stone and I am there. ::
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Hello Greg:
I could not log in and post to the blog (tried in vain). So i am sending you the questions.
1. With teachers as gatekeepers of education and use of technology in classrooms, how much the situation has changed since 1980s in grade school, high school, college or university? How much the structural factors affect use of technology and how do teachers cope, especially with use of technology in classroom and other areas is becoming a popular notion, as there seems to be a kind of social pressure, a demand from society, parents and media.
My other concern stems out from cross-cultural effects of the structural and social factors. As loads of research has been done in many 'developing nations' on diffusion and innovation of technology, i am sure the structural factors and social factors vary, but what impact do they have would be interesting to see.
2. long distance education is becoming popular with Internet, various depress are being offered on-line, even universities offer on-line long distance courses and degrees, how does this new wave of education fit into the traditional concept of using computer technology for education in classrooms? what is role of computer technology in this particular form of education?
3. Is computer technology still a supplementary form of educational method, as we still read books, write exams on paper, lectures are still delivered with traditional methods?
Abhiyan Humane
I could not log in and post to the blog (tried in vain). So i am sending you the questions.
1. With teachers as gatekeepers of education and use of technology in classrooms, how much the situation has changed since 1980s in grade school, high school, college or university? How much the structural factors affect use of technology and how do teachers cope, especially with use of technology in classroom and other areas is becoming a popular notion, as there seems to be a kind of social pressure, a demand from society, parents and media.
My other concern stems out from cross-cultural effects of the structural and social factors. As loads of research has been done in many 'developing nations' on diffusion and innovation of technology, i am sure the structural factors and social factors vary, but what impact do they have would be interesting to see.
2. long distance education is becoming popular with Internet, various depress are being offered on-line, even universities offer on-line long distance courses and degrees, how does this new wave of education fit into the traditional concept of using computer technology for education in classrooms? what is role of computer technology in this particular form of education?
3. Is computer technology still a supplementary form of educational method, as we still read books, write exams on paper, lectures are still delivered with traditional methods?
Abhiyan Humane
1. In the article of ‘The Digital Generation?’, how do you think about the definition of “normal activities” and “normal channels of communication”? What are normal activities? Do you think if children don’t develop the technological skills like an expert, they may be socially excluded and cannot participate in normal activities? The author in this paper insists that “those children who have accesses to ICT in school but resist or reject the opportunities may be socially excluded in a future information society because, without these skills, they may be unable to participate in normal activities.” However, I disagree to his argument. This argument is too deterministic. Equal access and use should be provided to all children, but we should not force them to become all technologically fluent people. Children have a different talent and ability and they have a different interest and goal, so education might be able to provide children with an environment to develop their ability or talent, but it cannot force children to have all the same level of skills.
2. In the same article, the author emphasizes the importance of social practices which can produce social exclusions within the classrooms, and he mentions the disparities in hardware and software and in access to these resources. However, how much do people, in general, use all software and how high level of hardware do they have and how often do they use all of them? In my opinion, there is a limitation for children to use high level of hardware and various software in class practice for social practices. Technology is changed rapidly, and it’s difficult for everyone to catch up new and high level technology quickly at the same time like a professional, but my point is that education should be able to provide an environment that all children at least have an equal access to the technology and an equal opportunity to use technology.
3. Like the book “Teachers and Machines”, people may assume that most teachers will use computers as a teaching aid like radio, film, and television, but the use of computer in classroom and its impact on education will be different from previous media use. What are the important things for teachers to use computers and new technology in classroom for teaching? What will be the substantial impact on education when computers are used by teachers as a teaching aid in classroom? The development of curriculum for using computers in classroom is an important factor for teachers to use them as a teaching aid in classroom. Like a main subject of this book, how do you think whether or not computers should be used in classrooms to develop children’s technological skills? As the author mentioned in the book, my concern is that under what conditions and to what degree, the computer should be used in classrooms.
By SeungHyun Lee
2. In the same article, the author emphasizes the importance of social practices which can produce social exclusions within the classrooms, and he mentions the disparities in hardware and software and in access to these resources. However, how much do people, in general, use all software and how high level of hardware do they have and how often do they use all of them? In my opinion, there is a limitation for children to use high level of hardware and various software in class practice for social practices. Technology is changed rapidly, and it’s difficult for everyone to catch up new and high level technology quickly at the same time like a professional, but my point is that education should be able to provide an environment that all children at least have an equal access to the technology and an equal opportunity to use technology.
3. Like the book “Teachers and Machines”, people may assume that most teachers will use computers as a teaching aid like radio, film, and television, but the use of computer in classroom and its impact on education will be different from previous media use. What are the important things for teachers to use computers and new technology in classroom for teaching? What will be the substantial impact on education when computers are used by teachers as a teaching aid in classroom? The development of curriculum for using computers in classroom is an important factor for teachers to use them as a teaching aid in classroom. Like a main subject of this book, how do you think whether or not computers should be used in classrooms to develop children’s technological skills? As the author mentioned in the book, my concern is that under what conditions and to what degree, the computer should be used in classrooms.
By SeungHyun Lee
1. As Cuban points out, asking whether computers should be used in the classroom is just as important as asking the how they will be used. This question is overlooked in the push for more technology in schools. How integrated or part of the lesson plan should computers become? Should there be more integration or interaction beyond a lab that teaches basic computer literacy? A lab would be one means to ensure equal access and use. Throughout my educational experience other forms of media were commonplace. Even in elementary school, we were able to use computers in our lab. While we mostly played games and it was run by a volunteer, it was a basic introduction that gave us more familiarity and a higher comfort level in using computers. What were your experiences?
2. I found the attitude of the head teacher at Highfields to be shocking (page 304). I guess I always took it for granted that it is the responsibility of schools to counter and try and remedy such inequalities. If teachers have such restricted thinking how are they going to produce well-rounded children? Aren’t teachers social engineers who help shape our youth?
3. Why is there a tendency to see technology in a positive light and as a modern liberating force that all should be embraced? Change is hard, so why assume that it will make training or education more effective, efficient, etc.? I like how the British study points out that the public policy discourse as been concerned only with access and does not recognize that there is a social factor present, which involves the children, teachers, and schools. Access does not equate use by all children because children view, adopt, or reject the technology in different ways. Why is technology viewed in this isolation?
2. I found the attitude of the head teacher at Highfields to be shocking (page 304). I guess I always took it for granted that it is the responsibility of schools to counter and try and remedy such inequalities. If teachers have such restricted thinking how are they going to produce well-rounded children? Aren’t teachers social engineers who help shape our youth?
3. Why is there a tendency to see technology in a positive light and as a modern liberating force that all should be embraced? Change is hard, so why assume that it will make training or education more effective, efficient, etc.? I like how the British study points out that the public policy discourse as been concerned only with access and does not recognize that there is a social factor present, which involves the children, teachers, and schools. Access does not equate use by all children because children view, adopt, or reject the technology in different ways. Why is technology viewed in this isolation?
In the Valentine article they write, “60 percent of jobs now require technological skills” (p298). I wonder what was counted as a technological skill to arrive at that number? Which skills are the most frequently required?
***
While reading this article from the UK I wondered whether/how smaller countries will develop differently in their relationships with new information technologies?
***
On p306 of Digital Generation? they thrust social practices into the limelight as the thing to really be concerned about. Also, as they say at the beginning, their study is geared toward public policy, and I wonder what public policy tools are there to affect social practices? Are there things the UK can do that the US can’t because of different political climates?
The essay ends with an appeal to change the way ICTs are introduced into the classroom, with an eye to making them “cool tools” – I don’t know about the UK, but is that sort of public policy likely in the US? I would love to see Bush appoint a commission to make computers seem cool. They could put the Pentagon in charge of the strategic communications.
***
At the end of “Digital Generation?” there are only two endnotes. I can’t even figure out where endnote #1 emerges from the text, but it’s a dandy:
“All of which, of course, is to set aside the question of the immeasurably greater disparities operating at the global scale. See, for example, Holderness (1998) and Kitchin (1998)” (p313).
Could it be myopic if much more attention is given to divides within countries when those divides are dwarfed by those on a global scale? Or is it not so worth looking into the global frame because there’s no institutions in place ready/willing to do anything about it?
***
While reading this article from the UK I wondered whether/how smaller countries will develop differently in their relationships with new information technologies?
***
On p306 of Digital Generation? they thrust social practices into the limelight as the thing to really be concerned about. Also, as they say at the beginning, their study is geared toward public policy, and I wonder what public policy tools are there to affect social practices? Are there things the UK can do that the US can’t because of different political climates?
The essay ends with an appeal to change the way ICTs are introduced into the classroom, with an eye to making them “cool tools” – I don’t know about the UK, but is that sort of public policy likely in the US? I would love to see Bush appoint a commission to make computers seem cool. They could put the Pentagon in charge of the strategic communications.
***
At the end of “Digital Generation?” there are only two endnotes. I can’t even figure out where endnote #1 emerges from the text, but it’s a dandy:
“All of which, of course, is to set aside the question of the immeasurably greater disparities operating at the global scale. See, for example, Holderness (1998) and Kitchin (1998)” (p313).
Could it be myopic if much more attention is given to divides within countries when those divides are dwarfed by those on a global scale? Or is it not so worth looking into the global frame because there’s no institutions in place ready/willing to do anything about it?
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
- The Valentine article, I feel, offered a very interesting analysis of how children's social practices need to be taken into account to understand the question of computers in the schools. While they state that they are striving to understand "how [children and technology] are transformed by and transforming of each other," (15) in the end it seems that they are more interested in "challenging" the patterns of some students not developing into full technological proficiency. This seems determinist to me in that I'm not sure that we want to turn all students into computer programmers. How much proficiency do students need to develop as a baseline?
- In Cuban's "The Promise of the Computer" chapter, he insists that we address the question of should computers be used in classroom rather than how computers be used in the classroom. To me, this seems a little backwards. Unless there is an understanding of the capability of a technology, it seems useless to attempt to make a final judgment of its use. Don't each of his 3 points of argument (cost effectiveness, mechanization of teaching, and impact on children) greatly depend on how well the technology is being implemented. (For example, see the success of television on p. 35)
- An issue that I felt was missing from the readings was the training of teachers to both use the technology and to think of creative ways to integrate it into their pedagogy. While it was addressed to some degree in the Cuban book in the context of other technologies, and in Valentine very briefly (8), it was absent from other computer and Internet discussions we have reviewed. To what degree does the issue of integrating computers into teaching style (funding training, etc.) play into the educational aspect of digital divides?
-john t
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
