Thanks for a great semester!

LIS 640 is now closed. I'm going to leave all of the commentary up here on Blogger, though, for someday I'll get the chance to teach this class again and I want my next group of students to see the good work you've all done. I'm also going to let you all remain members of the weblog, so if you're inclined to offer some wisdom to a future iteration of this seminar, be my guest.

You folks were a great class and I hope you all got something useful out of our collective labors, both in discussion and online.

(Anyone desperately in need of a blog fix can check out my own humble venture, Uncovering Information Labor.)

Cheers,

GREG

Intel pays $10,000 for old magazine

Intel pays $10,000 for old magazine
Written by Ravdeep Hora cooltechzone.com
Sunday, 24 April 2005

--- Intel Corp., world’s largest chipmaker, posted a reward for a 40-year old April 1965 issue of Electronics magazine earlier this month; the chipmaker rewarded an Engineer who still had the near-mint condition copy with $10,000.
Intel wanted the magazine because it contained an accurate forecast of the company’s co-founder, Gordon Moore, who predicted the exponential growth of chip performance 40 years prior to the changes. His forecast has been nicknamed as Moore’s Law, which has a reputation in the $200 billion chip industry.

Intel posted the information on eBay, world’s largest auction site, which led to about two-dozen leads, according to Intel. Intel said majority of the leads were reprinted copies, photocopies or originals that were attached to other publications.

While Intel was confirming leads, an Engineer was searching around his house and managed to find his original copy of the magazine under his floorboards. David Clark, who resides in Surrey, England said, "It is the most bizarre thing that has ever happened to me," in an interview with BBC.

Intel’s $10,000 announcement had librarians around the United States worried about their archived issues. Many libraries had their issues put away securely and out of public displays before bounty hunters stormed facilities in search of the magazine. Numerous librarians are infuriated about Intel’s decision. Although many libraries were able to put their copies away safely, the library of University of Illinois was one of the unfortunate ones who had one of its copies stolen in hopes of the bounty. It did manage to secure its second copy, though.

Intel said it received two other leads with authentic copies, but neither of them was comparative to Clark’s copy, quality wise.

The chipmaker said it will display the magazine in its company headquarters Museum for public display in Santa Clara, California next week. The company also said that it might purchase more copies: one for archival purposes for the museum and another one for Gordon Moore himself who lost his copy after lending it to someone.

HDTV divide

This MSNBC article caught my eye -- it's about the HDTV switchover, and how millions of homes with TVs that use antennae (mostly lower-income African-Americans and Latinos) could be left with no ability to receive TV signals:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6448213/did/7593620/

Final question

Do you really think it is necessary to provide access to every household to bridge the digital divide gap?
I mean, I think that it is really important that every public place have an access, granting this way people to get there free access. I'm referring to schools, and neighborhood centers, and libraries, and stuff. I also strongly believe that it is really, really important that schools provide basic training and electronic alphabetization because, in my opinion, that could be the major force to close the digital gap. Education will be, at least that is what I believe, the force that could make everybody in touch with some kind of knowledge of ICT.
But I also think that the medium (the Internet) is too young to arrive at the conclusion that there is a digital divide. I mean, personally I think that it is right to be worried about the consequences that a digital divide could have once the medium would be fully developed and that it is right to think about policies that are developed to avoid bad possible consequences of a fully developed Internet that leaves someone behind - let's say preventive policies.
But I also think that some of the articles we saw during the semester gave to me the impression that sometimes digital divide is just a catchy scaring frase to pump the market.
Hey, here I'm playng the devil advocate, take it as a sort of provocation.
Sometimes I feel like digital divide is a way to enhance poloicies that will make companies do more money because, hey, if we could convince policimakers that everybody needs a computer it would be a lot of money. Some like that, do you know what I mean? I know it's very simplistic, but it's a provocation after all. And it's just a feeling I have and it's hard to explain too.
If you got it tell me what do you think.

Cause and effect

In the Bishop et al article, it states 'the perceived danger of the digital divide is that lower socioeconomic status (SES) is both a cause and effect of limited access to information and technology' (p.363).
Assuming that limted access to information (or resources) is a cause of lower SES then this problem existed long before technology (and the digital divide). It would seem then that one of the coping strategies in the SES is to rely on informal networks as a source of information (as noted in the results of the article). If this group has traditionally relied on informal networks as a source of information, it seems that providing access still does not address the information needs of the group. The first step seems to be more education on what is available on-line -- ie motivate the user to be on-line and then provide address the access and use issues.
Which do you think is more important or necessary -- access or a reason to be on-line? There seems to be an assumption that if you put it on-line, people will browse it...

FINALLY

I feel that this article has finally explained the digital divide in a useful way. Like Rachel said last time, what is the point of talking about people who don't want to use a computer when there are people who do and don't have access? The first article presented the digital divide (albeit a small subset of it) so clearly. Here we finally find a group of people who clearly want to be engaged in computer and internet use and just don't have the access. They frequent the library and they want the computer use for their own research and for their children but can't find it. What I found most striking though was how many respondents claimed feelings of inclusion and not being left behind or out as a reason they would like to become involved and educated in digital technology. If providing computers and networks is one way to make the disenfranchised feel less so, I am behind it. I wish we had read this at the beginning!

Blue Rhino

Has anyone else seen ads for this? It's a company called "Blue Hippo" and they apparently provide loans for the purchase of personal computers and internet access. They don't give the terms of the loan, but say that "bad credit? no credit? not a problem" -- so my guess the interest rates are overwhelming. They show people of many ethnicities... mostly African American or Latino using computers or talking about how they "never thought" they'd be able to own one. At one point, a child says "Mom, can I get on the computer," and she replies "no, I'm still using it..."

The target of the ad is pretty clear -- low income families -- and its interesting -- and disturbing -- how advertising terms usually heard in check cashing store ads being applied to the Internet.

Their website is at https://www.asseenontvnetwork.com/vcc/bluehippofunding/bluehippofunding2/127151/
and some of their offers are listed there...

Interesting to apply this to this week's reading...

Trisha's comment

I have to agree with Trisha on her comment that other money might be used for community tech centers.

EPIC should step up and sponsor one in South Madison, WPS in the Broadway area, Oscar Meyer/Kraft on the Northside, and TDS for the Westside folks. American Family for the far east residents.

Public/private partnerships seem like the best hope here. -mc

Re: "I hang out here, where I know it's safe"

In the Bishop article, I think it becomes somewhat clear what obstacles exist that make divide issues, digital and otherwise, really hard to overcome.

Where I worked in inner city Houston, the Quitman Branch of the Houston Public Library was one of the SAFER places to hang out, especially for some of my students who lived in the housing project a third of mile away. Really there were no safe havens, but school and the library were better than most.

We were a little behind in 1998, the last year I worked there, with integrating the Web into the curriculm. We actually had no library at the high school, so we used the public library as a poor substitute. The best thing about the place, naturally, was the staff. They were very helpful. I don't recall using the computers a lot there at the time, but I do recall some limited searching with students.

These days, I would guess that among many families in the neighborhood who do not even own a car, there is probably very little PC ownership. What there is is probably more like the unreliable, outdated examples that Bishop raised.

Learning the web

In the Bishop article, as well as some of the others this week, there was a lot of focus on not just getting computer access to people, but teaching individuals HOW to use computers and the internet. Last week in discussion, a lot of people stated that knowledge was an important part of the digital divide. In discussing the Bill Gates scenario, with all the funding that we would propose to use, how could the technology information get spread to individuals without experience? Should it target only those people who want to learn, or should it be of some requirement? (ok like that could happen, but in a perfect world what would you say?) In the same regards, should it be a part of some sort of government regulation?

the bottom line about access

The common thread this week, I think, is that access to information technology will never stick without buy-in from those receiving access. Bishop et al. says: "professionals [should] work with residents to create online resources that are usable, useful, and meaningful" (386). Servon-Nelson says "a critical mass of engaged citizens" are required to keep projects alive and expanding (425). Wilhelm says that a policy emphasis needs to be on "interfaces for semi-literate users and persons with disabilities" made possible by "ascertaining community needs". And the Labaton article on yanking out e-rate money brings home the fact that policy from the top can also wreck chances for access, even if temporarily. My question would be this: if the socioeconomic groups that do not have access also do not have a strong voice during elections and in the legislatures, how is the digital divide going to get recitifed in a way that IS responsive to the under-served's needs?

On another note, a recent artcile exapnds on the Bishop study and shows Champaign-Urbana pushing forward with access initiatives. Does this town have the "critical mass" of concerned citizens that's making their project a success? http://wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_community_networking.html

community technology centers

In Community Technology Centers... on page 425, Servon and Nelson claim that their case studies illustrate the importance of local government support in starting and running community technology centers/intiatives. Did those studies really show that? I don't know that their studies showed that, but I also am not sure how you could run one without it... Is that true, do community technology centers need local government support or could they be created using other sources?

The role of libraries

In reading "Public Libraries and Networked Information Services in Low-Income Communities", I started to wonder about the common assumption that it is the role of libraries to provide public Internet access. The article mentions that traditionally the purpose of libraries has been to give people access to books, not introduce them to new technology. And libraries didn't really play a significant role in helping people to gain access to radio, telephones, and televisions.

Libraries have provided free Internet access for years and I wouldn't suggest changing now, but should this really be the responsibility of libraries? Why not have, say, post offices with public Internet terminals? Or maybe the local tourism board should be concerned with setting up public Internet access at tourist information centers. Or perhaps libraries really are the best institutions to address this issue after all...but I thought it would be interesting to question the assumption and think about whether any other public institutions should be called upon to help out too.

Britain's Prince Harry fails basic computer test

Britain's Prince Harry fails basic computer test at army college
Fri Apr 15, 1:36 PM ET

Offbeat - AFP
LONDON (AFP) - Prince Harry, the 20-year-old younger son of heir to the British throne Prince Charles, has failed a basic computer test at Sandhurst army college.

"Although the computer test was a lot more complex than just sending e-mail, instructors were amazed that Harry failed it," an unnamed military insider was quoted as saying in the Daily Mirror newspaper Friday.

"He seemed to lack the same skills as other recruits," the source said. Harry was due to start at the college on May 8.

Re: Greg's Proposal

Greg,

Although I think the assignment NOT to use technology would be a valuable experience, you are likely to face either stiff resistance and resentment or flagrant cheating.

Most of us use the computer for coursework almost constantly. To put that much of a burden on students to suspend their work for a week would be unreasonable for just one course.

I've been on the computer for about two hours, both for this class and for 551 & 561 this morning. I would never catch up again if I had to stay off for a week.

Great idea, but it would be a VERY difficult sell. -mc

pondering job use

In the article "Eluding the Web's Snare", there was a doctor mentioned that was a chiropractor that didn't use the internet for her company. We've sort of discussed this topic in class before, but I find it really interesting that there are businesses that don't use the internet. Do you think that businesses that don't use the internet can survive in the business world today? From my experience recently with contacting doctors, email actually was the easiest. I was able to get in direct contact with the doctors right away rather than trying to go through their secretaries and have a game of phone tag for awhile until we were actually able to talk. Email was so much more convenient.

The unwired LOVE the internet

For starters I don't know what the "unwired side" refers to exactly when discussing pre-internet but Compaine states, "Current rates of adoption for those groups variously included on the unwired side of the early digital divide are greater than for the population as a whole." I find this statistic highly intriguing. Why would people who resisted or at least failed to embrace communication technology previously take so readily to computer/internet access? I could understand if the previously unwired referred to those without a television but if they are talking about telephone-less and radio-less as well, I find this very striking. How would you rate computer/internet use among other "wired" technologies that exist? Do you use if far more than the others, about equal, less? Is one more outwardly appealing than another? What this previously unwired group so by choice or financial constraints?

A new assignment that I'll subject my next digital divides & differences class to ...

Reading the posts this week inspired me to design a new assignment -- but in the interests of fairness I won't subject you guys to it. The challenge of the assignment would be to go "offline" for a week. Part of this would involve banning personal digital devices like iPods, cell phones, PDAs, and whatever else you folks carry around (personal satellite radio, anyone?). The big deprivation would of course be computer-mediated communication. But instead of simply banning use of email, chat, and Web-surfing, for example, the assignment would mandate no computer use of any kind (word processing, gaming, running a spreadsheet) at any computer either owned by you, present in your household, open to you by virtue of where you work, or open to you by virtue of where you go to school (eg. no use of UW computer labs). The only exception open to you for using a computer? The public library.

What do you think, should I put this in next year's syllabus?

Digital Opportunity Crew

I agree with Rachel. If I think of digital divide, I think of someone who would like to access ICT, but can't. I think that policies that are trying to bridge these kind of gaps should be pursued, especially if ICT access is perceived by have nots as needed.

But, going back to Trisha's question, I don't see any good reason why everybody MUST have a computer and Internet. People should be free not to use computers, if they don't find any use for them.
I see, though, several reasons why people SHOULD use them.

If I understood Eric right, the underwater cable gave new communication opportunities that soon became indispensable. I think ICT is doing the same because it is becoming more and more used and useful.
ICT is part of the world as it is now. It is a widespread tool that we can use for several purposes and uses. And more and more people, organizations, and companies find that this set of tools is useful to do tasks (communication is one of them, maybe the biggest one). There are different uses and different tasks. There are different users and different non-users. As for that I think that ICT as a tool should be seen as a RELATIVE need, not as an ABSOLUTE need. You need it relatively to your life, to your needs (which could be multiples).

Thinking of ICT in this way (associated to this week readings) is convincing me more and more that there's no need to panic about a cataclysmic digital divide. Furthermore I think that ICT, Internet and computers are relatively new tools that are still growing. Let' skeep them tracked in many ways. Let's study them as a phenomenon. But let's also wait them to grow up naturally before feraking out. Let's see where their natural development will bring them as tools, then let's try to solve eventual problems.

Yes, I'm totally in the "digital opportunity" crew.

Diffusion and Social Organization

Readings this week brought to mind a 1977 article on diffusion theory by James Blaut. It really can speak to all the articles, especially Selwyn. Blaut is arguing that theories that place "information need" at the heart of whether an innovation spreads or not are essentially overlooking the WHOLE rest of human social organization. Duh. He asks, "Why is diffusion only the narrow transition from IS NOT to IS, and isn't it very ethnocentric and elitist to assume that bits of information are more important than other processes?" He has a good point, and wonders, like others in our class did, why those who resist an innovation are so studied. He says- because of the position of the researchers. Then Blaut makes another good point that explosively rapid diffusion (like the internet) is always driven by economic factors, not need for information. The socioeconomic has to be satisfied before Maslow's hierarchy hits the top. So my question this week is in the positional vein of Selwyn's "technological determinist" comments...Does the divide only exist if you are socioeconomically 'tall' enough to see the gap?