Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

New Opportunities for Education

2010-05-04T02:49:45Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

ICTs hold great promise for improving the efficiency, reach and character of learning opportunities in developed and developing countries. Yet many (most?) of these potential gains are undocumented. Among the obstacles that we will explore are the familiar structural and cultural issues embedded in educational programs around the world and a newer variety of Internet-mediated challenges.

E- learning is just one aspect of ICT, which allows one to learn in unconventional yet stimulating ways. E-Learning can result in a more productive work force as discussed in Hawkins article Ten Lessons for ICT, if not be the catalyst for new educational opportunities. Can E-Learning be used as a tool that fosters new skills for today's society? Reasoning, communication, judgment, engagement, and preparation for society, to name a few, will be credited to E-learning because it's that effective. Would you define this as result driven? Integration of computers and learning leads to enthusiasm, not only on behalf of the teachers but for the students as well. Now it's time to take this enthusiasm and merge it with the value that has evolved from the classroom environment.
How should this be done? This merging of the classroom and innovative and interactive learning via ICT is like bridging the gap in the digital divide as Hawkins speaks of in his article. As Benjamin Franklin professed, Power is knowledge put into action. Here we must question, what is knowledge without action? Is it perhaps education without E-Learning?

== Readings ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC Wikipedia Article on OLPC]
*Browse [http://www.laptop.org the OLPC site]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/itg/libpubs/gitrr2002_ch04.pdf Bob Hawkins, Global Information Technology Report, Ten Lessons for ICT and Education in the Developing World]
*'''''Read the Executive Summary (2 pages)''''' [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitallearning.macfound.org%2Fatf%2Fcf%2F%257B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%257D%2FJENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF&ei=tRa8RdbmE524ggTHs6idCA&usg=__dV3iI7A-nqyEGzuFtiZ1dqNG7jw=&sig2=_96CTy25uNDPti38L-G4Kg Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century] - Henry Jenkins

'''NOTE: ''' The above Jenkins link is broken. This link should work [http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF]

'''Readings added 4/21 worth reading if you have time!'''
Mark Prensky, "Engage Me or Enrage Me" http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0553.pdf

== Additional Resources ==
*[http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000418/ Taking up online opportunities? Children's uses of the internet for education, communication and participation (2004)]

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/itg/libpubs/gitrr2002_ch03.pdf Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age, Mitchel Resnick]

*'''''Read the Executive Summary (1 page)''''' [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/2006-09 Terry Fisher & Bill McGeveran, The Digital Learning Challenge: Obstacles to Educational Uses of Copyrighted Material in the Digital Age]

A case for beginning OLPC at home: [http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/usa/olpc_america_xo_laptops.html]

== Sites Visited/Referenced in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

Observations on the ''New Opportunities for Education'' class description above, the readings, and my own opinions.

We need to be looking at educational reform through the lens of searching for solutions, not through the lens of revisiting the same problems and challenges.

Yes, Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) do hold ‘great promise for improving the efficiency, reach and character of learning opportunities’. Hawkins tells us 'governments around the world are focusing on strategies to increase access to and improve the quality of education'. There is no argument employers are demanding an educated work force that 'understands how to use technology as a tool to increase productivity and creativity'.

We have the technology to 'transform how and what people learn'; and there is the possibility of a 'learning revolution' in education. But it will not come, Hawkins warns us, until we address how students learn and how teachers teach. Resnick supports the need for education reform with a call to 'rethink our approaches to learning and education' – and our ideas of how new technologies can support them. Computers do not just speed up communication flow; they can also be seen as universal construction tools 'greatly expanding what people can create and what they can learn in the process'.

In short, technology has revolutionized education, but no one has taught teachers how to use the technology. Hawkins has it right when he says 'teachers need to be transformed from information consumers…to information producers.' (1)

Steve Jobs even understands the problem when he quips 'what is wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology.' One Laptop Per Child may make us feel good, but it does not address the issue of building learning environments, and communities of learners. We must introduce teachers to the new technologies, show them how it can be integrated into the classroom, and where necessary help them overcome their fear of technology.

If the educational system is broken, as Hawkins, Resnick and Prensky suggest, we should be looking for solutions. Resnick’s 'reforming educational reform calls for rethinking how people learn and what people learn’. Hawkins, at minimum, suggests 'schools should be transformed into active learning environments.' Prensky says Engage me or Enrage me. [I don’t think kids know they are enraged. Or, if they do, why.] Students are bored because they are not engaged.

Hawkins and Resnick are in essence saying we need to give-up the conventional didactic teaching model in favor of a constructivist approach. The constructivist model has proven 'when technology is used in concert with constructivist teaching practices students tend to perform well; and when used in concert with didactic teaching practices, they do not.' [Wenglisky].

There are some practical solutions to the technology integration piece of the reform movement. We should be reading ''Using Technology Wisely, The Keys to Success In Schools'', Wenglinsky, Harold; as well as ''The Technology Fix, The Promise and Reality of Computers in Our Schools'', Pflaum, William D.

To address how learners learn, there is Universal Design for Learning [UDL] and differentiated instruction. Educators are constantly being challenged to teach a standardized curriculum to a community of learners with various learning styles. The UDL initiative provides educators with a blueprint for creating flexible methods, materials, and assessments that can accommodate learner differences.

These teaching / education reforms are not restricted to brick-and-mortar facilities. E-Learning or On-line learning is affected as well. The challenges of developing a constructivist On-line teaching model based on the affordances of 21st Century technologies are even greater, when many On-line courses are still taught asynchronously.

If, according to Benjamin Franklin ‘power is knowledge put into action’, then I believe knowledge is education in action.

The class discussion should be interesting, and informative.

Scott McCutcheon a/k/a

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 02:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

====
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Many professional development initiatives that address these issues can be found in Chris Dede’s, ONLINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT for TEACHERS, Emerging Models and Methods.

New Opportunities for Education

2010-05-04T02:44:22Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

ICTs hold great promise for improving the efficiency, reach and character of learning opportunities in developed and developing countries. Yet many (most?) of these potential gains are undocumented. Among the obstacles that we will explore are the familiar structural and cultural issues embedded in educational programs around the world and a newer variety of Internet-mediated challenges.

E- learning is just one aspect of ICT, which allows one to learn in unconventional yet stimulating ways. E-Learning can result in a more productive work force as discussed in Hawkins article Ten Lessons for ICT, if not be the catalyst for new educational opportunities. Can E-Learning be used as a tool that fosters new skills for today's society? Reasoning, communication, judgment, engagement, and preparation for society, to name a few, will be credited to E-learning because it's that effective. Would you define this as result driven? Integration of computers and learning leads to enthusiasm, not only on behalf of the teachers but for the students as well. Now it's time to take this enthusiasm and merge it with the value that has evolved from the classroom environment.
How should this be done? This merging of the classroom and innovative and interactive learning via ICT is like bridging the gap in the digital divide as Hawkins speaks of in his article. As Benjamin Franklin professed, Power is knowledge put into action. Here we must question, what is knowledge without action? Is it perhaps education without E-Learning?

== Readings ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC Wikipedia Article on OLPC]
*Browse [http://www.laptop.org the OLPC site]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/itg/libpubs/gitrr2002_ch04.pdf Bob Hawkins, Global Information Technology Report, Ten Lessons for ICT and Education in the Developing World]
*'''''Read the Executive Summary (2 pages)''''' [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitallearning.macfound.org%2Fatf%2Fcf%2F%257B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%257D%2FJENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF&ei=tRa8RdbmE524ggTHs6idCA&usg=__dV3iI7A-nqyEGzuFtiZ1dqNG7jw=&sig2=_96CTy25uNDPti38L-G4Kg Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century] - Henry Jenkins

'''NOTE: ''' The above Jenkins link is broken. This link should work [http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF]

'''Readings added 4/21 worth reading if you have time!'''
Mark Prensky, "Engage Me or Enrage Me" http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0553.pdf

== Additional Resources ==
*[http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000418/ Taking up online opportunities? Children's uses of the internet for education, communication and participation (2004)]

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/itg/libpubs/gitrr2002_ch03.pdf Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age, Mitchel Resnick]

*'''''Read the Executive Summary (1 page)''''' [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/2006-09 Terry Fisher & Bill McGeveran, The Digital Learning Challenge: Obstacles to Educational Uses of Copyrighted Material in the Digital Age]

A case for beginning OLPC at home: [http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/usa/olpc_america_xo_laptops.html]

== Sites Visited/Referenced in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

Observations on the ''New Opportunities for Education'' class description above, the readings, and my own opinions.

We need to be looking at educational reform through the lens of searching for solutions, not through the lens of revisiting the same problems and challenges.

Yes, Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) do hold ‘great promise for improving the efficiency, reach and character of learning opportunities’. Hawkins tells us 'governments around the world are focusing on strategies to increase access to and improve the quality of education'. There is no argument employers are demanding an educated work force that 'understands how to use technology as a tool to increase productivity and creativity'.

We have the technology to 'transform how and what people learn'; and there is the possibility of a 'learning revolution' in education. But it will not come, Hawkins warns us, until we address how students learn and how teachers teach. Resnick supports the need for education reform with a call to 'rethink our approaches to learning and education' – and our ideas of how new technologies can support them. Computers do not just speed up communication flow; they can also be seen as universal construction tools 'greatly expanding what people can create and what they can learn in the process'.

In short, technology has revolutionized education, but no one has taught teachers how to use the technology. Hawkins has it right when he says 'teachers need to be transformed from information consumers…to information producers.' (1)

Steve Jobs even understands the problem when he quips 'what is wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology.' One Laptop Per Child may make us feel good, but it does not address the issue of building learning environments, and communities of learners. We must introduce teachers to the new technologies, show them how it can be integrated into the classroom, and where necessary help them overcome their fear of technology.

If the educational system is broken, as Hawkins, Resnick and Prensky suggest, we should be looking for solutions. Resnick’s 'reforming educational reform calls for rethinking how people learn and what people learn’. Hawkins, at minimum, suggests 'schools should be transformed into active learning environments.' Prensky says Engage me or Enrage me. [I don’t think kids know they are enraged. Or, if they do, why.] Students are bored because they are not engaged.

Hawkins and Resnick are in essence saying we need to give-up the conventional didactic teaching model in favor of a constructivist approach. The constructivist model has proven 'when technology is used in concert with constructivist teaching practices students tend to perform well; and when used in concert with didactic teaching practices, they do not.' [Wenglisky].

There are some practical solutions to the technology integration piece of the reform movement. We should be reading ''Using Technology Wisely, The Keys to Success In Schools'', Wenglinsky, Harold; as well as ''The Technology Fix, The Promise and Reality of Computers in Our Schools'', Pflaum, William D.

To address how learners learn, there is Universal Design for Learning [UDL] and differentiated instruction. Educators are constantly being challenged to teach a standardized curriculum to a community of learners with various learning styles. The UDL initiative provides educators with a blueprint for creating flexible methods, materials, and assessments that can accommodate learner differences.

These teaching / education reforms are not restricted to brick-and-mortar facilities. E-Learning or On-line learning is affected as well. The challenges of developing a constructivist On-line teaching model based on the affordances of 21st Century technologies are even greater, when many On-line courses are still taught asynchronously.

If, according to Benjamin Franklin ‘power is knowledge put into action’, then I believe knowledge is education in action.

The class discussion should be interesting, and informative.

Scott McCutcheon

====
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Many professional development initiatives that address these issues can be found in Chris Dede’s, ONLINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT for TEACHERS, Emerging Models and Methods.

New Opportunities for Education

2010-05-04T02:43:19Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

ICTs hold great promise for improving the efficiency, reach and character of learning opportunities in developed and developing countries. Yet many (most?) of these potential gains are undocumented. Among the obstacles that we will explore are the familiar structural and cultural issues embedded in educational programs around the world and a newer variety of Internet-mediated challenges.

E- learning is just one aspect of ICT, which allows one to learn in unconventional yet stimulating ways. E-Learning can result in a more productive work force as discussed in Hawkins article Ten Lessons for ICT, if not be the catalyst for new educational opportunities. Can E-Learning be used as a tool that fosters new skills for today's society? Reasoning, communication, judgment, engagement, and preparation for society, to name a few, will be credited to E-learning because it's that effective. Would you define this as result driven? Integration of computers and learning leads to enthusiasm, not only on behalf of the teachers but for the students as well. Now it's time to take this enthusiasm and merge it with the value that has evolved from the classroom environment.
How should this be done? This merging of the classroom and innovative and interactive learning via ICT is like bridging the gap in the digital divide as Hawkins speaks of in his article. As Benjamin Franklin professed, Power is knowledge put into action. Here we must question, what is knowledge without action? Is it perhaps education without E-Learning?

== Readings ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC Wikipedia Article on OLPC]
*Browse [http://www.laptop.org the OLPC site]
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/itg/libpubs/gitrr2002_ch04.pdf Bob Hawkins, Global Information Technology Report, Ten Lessons for ICT and Education in the Developing World]
*'''''Read the Executive Summary (2 pages)''''' [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitallearning.macfound.org%2Fatf%2Fcf%2F%257B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%257D%2FJENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF&ei=tRa8RdbmE524ggTHs6idCA&usg=__dV3iI7A-nqyEGzuFtiZ1dqNG7jw=&sig2=_96CTy25uNDPti38L-G4Kg Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century] - Henry Jenkins

'''NOTE: ''' The above Jenkins link is broken. This link should work [http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF]

'''Readings added 4/21 worth reading if you have time!'''
Mark Prensky, "Engage Me or Enrage Me" http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0553.pdf

== Additional Resources ==
*[http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000418/ Taking up online opportunities? Children's uses of the internet for education, communication and participation (2004)]

*[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/itg/libpubs/gitrr2002_ch03.pdf Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age, Mitchel Resnick]

*'''''Read the Executive Summary (1 page)''''' [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/2006-09 Terry Fisher & Bill McGeveran, The Digital Learning Challenge: Obstacles to Educational Uses of Copyrighted Material in the Digital Age]

A case for beginning OLPC at home: [http://www.olpcnews.com/countries/usa/olpc_america_xo_laptops.html]

== Sites Visited/Referenced in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==

Observations on the ''New Opportunities for Education'' class description above, the readings, and my own opinions.

We need to be looking at educational reform through the lens of searching for solutions, not through the lens of revisiting the same problems and challenges.

Yes, Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) do hold ‘great promise for improving the efficiency, reach and character of learning opportunities’. Hawkins tells us 'governments around the world are focusing on strategies to increase access to and improve the quality of education'. There is no argument employers are demanding an educated work force that 'understands how to use technology as a tool to increase productivity and creativity'.

We have the technology to 'transform how and what people learn'; and there is the possibility of a 'learning revolution' in education. But it will not come, Hawkins warns us, until we address how students learn and how teachers teach. Resnick supports the need for education reform with a call to 'rethink our approaches to learning and education' – and our ideas of how new technologies can support them. Computers do not just speed up communication flow; they can also be seen as universal construction tools 'greatly expanding what people can create and what they can learn in the process'.

In short, technology has revolutionized education, but no one has taught teachers how to use the technology. Hawkins has it right when he says 'teachers need to be transformed from information consumers…to information producers.' (1)

Steve Jobs even understands the problem when he quips 'what is wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology.' One Laptop Per Child may make us feel good, but it does not address the issue of building learning environments, and communities of learners. We must introduce teachers to the new technologies, show them how it can be integrated into the classroom, and where necessary help them overcome their fear of technology.

If the educational system is broken, as Hawkins, Resnick and Prensky suggest, we should be looking for solutions. Resnick’s 'reforming educational reform calls for rethinking how people learn and what people learn’. Hawkins, at minimum, suggests 'schools should be transformed into active learning environments.' Prensky says Engage me or Enrage me. [I don’t think kids know they are enraged. Or, if they do, why.] Students are bored because they are not engaged.

Hawkins and Resnick are in essence saying we need to give-up the conventional didactic teaching model in favor of a constructivist approach. The constructivist model has proven 'when technology is used in concert with constructivist teaching practices students tend to perform well; and when used in concert with didactic teaching practices, they do not.' [Wenglisky].

There are some practical solutions to the technology integration piece of the reform movement. We should be reading ''Using Technology Wisely, The Keys to Success In Schools'', Wenglinsky, Harold; as well as ''The Technology Fix, The Promise and Reality of Computers in Our Schools'', Pflaum, William D.

To address how learners learn, there is Universal Design for Learning [UDL] and differentiated instruction. Educators are constantly being challenged to teach a standardized curriculum to a community of learners with various learning styles. The UDL initiative provides educators with a blueprint for creating flexible methods, materials, and assessments that can accommodate learner differences.

These teaching / education reforms are not restricted to brick-and-mortar facilities. E-Learning or On-line learning is affected as well. The challenges of developing a constructivist On-line teaching model based on the affordances of 21st Century technologies are even greater, when many On-line courses are still taught asynchronously.

If, according to Benjamin Franklin ‘power is knowledge put into action’, then I believe knowledge is education in action.

The class discussion should be interesting, and informative.

Scott McCutcheon a/k/a

====
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Many professional development initiatives that address these issues can be found in Chris Dede’s, ONLINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT for TEACHERS, Emerging Models and Methods.

New Opportunities for Education

2010-04-30T22:43:25Z

Charlesscott: /* Readings */

New Opportunities for Education

2010-04-30T22:42:50Z

Charlesscott: /* Readings */

New Opportunities for Education

2010-04-30T22:35:13Z

Charlesscott: /* Readings */

Internet Infrastructure and Regulation

2010-03-23T01:59:11Z

Charlesscott: /* Links from Class */

In this class, we will cover the politics, policy, economics and technology of deploying broadband infrastructure. We will look at the hot-off-the-presses US National Broadband Plan and the recent Berkman Center review of international experiences in broadband policy. Additionally, we will look at the substance and politics of the net neutrality debate.

==Readings==

* Executive Summary of the National Broadband Plan [http://www.broadband.gov/plan/executive-summary/]

* National Broadband Plan Commission Meeting: National Purposes Update, February 18th 2010 [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296353A1.pdf ]

* Next Generation Connectivity: A review of broadband Internet transitions and policy from around the world, Berkman Center [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Berkman_Center_Broadband_Final_Report-C1_15Feb2010.pdf ]

== Additional Resources==

[http://www.fcc.gov The Federal Communications Commission]

[http://www.broadband.gov National Broadband Plan]

[http://www.openinternet.gov OpenInternet.gov]

[http://www.ietf.org The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)]

[http://www.icann.org The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]

[http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt The Telecommunications Act of 1996]

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html § 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material]

[http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cda.htm The Communications Decency Act]

[http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auctions_home FCC - Wireless Spectrum Auctions]

== Class Discussion ==

== The Internet Industrial Revolution ==

In writing this class introduction, I stopped to give pause to the question of how many people understand how much today’s internet can be tied to the development of the railroads in the 1800’s and the government's attempt at regulating the wild and chaotic growth of our nations infrastructure.

The internet has become ingrained in our daily lives as much as television, radio, and a myriad of other electronically driven entertainment mediums. However, as much as we enjoy playing our online games, chatting with friends, sending emails, purchasing trinkets to real-estate, trading stocks, finding employment and collaborating with co-workers, we often don’t realize that all of this would not be possible without the infrastructure needed to interconnect the various networks around the world in a consistent and open fashion. Without regulation and standards, the internet would not be possible. But how much do we as consumers of the internet understand how it is regulated?

The internet is very much a wild-frontier resembling the land-grab era of the 1800’s. In this day and age mega corporations including Oracle, Intel, Microsoft and Google rival monopolistic predecessors of the 1800’s like Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil. As was the case in the 1800’s, the railroads held the key to building out the infrastructure of our nation through their ownership of the national right of ways allowing them to become the natural beneficiaries of a nationwide infrastructure build-out. Even today we see vestiges of this in companies such as Sprint - whose name stands for Southern Pacific Railway Intelligent Network of Telecommunications.

Today all communications infrastructure within the United States is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which has been in existence since 1934 when it took over the regulation of communications infrastructure from the now defunct Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC); the governing body which was established to regulate the railroads in order to provide equal access to all Americans who wished to use them. These same goals are present today when we hear the words of Julius Genachowski – the current chairman of the FCC – as he talks about the commission’s mission of maintaining a free and open internet as they prepare to submit their proposal of a National Broadband Plan to Congress; which will have occurred just a few days prior to this class.

So how does an organization such as the FCC, funded by the telecommunications surcharges we see on our phone and cable bills, plan to balance the need to extend broadband accessibility to the millions of US residents who still do not have internet access? And how do they do so while upholding their self stated mission of maintaining a free and open internet? Is this an honest attempt at maintaining a “laissez-faire” approach to central regulation allowing the invisible hand of commerce to guide the growth and expansion of the infrastructure? Or will it turn into a “de jure monopoly” ; the government granting exclusive access to those who pay the most, just as they do now awarding spectrum to the wireless carriers at auctions? After all, wasn’t it this same organization that – after the breakup of AT&T – instituted the regulations allowing Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) access to the infrastructure then owned by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) which to this day many consider to have been one of their worst mistakes granting favoritism to few and placing an inordinate burden on others?

Can a Federal Regulatory body enforce "free and open", when they themselves rely on the surcharges and sale of bandwidth to fund their organization while also having a history of censoring the content American's are able to consume on television and radio? Are they merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing lulling the consumers of the internet into a false sense of security? These questions are at the center of a tumultuous debate within the industry today. Many grass roots and politically funded organizations have emerged to argue these issues; fighting for our rights as internet users to have access to a truly free and neutral internet.

Does current and proposed regulations governing the internet truly allow for free markets, open dialog and the unfettered growth of an online society, or are they the groundwork toward building a net that dips into our pockets, restricts our voices through censorship, and controls the content we both share and consume? Do organizations such as ICANN and the IETF promote fair and unobstructed participation or are they merely elitist groups that favor a select and desirable crowd that they themselves deem worthy. --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] - David Jodoin 15:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

== The Last Mile ==

The Last Mile is the term that is commonly used to refer to the cabling/wiring necessary to connect a household or subscriber to the physical infrastructure of the network. Whether it be the last mile of copper for your phones and modems, or the last mile of COAX cable connecting you to your broadband provider each person needs a digital "on-ramp" for connectivity. Many times we associate that last mile to be the same infrastructure that delivers our television signals into our home. Often we think of Cable TV as having its birth in the 1980s and 90s, but in fact the first community access cable television networks were developed in 1948 in Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Oregon in order to provide broadcast television to remote viewers that were unable to receive adequate signals from broadcast radio towers. [http://www.ncta.com/About/About/HistoryofCableTelevision.aspx The History of Cable Television] The interesting note about this was that cable television networks continued to grow at a rapid pace until 1972 when the FCC expanded its regulations limiting Cable television companies to transmit local signals only in an attempt to protect local broadcasters from having to compete against the wider variety of programming cable companies could deliver.

This was not however the FCC's only attempt at control. When the ban on broadcasting distant signals was not enough, the FCC attempted further regulation by limiting the content which Cable companies could offer to that of Sports, Movies and Syndicated Content. Yet the regulation limiting the Cable companies programming was not in fact a deterrent. Consumers wanted this premium programming and were willing to pay for it. As such, the proliferation of Cable networks continued as companies sprang up to offer this premium content.

The FCC eventually realized that what they had created was a pseudo monopoly in that in order for a Cable operator to build out infrastructure in what they refer to as "local markets" they had to enter into a contract with the local community which in effect allowed them to be the only provider within that market making the Cable operator the exclusive distributor of premium content to the communities they served. This is why, even in today's market, if your town is a Comcast town, you can only get Comcast. The reason this occurred was that towns had to provide rights of way across the infrastructure (telephone poles and underground conduits) for the cable operators to run their cables. As such, a community wanted to ensure that if they allowed a Cable operator to build infrastructure that they had to do so to enough of the community to satisfy the public demand. Due to population density concerns, this led to heated negotiations as Cable companies did not want to have to run infrastructure to support remote neighborhoods where they felt the business they would get would not be enough to support the infrastructure build-out. This was further aggravated by the FCC's regulation on Cable pricing in an attempt to make the content more accessible to the public at large.

In response to this growing concern for monopolistic broadcasting, the FCC removed the restrictions that were present on who could broadcast particular content in order to introduce competition into the market by companies offering alternative broadcast mechanisms such as satellite and wireless technologies. --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] - David Jodoin - 13:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== Fighting for the Grid ==

The landmark legislation represented by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened the field to new competition by many players (see link below for full text of the act). While up until that time, what types of services could be offered were limited based on the transmission medium, the Act in effect allowed any transmission network to broadcast any content. The effects of this were that telecommunication companies now had the option of offering programming and that Cable Broadcasting companies could also offer phone services. As such the industries of broadcast video content, internet communications and telephone services now became a converged network of services allowing consumers a myriad of choices.

Over the last decade and a half, we have seen advancements in core cellular technologies with the introduction of 2g, 3g and now 4g networks. WiMAX and Femtocell technology offers bandwidth expansion in local loop networking that can allow wireless to effectively compete with physical infrastructure. Yet growth and adoption of WiMAX is still restricted based on the fact that it requires a provider to purchase wireless spectrum at auction.

Compared to developing countries from around the world, the US by far lags in the introduction of new technologies. For instance, in South Africa - due to the deregulation of the industry in 2005 - Africa has seen a huge explosion in unlicensed wireless broadband providers. Is this a sign that the FCC who regulates and legislates the wireless spectrum in the United States is in fact holding us back technologically? --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] - David Jodoin - 13:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing ==

The FCC throughout its history has attempted to regulate and control markets based on the political pressures of various lobbying agencies fighting to protect their individual markets. This legacy of government control over the infrastructure of the United States stretches back to 1934 when the organization was first established. The organizations fighting for bandwidth, spectrum and control extends beyond just the providers of infrastructure themselves. ICANN itself spent $480,000 to lobbyists in an attempt to influence government legislation and regulatory bodies. Neustar, a DNS registry service spent $140,000. According to the Huffington Post, John McCain received $765,000 in campaign funding from telecommunications lobbyists alone during his 2008 presidential bid [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/24/mccains-ties-to-lobbyists_n_93037.html McCains Ties to Lobbyists]. And if you visit the site OpenSecrets.org lobbyist spending was in excess of $118mm in 2009 in the Computer/Internet category alone. [http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?lname=B12&year=2009 OpenSecrets.org - Computers/Internet Spending 2009]

So we as a community speak of Net Neutrality; fighting to keep our internet free and open. Yet the underlying infrastructure is controlled and regulated by a governing few. Even the organizations we have entrusted to manage the chaos of the internet in the form of registry services, name-space controls, and uniform standards all fight to prevent competing influences from diminishing the power they hold over how things are built and operated. With the excessive amounts of money being spent by these large entities are we in fact being represented properly? Or are those funds being used to preserve their self proclaimed ombudsman-ship? Will the FCC keep the internet free and open? Or are they merely lulling us into a sense of security such that they can then let the other shoe drop a few years from now when they decide what we do and say on the medium that today they are unable to control just as they do in managing what we see and hear on television and radio? [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html FCC Rules and Rights on the Enforcement of Censorship Laws on TV and Radio] Can the internet within our country truly prosper when you try to centrally regulate a decentralized commodity? After all... if they are successful in their Broadband plan and achieve 100% access to the internet by every American it would then mean we must then protect those same Americans from the raw and unfiltered content that is there today... Or does it? According to the FCC they not only have the authority to do so, they stand ready and waiting. [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html Written Statement Of Diego Ruiz Deputy Chief, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis]

Maybe this video on the Net Neutrality debate will shed some light...

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juw5Ew_fKgs Net Neutrality for Dummies: Will the FCC Control the Internet?]

So as you can see... Net Neutrality is ''not'' about whether or not content ''should'' be restricted, it is about ''who'' is allowed to restrict it. An interesting twist in the debate isn't it? --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] - David Jodoin - 13:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==

I don't know if anyone saw Yochai Benkler's op-ed piece in today's New York Times, but I thought I'd post a link because it references both of our assigned readings for this week:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21Benkler.html Ending the Internet's Trench Warfare]

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

Shelly Palmer's "How to Read the FCC's National Broadband Plan" [http://www.shellypalmermedia.com/2010/02/27/how-to-read-the-fccs-national-broadband-plan/?utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100228] is a short but interesting piece. If you are not familiar with Shelly Palmer he is the host of MediaBytes, an online daily techno-talk-show. The FCC piece is from his 3 March 2010 show.

----[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 01:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New Opportunities for Education

2010-03-10T14:08:38Z

Charlesscott: /* Additional Resources */

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2010-03-04T19:57:41Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

ASSIGNMENT: Please read the executive summary of the Media Re:public Overview and one additional Media Re:public paper, and the executive summary, conclusions and recommendations of the Knight report. Use those as a jumping off point to explore either of those sets of resources in greater depth. You should delve more deeply into at least a few of the major challenges and possible solutions related to business models, the participation gap, and the changing media ecosystem (which are all broad topics, and can be considered from many perspectives).

==Readings==
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Media Re:public Overview] - Read at least the executive summary
* [https://secure.nmmstream.net/anon.newmediamill/aspen/kcfinalenglishbookweb.pdf Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy] - Read at least the executive summary, recommendations and conclusions
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/mediarepublic/downloads.html Media Re:Public website]
* [http://report.knightcomm.org/communal-and-personal-needs-intersect Knight Commission report website]

== Additional Resources==

* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/11/14/jay-rosen-on-open-source-journalism-2/ Jay Rosen, Open Source Journalism (video)]
* [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/index.csp We The Media, Dan Gillmor] (the [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/ch00.pdf Introduction] is a good start, so to speak)
* [http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html Jay Rosen, Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/ Jeff Jarvis]
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html Shirky on Social Media]
* [http://www.penenberg.com/ Pennenberg on electronic media and citizen journalism]
* [http://publishingperspectives.com/ Publishing issues discussed by many]
* Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch]
* [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jacek_utko_asks_can_design_save_the_newspaper.html/ Jacek Utko designs to save newspapers]
--[[User:Rchopra|Rchopra]] 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Class Discussion ==

To read about "Disruptive Innovation", check out one of the best explanations (not in the video, but on the page) about it: http://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html

Comments on reading by D. Jodoin:

I have to say that this week has been some interesting reading. However, many of the conclusions and recommendations are built on a foundation of sand. In the Media RE: Public "Overview 2008" paper, the telling component for me was the statement made that...

"Rather than seeking to recreate some mythical point in the
past at which news media functioned perfectly, we instead
aim to identify areas where core journalism functions in a
democracy are at stake and where there is potential for the
networked digital media environment to offer something richer
and more representative than anything previously available."

This statement - eloquently stated and true to its very essence - buries the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents in shaping our democracy; imperfect views of imperfect humans interacting in a social contract where the voices of the many outweigh the voices of the few. Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states? In our readings for this week there were significant comments made regarding how equal access to the internet combined with educating the masses on how to understand and use it would create an environment where there would be no second class citizens in a new democracy. In reading that, I felt that it smacked of the sophic voice of Plato - describing a Utopian society where every voice is heard with equal weight. The internet - and new media - is not a classless society, it is not meant to be perfect; the ideas being shared enforced to some theoretical mandate of high quality and rigorous standards. The ideas expressed by the individual should be as reflective of their individual values as possible with it's influence on others being dependent on the strength through presence or weakness through absence of supporting voices by the audience at large.

I also had a thought in regards to solving the issue of accessibility. We sometimes think that proliferation of technology is restricted by the economic costs of building out that infrastructure. Yet many nontraditional means of doing so exist that the private sector is already looking at - providing the FCC and our government clear the path to allow it to occur. I will try to explain with a real example.

First watch this video of Walmart's time series of store locations... [http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/ Watching the Growth of Walmart Across America]

Interesting isn't it... However, you may ask... so what? What does this have to do with the internet and build-out of infrastructure?

Read this next...

http://www.androidguys.com/2010/01/12/rumor-sprint-working-with-walmart-on-wimax-build-out/

Interesting isn't it? Perhaps with some government support and funding, a joint collaboration between the FCC, Sprint/Nextel and Walmart, three very diverse groups could easily solve the issue of accessibility by the masses. Sprint with the technology of WiMAX, the FCC with the keys to the spectrum, and Walmart with the existing proliferation and ability to sell cheaply to the masses. Non-traditional partnerships are the key to our future.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the following excerpt of the above comment:

Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states?

I don't think the authors were suggesting that there was a point in the past where the news media functioned in perfection. The description of this point as "mythical" indicates that this idea is, in fact, a myth.

Furthermore, I think that the authors' quote you cited does not bury "the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents". The idea that new media may include more voices than previously is clearly evidenced when they write, "there is potential for the networked digital media environment to offer something richer and '''more representative''' than anything previously available." [emphasis added]

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Wow! Hey... Thanks for the response... I think its great you responded! To clarify - as my words may have confused the point I was attempting to make - My reference to the "mythical point in the past" was to emphasize that indeed it WAS mythical and that as always has been the case, news media has always been tainted and biased. But it is those biases that sit at their core values. Its the difference between the term News and Journalism as defined in the use of terms section of the Media RE: Public Overview.

In response to your second comment, I would stand on the position that more does not automatically translate into better or richer in a causal relationship. Giving everyone a forum to speak is admirable and should be the goal. But it doesn't become a better medium unless the end results are synthesized into some societal aggregation. Massive individuality is not what forms a community. Also to point out one more thing on this is that my second point was to emphasize that a classless society on the internet is not a society at all and does not add value unless it somehow translates into the formation of those groups and communities... i.e. the coffee house we spoke about in class and as such class formation is inevitable in that respect.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the recommendations, objectives, and strategies, outlined and detailed in the Media Re:Public Overview and the Knight Commission report are viewed through the lens of a free and open society. Democracy is a given. Control over ‘who says what’ is not an issue. What appears to be at issue, is how are we going to "maximize the availability of relevant and credible information", give “people the tools, skills and understanding to use information effectively" and promote public engagement.

From the Knight Commission Web site [http://www.knightcomm.org]: there appears to be one organization that is proactively addressing the ‘how can we get something done' question. "The Federal Communications Commission has launched an examination into the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age. In its announcement, the FCC cited the report of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, which has been influential in helping to structure the FCC’s inquiry."

Is the government actually trying to be part of the solution, and not controlling and obstructive?
----[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Government control is always the question, but by addressing it from a legal point of view it will be restrictive. Freedom of speach advocates will always find issues with the limitations any law imposes. The government might be onto something, not just with the FCC citation, but also with the qualification on who can be an accredited journalist. The organizing bloggers into a quasi union [http://www.mediabloggers.org/] will include more questions then just journalism.

The internet however can be used for not just the uncontrolled dissemination of news but for the quality control of it as well: see http://factcheck.org/. The relentless flood of information needs to be somewhat narrowed down for us to be able to consume it in the first place. Efforts are required from both sides, from the publisher that it is credible and from the reader/consumer that they can continue to rely on the publication for accurate information.

[[User:Gkorodi|Gkorodi]] 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==
[[User:Amarquis|Amarquis]] 16:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I found this an interesting meta editorial on the topic of New and Old Media, Participation, and Information. In this case it's how media obsession with new technology alone is making customers more powerful. [http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/28/cherchez-la-fame "NSFW: Cherchez la fame – or why the media’s obsession with Twitter campaigns will make customer service smell French"]. As the title indicates, it has a touch of salty language so it may be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work NSFW] -- Not Safe For Work.

* [http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News.aspx Pew report: Understanding the Participatory News Consumer]
* [http://www.globalvoicesonline.org Global Voices]
* [http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business-in-wales/business-news/2008/11/04/carolyn-mccall-s-speech-in-full-91466-22178326/ Guardian UK's unique business model]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OhmyNews OhmyNews]
* [http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2004/03/15/lott_case.html Trent Lott remarks]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI Macaca Moment]
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2009/06/18/iran-citizen-media-and-media-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman on Iran]
* [http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/16/more_on_twitter_and_protests_in_tehran Evgeny Morozov on Twitter]
* [http://memetracker.org memetracker]

New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

2010-03-02T20:54:48Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

ASSIGNMENT: Please read the executive summary of the Media Re:public Overview and one additional Media Re:public paper, and the executive summary, conclusions and recommendations of the Knight report. Use those as a jumping off point to explore either of those sets of resources in greater depth. You should delve more deeply into at least a few of the major challenges and possible solutions related to business models, the participation gap, and the changing media ecosystem (which are all broad topics, and can be considered from many perspectives).

==Readings==
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Overview_MR.pdf Media Re:public Overview] - Read at least the executive summary
* [https://secure.nmmstream.net/anon.newmediamill/aspen/kcfinalenglishbookweb.pdf Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy] - Read at least the executive summary, recommendations and conclusions
* [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/mediarepublic/downloads.html Media Re:Public website]
* [http://report.knightcomm.org/communal-and-personal-needs-intersect Knight Commission report website]

== Additional Resources==

* [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mediaberkman/2006/11/14/jay-rosen-on-open-source-journalism-2/ Jay Rosen, Open Source Journalism (video)]
* [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/index.csp We The Media, Dan Gillmor] (the [http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/ch00.pdf Introduction] is a good start, so to speak)
* [http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html Jay Rosen, Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over]
* [http://www.buzzmachine.com/ Jeff Jarvis]
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html Shirky on Social Media]

== Class Discussion ==

To read about "Disruptive Innovation", check out one of the best explanations (not in the video, but on the page) about it: http://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html

Comments on reading by D. Jodoin:

I have to say that this week has been some interesting reading. However, many of the conclusions and recommendations are built on a foundation of sand. In the Media RE: Public "Overview 2008" paper, the telling component for me was the statement made that...

"Rather than seeking to recreate some mythical point in the
past at which news media functioned perfectly, we instead
aim to identify areas where core journalism functions in a
democracy are at stake and where there is potential for the
networked digital media environment to offer something richer
and more representative than anything previously available."

This statement - eloquently stated and true to its very essence - buries the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents in shaping our democracy; imperfect views of imperfect humans interacting in a social contract where the voices of the many outweigh the voices of the few. Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states? In our readings for this week there were significant comments made regarding how equal access to the internet combined with educating the masses on how to understand and use it would create an environment where there would be no second class citizens in a new democracy. In reading that, I felt that it smacked of the sophic voice of Plato - describing a Utopian society where every voice is heard with equal weight. The internet - and new media - is not a classless society, it is not meant to be perfect; the ideas being shared enforced to some theoretical mandate of high quality and rigorous standards. The ideas expressed by the individual should be as reflective of their individual values as possible with it's influence on others being dependent on the strength through presence or weakness through absence of supporting voices by the audience at large.

I also had a thought in regards to solving the issue of accessibility. We sometimes think that proliferation of technology is restricted by the economic costs of building out that infrastructure. Yet many nontraditional means of doing so exist that the private sector is already looking at - providing the FCC and our government clear the path to allow it to occur. I will try to explain with a real example.

First watch this video of Walmart's time series of store locations... [http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/ Watching the Growth of Walmart Across America]

Interesting isn't it... However, you may ask... so what? What does this have to do with the internet and build-out of infrastructure?

Read this next...

http://www.androidguys.com/2010/01/12/rumor-sprint-working-with-walmart-on-wimax-build-out/

Interesting isn't it? Perhaps with some government support and funding, a joint collaboration between the FCC, Sprint/Nextel and Walmart, three very diverse groups could easily solve the issue of accessibility by the masses. Sprint with the technology of WiMAX, the FCC with the keys to the spectrum, and Walmart with the existing proliferation and ability to sell cheaply to the masses. Non-traditional partnerships are the key to our future.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the following excerpt of the above comment:

Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states?

I don't think the authors were suggesting that there was a point in the past where the news media functioned in perfection. The description of this point as "mythical" indicates that this idea is, in fact, a myth.

Furthermore, I think that the authors' quote you cited does not bury "the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents". The idea that new media may include more voices than previously is clearly evidenced when they write, "there is potential for the networked digital media environment to offer something richer and '''more representative''' than anything previously available." [emphasis added]

([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Wow! Hey... Thanks for the response... I think its great you responded! To clarify - as my words may have confused the point I was attempting to make - My reference to the "mythical point in the past" was to emphasize that indeed it WAS mythical and that as always has been the case, news media has always been tainted and biased. But it is those biases that sit at their core values. Its the difference between the term News and Journalism as defined in the use of terms section of the Media RE: Public Overview.

In response to your second comment, I would stand on the position that more does not automatically translate into better or richer in a causal relationship. Giving everyone a forum to speak is admirable and should be the goal. But it doesn't become a better medium unless the end results are synthesized into some societal aggregation. Massive individuality is not what forms a community. Also to point out one more thing on this is that my second point was to emphasize that a classless society on the internet is not a society at all and does not add value unless it somehow translates into the formation of those groups and communities... i.e. the coffee house we spoke about in class and as such class formation is inevitable in that respect.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the recommendations, objectives, and strategies, outlined and detailed in the Media Re:Public Overview and the Knight Commission report are viewed through the lens of a free and open society. Democracy is a given. Control over ‘who says what’ is not an issue. What appears to be at issue, is how are we going to "maximize the availability of relevant and credible information", give “people the tools, skills and understanding to use information effectively" and promote public engagement.

From the Knight Commission Web site [http://www.knightcomm.org]: there appears to be one organization that is proactively addressing the ‘how can we get something done' question. "The Federal Communications Commission has launched an examination into the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age. In its announcement, the FCC cited the report of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, which has been influential in helping to structure the FCC’s inquiry."

Is the government actually trying to be part of the solution, and not controlling and obstructive?
----[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Links from Class ==
[[User:Amarquis|Amarquis]] 16:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I found this an interesting meta editorial on the topic of New and Old Media, Participation, and Information. In this case it's how media obsession with new technology alone is making customers more powerful. [http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/28/cherchez-la-fame "NSFW: Cherchez la fame – or why the media’s obsession with Twitter campaigns will make customer service smell French"]. As the title indicates, it has a touch of salty language so it may be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work NSFW] -- Not Safe For Work.

Assignment 2 Submissions

2010-02-23T00:00:09Z

Charlesscott:

Indira Lindsay Roberts Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: International Internet Shopping Wars"

Paul Amante Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: A Self Policing Community and Conflict Resolution"

Liz Davis Prospectus Title: "Examining Classroom 2.0: an Online Social Network for Educators"

Rohit Chopra|Prospectus Title|Social Hospital: The Possibility of Expanding Live Web-Based Video Streaming into Hosptial Setting.

Heather Hagni Prospectus Title: "Case Study: Pepsi’s Unique Internet-Based Marketing Approach"

Scott McCutcheon Prospectus Title: "Transforming individual knowing into an institutional knowledge base of shared experiences: leveraging the affordances of a closed Facebook group to develop a community of collaborative learning and decision-making."

Assignment 2 Submissions

2010-02-22T23:58:04Z

Charlesscott:

Indira Lindsay Roberts Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: International Internet Shopping Wars"

Paul Amante Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: A Self Policing Community and Conflict Resolution"

Liz Davis Prospectus Title: "Examining Classroom 2.0: an Online Social Network for Educators"

Rohit Chopra|Prospectus Title|Social Hospital: The Possibility of Expanding Live Web-Based Video Streaming into Hosptial Setting.

Heather Hagni Prospectus Title: "Case Study: Pepsi’s Unique Internet-Based Marketing Approach"

Scott McCutcheon Prospectus Title: "Transforming individual knowing into an institutional knowledge base of shared experiences: leveraging the affordances of a closed Facebook group to develop a collaborative community of learning and decision-making."

Assignment 2 Submissions

2010-02-22T23:32:27Z

Charlesscott:

Indira Lindsay Roberts Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: International Internet Shopping Wars"

Paul Amante Prospectus Title: "eBay.com: A Self Policing Community and Conflict Resolution"

Liz Davis Prospectus Title: "Examining Classroom 2.0: an Online Social Network for Educators"

Rohit Chopra|Prospectus Title|Social Hospital: The Possibility of Expanding Live Web-Based Video Streaming into Hosptial Setting.

Heather Hagni Prospectus Title: "Case Study: Pepsi’s Unique Internet-Based Marketing Approach"

Scott McCutcheon Prospectus Title: "Transforming individual knowing into an institutional knowledge base of shared experiences: leveraging the affordances of a proprietal Facebook group to develop a community of learning and decision-making."

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2010-02-19T19:26:07Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and is likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==
To get this discussion started, take some time to read through the three blog posts below, published by Google in their relationship with China. Come to class (or e-mail us: thwang@cyber.law.harvard.edu) with some brief thoughts (1 page, double space), responding to:

* What do you think was the right approach on Google's part?
* What kind of arguments or ideological stands would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What do you feel these articles show about the nature of the internet?

== Readings ==
*[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html Google In China (2006)]
*[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html Google in China (2010)]
*[http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google%E2%80%99s-china-stance-more-about-business-than-thwarting-evil/ TechCrunch, More About Business Than Thwarting Evil (2010)]

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
''I originally posted this on the "In The News" page of our class Wiki after the China/Google discussion. There was no comment. Given yesterday's e-mail clarifying where-to-post-what, I have moved the article to here. Maybe a comment this time?''

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to partner with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate recent attacks that "breached the company's cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google's products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

== Links ==

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2010-02-19T19:25:26Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and is likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==
To get this discussion started, take some time to read through the three blog posts below, published by Google in their relationship with China. Come to class (or e-mail us: thwang@cyber.law.harvard.edu) with some brief thoughts (1 page, double space), responding to:

* What do you think was the right approach on Google's part?
* What kind of arguments or ideological stands would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What do you feel these articles show about the nature of the internet?

== Readings ==
*[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html Google In China (2006)]
*[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html Google in China (2010)]
*[http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google%E2%80%99s-china-stance-more-about-business-than-thwarting-evil/ TechCrunch, More About Business Than Thwarting Evil (2010)]

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
''I originally posted this on the "In The News" page of our class Wiki after the China/Google discussion. There was no comment. Given yesterday's e-mail clarifying where-to-post-what, I have moved the article to here. Maybe a comment this time.''

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to partner with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate recent attacks that "breached the company's cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google's products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

== Links ==

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2010-02-19T19:24:55Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and is likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==
To get this discussion started, take some time to read through the three blog posts below, published by Google in their relationship with China. Come to class (or e-mail us: thwang@cyber.law.harvard.edu) with some brief thoughts (1 page, double space), responding to:

* What do you think was the right approach on Google's part?
* What kind of arguments or ideological stands would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What do you feel these articles show about the nature of the internet?

== Readings ==
*[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html Google In China (2006)]
*[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html Google in China (2010)]
*[http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google%E2%80%99s-china-stance-more-about-business-than-thwarting-evil/ TechCrunch, More About Business Than Thwarting Evil (2010)]

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
""I originally posted this on the "In The News" page of our class Wiki after the China/Google discussion. There was no comment. Given yesterday's e-mail clarifying where-to-post-what, I have moved the article to here. Maybe a comment this time.""

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to partner with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate recent attacks that "breached the company's cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google's products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

== Links ==

Politics and Technology of Control: Introduction

2010-02-19T19:20:29Z

Charlesscott: /* Class Discussion */

The Net has great potential for “good” (e.g. innovation, economic growth, education, and access to information), and is likewise is a great platform for the bawdy, tawdry and illegal. Is this platform about fundamental social, political and economic change, or about easier access to pornography, cheap pharmaceuticals, free music and poker at home? This question leads us to a host of interesting issues that weave their way through the course related to openness, access, regulatory control, free speech, anonymity, intellectual property rights, democracy, transparency, norms and values, economic and cultural change and cyber-terrorism, as well as scamsters and thieves.

== Preparation (Assignment "Zero") ==
To get this discussion started, take some time to read through the three blog posts below, published by Google in their relationship with China. Come to class (or e-mail us: thwang@cyber.law.harvard.edu) with some brief thoughts (1 page, double space), responding to:

* What do you think was the right approach on Google's part?
* What kind of arguments or ideological stands would you make to support your position one way or the other?
* What do you feel these articles show about the nature of the internet?

== Readings ==
*[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html Google In China (2006)]
*[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html Google in China (2010)]
*[http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google%E2%80%99s-china-stance-more-about-business-than-thwarting-evil/ TechCrunch, More About Business Than Thwarting Evil (2010)]

== Videos Watched in Class ==

== Class Discussion ==
I originally posted this on the "In The News" page of our class Wiki after the China/Google discussion. There was no comment. Given yesterday's e-mail clarifying where-to-post-what, I have moved the article to here. Maybe a comment this time.

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to partner with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate recent attacks that "breached the company's cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google's products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 19:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

== Links ==

In the news

2010-02-19T19:02:01Z

Charlesscott:

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to partner with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate recent attacks that "breached the company's cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google's products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T19:29:47Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance [[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Transactional_distance]] and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ''The American Journal of Distance Education'' and the ''Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia''. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added references to articles that studied transactional distance, and included names of additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve in its explaining/defining Distance Education, and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article, I still did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching in the reference section.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable; however, in the context of Distance Education, the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information; the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both a time commitment and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of content management at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may also be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not being willing to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and verification. After my research I believe sincere efforts are being made to verify information; and am now convinced that the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information. Wikipedia has created an efficacious and structured form of governance by the people, for the people.

However, if Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide, accurate, verifiable and timely information.
As a global model for verifiable information aggregation and dissemination - they are not there yet. And, I have doubts that they ever will be. However, as a decision making model - it has applications across the Web.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T19:26:59Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance [[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Transactional_distance]] and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ''The American Journal of Distance Education'' and the ''Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia''. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added references to articles that studied transactional distance, and included names of additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve in its explaining/defining Distance Education, and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article, I still did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching in the reference section.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable; however, in the context of Distance Education, the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information; the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of content management at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may also be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not being willing to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and verification. After my research I believe sincere efforts are being made to verify information; and am now convinced that the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information. Wikipedia has created an efficacious and structured form of governance by the people, for the people.

However, if Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide, accurate, verifiable and timely information.
As a global model for verifiable information aggregation and dissemination - they are not there yet. And, I have doubts that they ever will be. However, as a decision making model - it has applications across the Web.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T19:24:29Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance [[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Transactional_distance]] and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ''The American Journal of Distance Education'' and the ''Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia''. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added references to articles that studied transactional distance, and included names of additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve in its explaining/defining Distance Education, and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article, I still did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching in the reference section.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable; however, in the context of Distance Education, the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information; the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of content management at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may also be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not being willing to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and verification. After my research I believe sincere efforts are being made to verify information; and am now convinced that the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information. Wikipedia has created an efficacious and structured form of governance by the people, for the people.

However, if Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide, accurate, verifiable and timely information.
As a global model for verifiable information aggregation and dissemination - they are not there yet. And, I have doubts that they ever will be. However, as a decision making model - it has applications across the Web.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T19:20:01Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Transactional_distance] and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ''The American Journal of Distance Education'' and the ''Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia''. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added references to articles that studied transactional distance, and included names of additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve in its explaining/defining Distance Education, and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article, I still did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching in the reference section.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable; however, in the context of Distance Education, the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information; the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of content management at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may also be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not being willing to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and verification. After my research I believe sincere efforts are being made to verify information; and am now convinced that the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information. Wikipedia has created an efficacious and structured form of governance by the people, for the people.

However, if Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide, accurate, verifiable and timely information.
As a global model for verifiable information aggregation and dissemination - they are not there yet. And, I have doubts that they ever will be. However, as a decision making model - it has applications across the Web.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T19:17:11Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ''The American Journal of Distance Education'' and the ''Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia''. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added references to articles that studied transactional distance, and included names of additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve in its explaining/defining Distance Education, and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article, I still did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching in the reference section.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable; however, in the context of Distance Education, the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information; the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of content management at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may also be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not being willing to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and verification. After my research I believe sincere efforts are being made to verify information; and am now convinced that the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information. Wikipedia has created an efficacious and structured form of governance by the people, for the people.

However, if Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide, accurate, verifiable and timely information.
As a global model for verifiable information aggregation and dissemination - they are not there yet. And, I have doubts that they ever will be. However, as a decision making model - it has applications across the Web.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T18:51:08Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ''The American Journal of Distance Education'' and the ''Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia''. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added links to other articles that studied transactional distance, and referenced additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve in its explaining/defining Distance Education, and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article, I still did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching in the reference section.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable; however, in the context of Distance Education, the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information; the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of content management at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may also be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not being willing to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and verification. After my research I believe sincere efforts are being made to verify information; and am now convinced that the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information. Wikipedia has created an efficacious and structured form of governance by the people, for the people.

However, if Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide, accurate, verifiable and timely information.
As a global model for verifiable information aggregation and dissemination - they are not there yet. And, I have doubts that they ever will be. However, as a decision making model - it has applications across the Web.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T18:49:50Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ''The American Journal of Distance Education'' and the ''Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia''. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added links to other articles that studied transactional distance, and referenced additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve in its explaining/defining Distance Education, and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article, I still did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching in the reference section.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable; however, in the context of Distance Education, the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information; the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of content management at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not being willing to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and verification. After my research I believe sincere efforts are being made to verify information; and am now convinced that the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information. Wikipedia has created an efficacious and structured form of governance by the people, for the people.

However, if Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide, accurate, verifiable and timely information.
As a global model for verifiable information aggregation and dissemination - they are not there yet. And, I have doubts that they ever will be. However, as a decision making model - it has applications across the Web.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T06:11:53Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ''The American Journal of Distance Education'' and the ''Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia''. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added links to other articles that studied transactional distance, and referenced additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve explaining/defining Distance Education and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article I did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable, however, in context the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information, the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of professionalism at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not the willingness to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and credible verification. After my research I am convinced the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – verified information.

If Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage its proven collection processes, to provide enterprise wide accurate, verifiable and timely information.

Any thing less is a disservice [and harmful] to the community at large – those who look to Wikipedia as a reliable and verifiable source of information.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T05:38:11Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ‘’The American Journal of Distance Education’’ and the ‘’Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia’’. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added links to other articles that studied transactional distance, and referenced additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve explaining/defining Distance Education and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article I did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable, however, in context the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information, the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of professionalism at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not the willingness to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and credible verification. After my research I am convinced the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – verified information.

If Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage its proven collection processes, to provide enterprise wide accurate, verifiable and timely information.

Any thing less is a disservice [and harmful] to the community at large – those who look to Wikipedia as a reliable and verifiable source of information.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T05:35:23Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ‘’The American Journal of Distance Education’’ and the ‘’Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia’’. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added links to other articles that studied transactional distance, and referenced additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve explaining/defining Distance Education and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article I did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable, however, in context the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information, the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of professionalism at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not the willingness to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and credible verification. After my research I am convinced the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information.

If Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage its proven collection processes, to provide enterprise wide accurate, verifiable and timely information.

Any thing less is a disservice [and harmful] to the community at large – those who look to Wikipedia as a reliable and verifiable source of information.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T05:32:36Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ‘’The American Journal of Distance Education’’ and the ‘’Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia’’. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added links to other articles that studied transactional distance, and referenced additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve explaining/defining Distance Education and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article I did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable, however, in context the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information, the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of professionalism at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not the willingness to put the time and effort into verification.

As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and credible verification. After my research I am convinced the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information.

If Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide accurate, verifiable and timely information.

Any thing less is a disservice [and harmful] to the community at large – those who look to Wikipedia as a reliable and verifiable source of information.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Assignment 1 Details and Reporting

2010-02-09T05:21:14Z

Charlesscott: /* Assignment 1 Reporting */

'''For help getting started with Wikipedia see: [[Help With Wikipedia]]'''

== Details ==
# To complete this assignment, you must [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin log in] to wikipedia (if you do not have a wikipedia account, you can [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup create one]). '''Note:''' a wikipedia account is not the same thing as an account for our class wiki. You need both.
# Then, read the description of Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines policy and guidelines], so you understand the terminology at work.
# Using the list below, select a policy or guideline that most interests you. Read about it. The goal of this assignment will be to learn about and prepare a report on how these rules function, and play a role in the collective operation of the site.
# After you've chosen '''one of these''' policies or guidelines, select a single article to focus on. Below you will find a (non-comprehensive) list of suggested articles to edit and observe. Ideally, the article you choose should relate in some way to the themes of the class, but this is not required. There are over 3.1 million Wikipedia entries to choose from.
# Make '''substantial edits''' to the article you have chosen. This means that the edits should be more than cosmetic and should actually enhance the substance of the article.
# Add the article to your "watchlist". From the article page, click on the "watch" tab at the top of the article. You can access your watchlist at any time by clicking on "my watchlist" at the very top of any page.
# Report which article you edited, and the nature of your edits below. At the end of your notes, type <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> (two dashes and four tilde's) and the wiki will automatically fill in your name. '''Note:''' you must have created an account on our class wiki and be logged in for this to work.
# If changes are made to your article, you may also want to make further edits to go along with those changes. Also be sure to watch the "talk" page on each page, which has discussion from other users about the content on the entry.
# By the assignment due date, prepare a report here that discusses A) the rule you chose, B) which site you observed and the changes you made, C) how this rule played out in practice (if it did), D) how you think this plays a role in maintaining the site, and if it could harm the community on the site in any way.

== Target Policies and Guidelines ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral Point of View (NPOV)]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ownership of Articles]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research No Original Research]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy Protection Policy]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion Polling Is Not A Substitute For Discussion]

== Choosing an Article ==
You have several choices in choosing an article.

'''The most important thing is that you select an article that features the rule that you're looking to explore.'''

You can choose a topic that is underdeveloped, and add information. Or, you could pick an article that needs '''substantial''' cleanup/revision. Wikipedia (English) has 1.6 million entries. As such, it may be difficult to find a completely unexplored topic. Start by browsing the Wikipedia topics that you feel you can best contribute to. Many Wikipedia pages have banners that indicate the article is in need of some specific editing. Banners typically refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_cleanup_categories cleanup categories] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues controversy]. These banners are indexed so that contributors can quickly find pages that are in need of editing.

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble Dot Com Bubble]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality Network Neutrality]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism Hacktivism]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Public Good]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons Creative Commons]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipod ipod]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright Copyright]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster Napster]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_Obama Barak Obama]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machines Voting Machines]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall Great Firewall of China]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail Long Tail]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management Digital Rights Management]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC One Laptop Per Child]

== Assignment 1 Reporting ==

[[Assignment 1 Submissions]].

My Wikipedia editing efforts have focused on wiki pages addressing Transactional Distance and Distance Education. The topic area of my Master’s thesis is the relationship between Transactional Distance and learning outcomes in Distance Education, specifically on-line learning. I felt I had sufficient expertise in the area to be able to provide objective and verifiable editorial additions to the pages.
My editing focused on [[Verifiability]]. By Wikipedia’s own definition “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthwhat counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source”. The policy also requires a citation or reference for any material that is “challenged or likely to be challenged”. All quotations must have a citation as well. Consequences of not citing are removal of posts and edits. I fully support the policy that all references must be verifiable.

The [[Transactional Distance]] page had a banner stating the page was an orphan and needed to have more links to other articles. Which to me was code for; this page lacks verifiability. The page consisted of a few lines defining Transactional Distance, two external links and one reference. The reference was to Michael G. Moore, who first formulated the theory of transactional distance. The links were to ‘’The American Journal of Distance Education’’ and the ‘’Cyber Slang Online Encyclopedia’’. The encyclopedia expanded a little on Moore’s theory. The AJDE link was to a lone AJDE home page describing the goals of the journal.

I kept half of the first sentence of the original transactional distance definition, posted a more workable definition, with examples, and positioned the importance of transactional distance in Distance Education best practices. I added links to other articles that studied transactional distance, and referenced additional Distance Education journals that could be searched for transactional distance studies. As of this writing I have had no reaction to my edits, nor am I expecting any soon. Transactional Distance is not a research area where investigators are likely to source Wikipedia. However, given the mandate that all information, on all pages is to be verifiable, it is incumbent upon page authors and editors to provide citations and references. The goal is information accuracy. Anything less is harmful to the community.

Because Transactional Distance and Distance Education are so interrelated I accessed the Wikipedia Distance Education page. The page, while having a number of relevant citations and references, was somewhat naÃ¯ve explaining/defining Distance Education and provided a very pedantic history of the subject, beginning in 1728. Interesting enough, but not the kind of information anyone researching the subject in the 21st Century would find meaningful. Recognizing I should be limiting myself to one article I did a couple of minor edits to the page. I removed the outdated reference to andragogy as an educational focus of Distance Education and introduced pedagogical best practices as the overarching function of teaching.

The Distance Education page credits the US Department of Agriculture for its definition of distance education. The DoA may offer distance education courses, and may have published a definition of distance education, and therefore be verifiable, however, in context the source does not appear credible. I suggest not only does a page have to have verifiable information, the verification source has to be credible to the topic. To date I have had no reaction to my edits on the Distance Education page.

Maintaining the verifiability of the two sites I edited requires both time and a certain depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The lack of professionalism at both sites speaks to a lack of commitment to keep the sites up-to-date with current, relevant and verifiable information. However, the paucity of information at the sites may be a result of intellectually recognizing the need for verification, but not the willingness to put the time and effort into verification.
As an End Note: I am disappointed with the Wikipedia I discovered after drilling deep into its goals, policies and guidelines. Before this exercise I regarded any information from Wikipedia as suspect, as to origin and credible verification. After my research I am convinced the strength of Wikipedia lies in its processes, not its end product – information.

If Wikipedia is to be the collaborative community of concerned citizens collectively compiling the “sum of all human knowledge into a Web-based, free content encyclopedia” it must leverage this proven process to provide enterprise wide accurate, verifiable and timely information.

Any thing less is a disservice [and harmful] to the community at large – those who look to Wikipedia as a reliable and verifiable source of information.

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the news

2010-02-09T02:21:43Z

Charlesscott:

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to partner with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate recent attacks that "breached the company’s cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google’s products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the news

2010-02-08T17:53:45Z

Charlesscott: Google to work with the NSA to investigate recent hacker attacks.

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to work with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate recent attacks that "breached the company’s cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google’s products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the news

2010-02-08T15:10:05Z

Charlesscott: Google to work with the NSA to investigate recent hacker attacks.

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to work with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate the recent attacks that "breached the company’s cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google’s products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the news

2010-02-08T15:08:08Z

Charlesscott: Google to work with the NSA to investigate recent hacker attacks.

Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/science/05google.html?hp] Google has chosen to work with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate the recent attacks that "breached the company’s cybersecurity defenses."

Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google’s products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?

I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods are services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?

--[[User:Charlesscott|Charlesscott]] 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Charlesscott

2010-02-07T21:27:33Z

Charlesscott: McCutcheon Mini Bio

My name is Scott McCutcheon. I am an ALM candidate in Educational Technologies at the Extension School. LSTU E-120 [Spring 2010] is my last class! I will graduate in November 2010.

I am mid-way through my thesis. My research focus is on the relationship between Transactional Distance and Learning Outcomes in Distance Education. More on McCutcheon at [http://sites.google.com/site/mccutcheonscott/]

Note: Google recently moved my electronic portfolio to a new Google site. There are a few formatting issues I need to address.

User:Charlesscott

2010-02-07T21:26:42Z

Charlesscott: McCutcheon Mini Bio

My name is Scott McCutcheon. I am an ALM candidate in Educational Technologies at the Extension School. LSTU E-120 [Spring 2010] is my last class! I will graduate in November 2010.

I am mid-way through my thesis. My research focus is on the relationship between Transactional Distance and Learning Outcomes in Distance Education.

More on McCutcheon at [http://sites.google.com/site/mccutcheonscott/]

Note: Google recently moved my electronic portfolio to a new Google site. There are a few formatting issues I need to address.

User:Charlesscott

2010-02-07T21:21:27Z

Charlesscott: McCutcheon Mini Bio

My name is Scott McCutcheon. I am an ALM candidate in Educational Technologies at the Extension School. LSTU E-120 [Spring 2010] is my last class! I will graduate in November 2010.

I am mid-way through my thesis. My research focus is on the relationship between Transactional Distance and Learning Outcomes in Distance Education.

More on McCutcheon at [http://sites.google.com/site/mccutcheonscott/], or My Pages at Harvard's own SNS
[http://cte.dce.harvard.edu/elgg10/pg/pages/owned/charlesscott]

Note: Google recently moved my electronic portfolio to a new Google site. There are a few formatting issues I need to address.

User:Charlesscott

2010-02-07T21:18:35Z

Charlesscott:

My name is Scott McCutcheon. I am an ALM candidate in Educational Technologies at the Extension School. LSTU E-120 [Spring 2010] is my last class! I will graduate in November 2010.

I am mid-way through my thesis. My research focus is on the relationship between Transactional Distance and Learning Outcomes in Distance Education.

More on McCutcheon at [http://sites.google.com/site/mccutcheonscott/]. Note: Google recently moved my electronic portfolio to a new Google site. There are a few formatting issues I need to address.

[http://cte.dce.harvard.edu/elgg10/pg/pages/owned/charlesscott]

User:Charlesscott

2010-02-07T21:14:24Z

Charlesscott:

My name is Scott McCutcheon. I am an ALM candidate in Educational Technologies at the Extension School. LSTU E-120 [Spring 2010] is my last class! I will graduate in November 2010.

I am mid-way through my thesis. My research focus is on the relationship between Transactional Distance and Learning Outcomes in Distance Education.

More on McCutcheon at [http://sites.google.com/site/mccutcheonscott/]. Note: Google recently moved my electronic portfolio to a new Google site. There are a few formatting issues I need to address.

[http://cte.dce.harvard.edu/elgg10/pg/profile/charlesscott]

User:Charlesscott

2010-02-07T20:56:50Z

Charlesscott: McCutcheon Mini Bio

My name is Scott McCutcheon. I am an ALM candidate in Educational Technologies at the Extension School. LSTU E-120 [Spring 2010] is my last class! I will graduate in November 2010.

I am mid-way through my thesis. My research focus is on the relationship between Transactional Distance and Learning Outcomes in Distance Education.

More on McCutcheon at [http://sites.google.com/site/mccutcheonscott/]. Note: Google recently moved my electronic portfolio to a new Google site. There are a few formatting issues I need to address.

User:Charlesscott

2010-02-07T20:51:03Z

Charlesscott: McCutcheon mini bio

My name is Scott McCutcheon. I am an ALM candidate in Educational Technologies at the Extension School. LSTU E-120 [Spring 2010] is my last class! I will graduate in November.

I am mid-way through my thesis. My topic is the relationship between Transactional Distance and Learning Outcomes in Distance Education.

More on McCutcheon at [http://sites.google.com/site/mccutcheonscott/].