Technologies and Politics of Control - User contributions [en]

New Opportunities for Education

2010-05-04T21:27:33Z

Erin Golden:

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.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

In a broad summary, this week's readings stress two unique challenges in the realm of education reform and technology. The first problem/opportunity is the technological development of third world academic institutions – the methods, results, necessity, and short-comings. This is explored in the Hawkins piece, the material on OLPC, and the Resnick article. The second issue is of first world education reform, which becomes more and more necessary as the profile of the average student changes as he/she now comes from a new world of technology, social networking, hi-tech games, etc. Jenkins and Prensky thoroughly explore this quandary, but also showcase the possibilities for reform opportunities.

Hawkins reviews the World Link program, a program set up by the world bank to test and assess strategies of getting third world schools access to computers, internet, and related technologies. He sees these programs as generally successful given the limitations of infrastructure. Students in the remote Congo are using email, and girls under Islamic regimes get a peak at freedom. From this point of view, programs like World Link suggest that technological progress is possible in these underdeveloped countries, and hopefully the students given these skills will carry the torch and open up opportunities for their nations.

However, Resnick adds an interesting caveat in his article: “In most places where new technologies are being used in education today, the technologies are used simply to reinforce outmoded approaches to learning." Simply, if computers and the internet are being used in third world countries to simply enhance traditional education, that is not exactly “reform.” Instead, by introducing the technology of modern western culture, a new type of student will be produced – one who does not respond to traditional education. In other words, third world countries may be simply trading one problem for a new one: the problem which modern first world countries are currently struggling with.

In the developed world, students arrive at school with method-skills and mindsets unique to students of the past, thus not particularly compatible with traditional educational platforms. For the most part, this is seen as a challenge to educators and administrations as students now come from an outside world which is incredibly interactive, collaborative, and engaging; and the educational module does not apply to students of the modern technological world.

Prensky points out that students of the past “didn’t expect to be engaged by everything they did. There were no video games, no CDs, no MP3s—none of today’s special effects... [also less] creative opportunities for students outside of school. Many if not most of them never even knew … real engagement." The modern student is the opposite. The Jenkins article stresses that modern students are already developing really strong skills outside of class. Even if it is unbeknownst to them, children now a days are collaborating on digital projects every day, whether it is a friend's Facebook page, a complex online video game, a meta-life, or special interest forums. Most of these games and scenarios are way more complex than algebra, but how can scholarly studies be as engaging? Why should society expect these children to learn the same way as students 100 years ago?

The biggest challenge arises within educators. If teachers need to work under a reformed system which caters to the new type of student, they themselves have to be equally apt at the technologies – and this is not usually the case. So the real reform necessary in first world education is likely redefining teacher training, and even the role of the teacher; as the modern student is one who is constantly learning and exploring on their own – and doesn't want to just sit and listen.

--[[User:Sandusky|Timothy Sandusky]] 13:49, 4 May 2010 (CDT)

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

As there are already a few great summaries of the reading material, I hope to expand the thinking on this week's readings.

The readings from this week are, in a very brief summation, regarding little about how the internet can expand education, and more about how education has failed to evolve. As Lessons for ITC puts it, we have "a changed world with unchanged classrooms." I have done much personal reading on this subject, particularly in Grown Up Digital by Don Tapscott, and am glad that the class is ending on this note. For all of the glamour and excitement of the tech industry, and after spending a semester discussing the frontiers of the growing digital environment, it is an important and sobering reality that very few, even in the United States much less globally, are even being educated in a way which prepares and empowers them to take advantage of all that the past few decades of innovation have to offer.

I would expect most people in the class to be familiar with OLPC prior to the class, but, to put it briefly, the aim of the 'One Laptop per Child' project is to place a cheap, but highly useful, laptop in the hands of every child to educate them. In many ways, its aim is to even the playing field in the areas of computer-literacy and problem-solving/critical-thinking skills as much as meet standard education needs. The program is operated by partnering technology firms, and has been met with a mix of praise (for its aims and ambitions) and criticism (for questionable decisions and motives) since its inception. If nothing else, the OLPC has been credited for pushing technological innovations to affordable and mass market availability with impacts far beyond those of project.

Interestingly enough, however, is how the Participatory Culture report opens - "A central goal of this report is to shift the focus of the conversation about the digital divide from questions of technological access to those of opportunities to participate and to develop the cultural competencies and social skills needed for full involvement." While the report goes on to examine a multitude of ways in which technological access can enhance, and bring some necessary reform to, education (which is useful), it is a fairly strong move to claim that the conversation is ready to move forward. While it is true that those educational avenues that do provide technological access need to be thinking about how to use their tools wisely, it would seem more prudent if the reports aim was to augment the access conversation, rather than shift it in another direction. It is true that in many cases, such as the OLPC program, there is an assumption that technological access equals 'good' with little justification as to why, and such an attitude is unlikely to produce a cultural/institutional shift towards curriculum integration even if access is improved (which, itself, is surely to run into it's own cultural/institutional roadblocks). The ideas put forward, though, are, I feel, spot on, and I am hopeful to read the full report when I have more time.

In effect, Lessons for ICT brings the access issue into more concrete light. I feel to discuss too much on the reading would be to regurgitate it, but, in essence, the paper makes an argument toward technological adoption, and explains not only how to do it, but also how to do it well. It does take a full spectrum approach, addressing not only local school issues, but also policy solutions and roadblocks.

Finally, Enrage Me examines the problem of education and its failures to engage with students on a level that causes them to want to learn. The writer does a good job of examining the role of external factors on classroom engagement; to state it simply, the world outside the classroom is interactive, customizable, and their relevance is more evident to the student. The author points out that most students are learning things far more complex than what is in the curriculum, but struggle to even desire to learn in the classroom. Generally, it is a call to educators to consider how to bring this external influence into the schools, and one that also address a principle criticism of technology in the classroom as letting the students bring their toys with them. The piece does try to demonstrate that students are receiving all kinds of informal learning through these tools, and simply takes the next step of visioning about what it would look like to simply formalize some of these systems. Personally, I wonder how effective some of the ideas that are alluded to (such as educational video games) would work. Students can't be tricked into something they don't want, and I wonder if there wouldn't be some level of rejection if the programs felt 'too much like school' - my experience has been that many educational games mirror the regurgitation model, only with bubbly characters with encouraging voices. I feel the author looks over that point, and missed an opportunity to address the fact that the program described will not be solved by digitizing a lecture.

-mgladney

----------------------------------------------------

As noted in the commentary above, the reading selections focused on either the third world (OLPC, Hawkins), or the United States (Jenkins, Prensky) to explore existing efforts to integrate technology within the classroom and engage students and teachers. Although the challenges facing third world communities are broader because they lack the technology infrastructure enjoyed in this country, the similarities were striking in terms of using that technology within the classroom. As Hawkins notes, “[I]f you were to compare the average classroom of a hundred years ago with with an average classroom today, you would recognize it immediately.” Whether students are accustomed to using computers and the internet outside the classroom or these are entirely new devices, they are not accustomed to using them in a formal learning environment. Nor are their teachers, which is why the educator training in developing nations would not be amiss in the US. Prensky points to students developing skills such as concentration, multi-tasking, and problem-solving in their spare time, and displaying none of them in school. In contrast, Hawkins gives the example of Muslim girls who, when given access to the internet within the classroom, quickly expanded their on-line activity to personal learning they are otherwise denied. Teachers must be willing to give up some control to create a more collaborative environment in which they and students can learn together and from each other.

Of course there are other ways to move from a traditional lecture class to one in which students are more active participants, such as Harkness discussions. Whether children will be motivated to participate is another question. In the end computers are tools, and a fundamental part of the knowledge and skillset students will need to move in the broader world, one they and their teachers must learn to explore together.

--[[User:Erin Golden|Erin Golden]] 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Control and Code: Privacy Online

2010-04-13T22:50:56Z

Erin Golden:

[http://piratepad.net/berkman-privacy-online Class participation and discussion (etherpad)]

Code is law; the architecture of the Internet and the software that runs on it will determine to a large extent how the Net is regulated in a way that goes far deeper than legal means could ever achieve (or at least ever achieve alone). Technological advances have also produced many tempting options for regulation and surveillance that may severely alter the balance of privacy, access to information and sharing of intellectual property. By regulating behavior, technological architectures or codes embed different values and political choices. Yet code is often treated as a technocratic affair, or something best left to private economic actors pursuing their own interests. If code is law, then control of code is power. If important questions of social ordering are at stake, shouldn't the design and development of code be brought within the political process? In this class we delve into the technological alternatives that will shape interactions over the Internet, as well as the implications of each on personal freedom, privacy and combating cyber-crime.

==Readings==

* [http://futureoftheinternet.org/download Jonathan Zittrain, Future of the Internet, Chapter 9: Privacy 2.0]
* [http://www.bitsbook.com/excerpts/ Abelson, Ledeen, Lewis, Blown to Bits, Chapter 2: Naked in the Sunlight: Privacy Lost, Privacy Abandoned]

==Additional Resources==

==Topical Links==
* [http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2010/04/02/segments/152890 NPR On the Media Story "Anonymous Justice"]
"The Cleveland Plain Dealer sparked an ethical controversy when a front-page story alleged that one of its legions of anonymous online commenters was a local judge, and that the judge had posted controversial comments about at least three cases over which she presided. Plain Dealer editor Susan Goldberg talks about the expectation of privacy on the internet and why the newspaper decided to publish the judge’s online identity."

*[http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2010/SXSW2010.html "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." Transcript of talk given by Danah Boyd at SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13, 2010]

==Links from Class Discussion==

http://datamarketplace.com/

http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flesh_search_engine

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/warcraft-helps-catch-a-crook/1383804 --[[User:Erin Golden|Erin Golden]] 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

http://theangryblackwoman.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/what-rachel-moss-did --[[User:Erin Golden|Erin Golden]] 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
== Class Discussion ==

Regulating Speech Online

2010-03-09T22:56:58Z

Erin Golden:

The Internet has the potential to revolutionize public discourse. It is a profoundly democratizing force. Instead of large media companies and corporate advertisers controlling the channels of speech, anyone with an Internet connection can "become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 884, 896-97 (1997). Internet speakers can reach vast audiences of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers that stretch across real space borders, or they can concentrate on niche audiences that share a common interest or geographical location. What's more, with the rise of web 2.0, speech on the Internet has truly become a conversation, with different voices and viewpoints mingling together to create a single "work."

With this great potential, however, comes new questions. What happens when anyone can publish to a national (and global) audience with virtually no oversight? How can a society protect its children from porn and its inboxes from spam? Does defamation law apply to online publishers in the same way it applied to newspapers and other traditional print publications? Is online anonymity part of a noble tradition in political discourse stretching back to the founding fathers or the electronic equivalent of graffiti on the bathroom wall? In this class, we will look at how law and social norms are struggling to adapt to this new electronic terrain.

== Readings ==

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?ref=weekinreview Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case NYT]

* [http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2009/02/11/Two-Lawyers-Fight-Cyber-Bullying/index.html David Margolick, "Slimed Online," Portfolio.com, February 11, 2009, read all]

* [http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-08-AmendedComplaint.pdf Doe v. paulitwalnuts, et al., 3-07-CV-0909 CFD (D.Conn.), Complaint, filed 6/11/07, skim pp. 1-16 Warning: explicit and disturbing language]

* [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars John Palfrey and Adam Thierer, "Dialogue: The Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks," Ars Technica, March 5, 2009, read all]

== Additional Resources ==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union Wikipedia on Reno v. ACLU].
* [http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf ACLU v. Gonzales], 478 F.Supp2d 775 (E.D.Pa. 2007), read pp. 1-7, 61-74, 82-83; skim pp. 74-81.
* [http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, Chapter 12: Free Speech]
* [http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php EFF Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law]

==Class Discussions ==
Comments on class readings by D. Jodoin:

Out of respect and deference to the victims we have read about this week, I will avoid using anyone's names. I can't help but think that due to the fact we are an internet published wiki that we are complicit - even if only to a minor extent - regardless of our intentions and motives. Jean Jacques Rousseau once wrote "Fame is but the breath of people, and that often unwholesome."

I state this because there are two questions I am forced to ponder due to this week's readings. By discussing events like this - in this forum - are we increasing the public awareness of the atrocities that occur as a result of the internet in hopes that we can work toward a positive change? Or are we inadvertently playing into the hands of the anonymous "trolls" and their desire to wreak havoc on the lives of others purely for their own amusement; contributing to their desire to see their hateful words spread in the public forum?

In class we have learned - through the progression of a series of study topics - that the internet provides a platform where people can create sites for an intended purpose. Yet often we find that users of those sites enjoy them for reasons the creators may not have envisioned. Sometimes users find new and better purposes for a site, other times the result is less desirable - the platforms being used to engage in socially unacceptable publication of content to unacceptable exhibitions of behavior to sometimes outright illegal acts. One could argue that this has always been the case in any forum. However, we have also seen how viral the internet can be in its ability to bring to national and sometimes international attention those topics, people, and events that once would have been left to obscurity.

Do we take lessons from Apple and Microsoft in their pulling the porn apps and filtering of certain lewd search terms respectively? Should we support their actions to serve as good citizens in their attempt to provide a product that they feel is in keeping with the social norms of the people they look to service? Or should we protect intermediaries like Google, who seems content in serving up whatever content they have access to index?

The public has a right to protect themselves from being exposed to inappropriate content. We also have the right to protect ourselves from public slander and libel. When you walk into a store and examine the magazine rack, you will quickly notice that magazines with adult content are wrapped with obscured plastic and kept on shelves with high wooden slats such that the content is not available to those who choose not to purchase it. What is wrong with that? Where is my plastic wrapper hiding the offensive material that exists on the net?

And as intermediaries of content on the internet - from which they piggy back their revenue generating advertisements - shouldn't they also have responsibility in the content they serve to the public? Shouldn't the intermediaries be just as responsible for the content they serve to the public as those that created it?

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The example you cited of Apple pulling their apps with adult content is a tricky area and highlights the eroding division between the Internet and phones. I was personally happy that Apple decided to pull those apps. However, I can't really figure out to defend my support for the move. Perhaps because I considered my phone as distinct from the Internet, I did not want obscene content diffusing into the App Store. But smart phones are essentially computers now, so it is hard to justify regulating their content differently than the Internet. I am inclined to think that phones are much more public since users carry them around all the time. If someone wants to look at obscene content, traditionally he would be confined to the privacy of his home, but now with smart phones he could be browsing this content while sitting next to me on the train or in a coffee shop. Even this distinction is weak, because people use computers in public as well. I am curious how others might argue for or against Apple's move. ([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 02:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Comments by Paul Amante - I see both sides

This week's readings were very interesting. The issues Google is having in Italy go back to some of the arguments made during our discussion related to Google in China. I argued that China, a sovereign nation, had the right to pass laws and take actions they felt were in the best interest of their country. Even if those actions are distasteful to us. Italy has that same right. It is interesting to see both countries want to limit, to different degrees and for different purposes, information available on the Internet. The US, on the other hand, explicitly insulates Internet service providers from liability for content they make available.

One of the readings used an analogy that I found interesting. It likened Google to delivering offensive content to a mail man delivering an offensive letter. You can't hold the mailman accountable. The difference here is, Google has the ability to see what the letter states and has the opportunity to decide whether or not to deliver it. Not only do they deliver it, they make it available worldwide. The mail man does not have that ability.

In the United States, filtering content goes against our very fiber. Our free and open society and freedom of speech are a corner stone of our national personality. Although I believe Google should exercise good judgment, the truth of the matter is that the law protects them from liability and until the law is changed, we must hope Google uses good judgment in the US. In other countries, where free speech is not an absolute right, Google must obey laws in those countries or stop doing business in them.

Hi Paul! I wanted to point out something regarding the argument that you cannot hold the mail man responsible for the content they deliver. In fact there are specific regulations that prevent the use of the mail in openly transmitting pornographic material. There are actually many other regulations regarding the proper use of the mail service. The postal service takes this obligation very seriously and has an entire department established that does nothing but investigate potential abuses of the regulations. [https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/ USPS Inspection Service Website] Just take a look at the investigations link and you can see all the things they as intermediaries will go after you for. --[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Nick Siemaska - Regulating Speech Online

In democracies across the world, freedom of speech has proved to be an incredible right that has maintained societal stablity, innovation, and equality. This right, however, has been and continues to be a hotly debated issue with respects to its regultaion. In the United States, for example, there are many laws the prohibit speech if it is defamatory in nature. Regulatory laws like these protect the safety and integrity of individuals that would otherwise be harmed by libel or slander. But laws like these are continuously contested on whether they infringe on freedom of speech or don't go far enough to protect individuals from false, defamatory speech.

The internet is a new frontier testing these boundaries. The article in which Google executives were convicted in an Italian court for breaking Italian privacy laws seems to be less about individual rights and responsibilities, and more about those rights with regards to corporations. Do corporations have the responsibility to protect the rights of people that have access to their service? or do corporations have a right to maintain their ethical responsibilities to their business? I think the issue with Google and Italy's privacy laws forces us to ask who is responsible?

In the case of the personal defamation against two Yale law students, internet users worldwide are acutely aware of this sensitive and personal issue. Any individual can ask themselves what they would want if they were confronted with a similar issue as the Yale students. Wouldn't you, the individual, want some sort course of action to take information down about yourself that could be harmful to your future success, especially if that information was untrue? If we, the people, were granted this opportunity, could it have an overbearing effect on companies that were supplying this information with the potential glut of frivolous complaints?

--[[User:Nsiemaska|Nsiemaska]] 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

--Comment by Erin Golden - Link of interest (blog post by Eugene Volokh on Yale suit and resulting discussion): http://volokh.com/posts/1181709221.shtml
--[[User:Erin Golden|Erin Golden]] 22:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

'''Video Introduction by Rohit Chopra''':
It is my attempt to introduce the class using a video mail. Please click on the link to view [http://www.tokbox.com/vm/apzp1d1o15tx]. Let me know if anyone has any problems. I hope you enjoy it. Thanks.

== Links from Class ==

Assignment 2 Submissions

2010-02-23T09:09:14Z

Erin Golden:

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."

Mike Barker Prospectus Title: "Social Engagement: The Santa Cruz City Budget"

Erin Golden Prospectus Title: "LiveJournal.com Communities: Promotion and Suppression of Open Literary Discussion"

Assignment 1 Submissions

2010-02-09T09:30:00Z

Erin Golden:

-------------------------------------------------------------

* Name: David Jodoin
My Wikipedia work was focused on contribution to the wiki page on VoIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_Internet_Protocol. I selected this wiki as I have done a significant amount of work related to next generation voice networks and have designed and developed solutions in this industry. My edits were primarily NPOV edits to the Fax handling section of the wiki and the discussion of T.38 faxing over UDP vs. IP vs. analog. I selected this section as I found the section needed citations for some of the statements made by prior authors. I specifically added a couple of references and re-edited some of the language to be less opinionated and more factual from an objective point of view.

Specifically I found some of the language to be somewhat whimsical as the author attempted to act as an authority on the topic, yet I found some of the statements made were either anecdotal in nature and not backed by any rigorous research. In addition, statements were made which belied the authors biases toward the topic and sounded immature; making me wonder how old the person was who wrote it.

I experimented with my entries to see if something comes up on my watch-list for this topic by in some cases deleting entire sentences of prior writers statements in favor of my own. I also used an online shopping mart as one reference to see if the reference itself would be disallowed due to it being commercial in nature. I am anxious to see the result of these two edits. Of course when providing citations in other areas that needed it, I relied on actual RFCs or academic based definitions for factual representation.

The neutral point of view (NPOV) stance within Wikipedia is a critical component of creating trusted information. There will always be opinions that will be expressed or reflected by various authors, however, with peer review combined with NPOV the information that at first may seem opinionated can indeed be of value in helping guide the NPOV results of follow on editors. Without the threat of having your submission removed due to non NPOV content, I would think Wikipedia would revert into an endless see of contradictions, rants and rave with authors in chaotic conflict never progressing toward a useful result.

For instance, I could easily state that T.38 faxing is by no means a true replacement for traditional fax over copper lines, and my opinion is universally shared by those who use it or implement it. However, in doing so, I am not exposing the underlying problem in that T.38 faxing is a means to accommodate legacy fax machines using a transmission standard that is long out of date. In fact I could go on to say that an entirely new era of technology needs to be developed that answers the call to solve the same problem that faxing does, but in a different way. But due to the enormous amounts of these machines which exist in the marketplace, that is an evolutionary transformation that will only be slowed by our continued attempts of keeping a dying technology alive. If we continue to support faxing in general, we might as well revive the 8track tape or the laser disc.

I wonder what kind of discussions would ensue if I posted that on the wiki. Maybe I will if I don't get comments on what edits I did post.

--[[User:Lunatixcoder|Lunatixcoder]] 15:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------
*Liz Davis - Response to Assignment 1

I chose to focus on the Wikipedia rule of "Neutral Point of View." I edited the article on Creative Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons. This article included a banner requesting that the lead section be expanded. According to Wikipedia the lead of an article should both introduce and summarize the content of the article. I expanded on one of the paragraphs and added an additional paragraph introducing and summarizing the article below.

In the process of expanding the lead, I focused on ensuring that all of my information was referenced with verifiable sources. I used the book "The Public Domain" by James Boyle as one of my sources and the Creative Commons website as the other source. I tried to keep my own opinions and experiences, except where I could back those up with external sources, out of the article. However, I did push the limits a bit with these two sentences, "An easy to understand one-page explanation of rights, with associated visual symbols, explains the specifics of each Creative Commons License. This simplicity distinguishes Creative Commons from an all rights reserved copyright." I was curious to see if another editor might find these statements too opinionated and thus not from a "Neutral Point of View."

At the time of writing this, there have been no significant changes to my revisions. Someone did go in and hack the page briefly by adding the line "hossein esmaili is a good." One minute later this line was removed. There have been some very minor changes to my page since my edit, fixes to my spacing, but no content has been changed or edited. I'm not sure if I should assume from this that my edits were acceptable or that no one has taken the time to look it over and make any substantial changes. Also, the banner requesting revision to the lead is still there. I'm not sure who takes that down, or how that will be affected by the changes that I made to the introduction.

I think the rule of "Neutral Point of View" is essential to the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a source. Editors should strive to be objective when adding content to Wikipedia. There are other venues for subjectivity. Consumers of information on Wikipedia are looking for unbiased, referenced general information about a variety of topics. The NPV helps ensure a fair and balanced representation of information.

For the most part the Neutral Point of View can only help maintain Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Any encyclopedia reader would hope to find un-opinionated resources on wikipedia. However, neutral can be difficult to pin down. Even encyclopedias can appear biased when you look back on an entry. For example an article on the Women's movement written in 1950, might seem biased to someone reading it today. This rule could harm the community if it is viewed as too restrictive and thus prevents people from adding information. These rules definitely slowed me down in making changes. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

--[[User:Lizbdavis|Lizbdavis]] 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------------------------------

'''Mike Barker:''' [[Mike's Response To Assignment 1]].

-------------------------------------------------------------

'''Rohit Chopra''' | Assignment 1
[[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2011/sites/is2011/images/Wiki_ass1_final_RC.pdf]]

----

*Erin Golden: Assignment 1

I decided to begin with Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy, which quickly led into Verifiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, as a response to my longstanding perception of Wikipedia as unreliable and the particular challenge I found in becoming a Wikipedia editor. My past experience has largely involved my own analyses of literary texts, so it was both refreshing and daunting that the site officially did not want my, or anyone else's, un-self-published opinion. Wikipedia treats articles on living persons even more stringently under No Original Research to avoid libel or otherwise giving offense, so I selected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Flewelling (as user Edolen), regarding a living author whose work I enjoy and with whom I have had considerable contact through the years.

I first discovered a very brief entry with two banners at the top proclaiming the need for additional citations. When I looked at the "discussion" section of the page the only things present were the same two banners. The article included only two citations: one link to another author's review of Ms. Flewelling's work, and another to a blog post by Ms. Flewelling projecting the date of her next book release, with no references for any biographical information. The biography section included one broken internal link (to Ms. Flewelling's husband, who does not have his own Wiki article), and some information I either didn't recognize or thought was not specific enough (e.g. Ms. Flewelling is not officially listed as faculty on the University of Redlands website, although she does conduct lectures and workshops at the school). I changed the section to be more in accord with Ms. Flewelling's official website and cited it. Trying not to run afoul of the Wiki ownership and edit warring guidelines I left structure and phrasing alone where I could, to edit instead of completely re-write. I also added numerous citations to the Writings section, including convention appearances, praise from other authors, and a film update, and expanded the note on queer themes to reflect heightened reader and scholarly interest.

I was not as thorough in reworking and adding to the article as I would have liked in order to comply with No Original Research. For instance, I know Ms. Flewelling was a guest of honour at every ConBust (a science fiction convention) since its inception in 2003 because I personally arranged her original appearance and have met with her there every following year; however, the official Smith College-hosted website for the convention only mentioned 2009-10 when I visited it, so I was unable to present the full history. Neither did I include a fuller picture of Ms. Flewelling's family and religious life, her feelings about her books and readers' responses to them, her thoughts on queer issues in and outside her work, or her stances on academic treatment of "genre fiction" or e-book piracy, all of which would add greatly to a biographical piece and can be found (and cited) throughout her contributions to her Yahoo! group and her blog because of the Wiki restriction on "using the subject as a self-published source." I was already uncomfortable with the number of outside reviews I could only find as pages on her official website, including an author-given exerpt from a yet-to-be-released scholastic anthology and a short piece from a relatively obscure magazine I could not locate in print. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources, Wikipedia limits using the subject's self-publications but bans all such other sources: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject . . . Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources"; therefore I did not use reviews from various fan sites or Amazon reader reviews. I found small exerpts from reccomendations by non-self-published authors on the Random House page for purchasing one of the books (cited in article) and on the printed novels themselves, but I was unable to locate the full reviews.

So far no other user has edited my work, but the banners remain at the top of the main page. The discussion link now opens to a declaration that the article is a "stub": short and unfinished. I received a welcome note from a Wiki administrator after opening my account and editing the article, but no direct commentary on what I wrote. For an example of a more complete biographical article on a living person I visited the page for George R. R. Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._R._Martin), one of the writers I referenced in the Flewelling article. It was much longer and rounded-out, and the discussion page classified it as B-Class. Therefore I was surprised to check the page's references and see many of the citations were to Martin's self-published website, or to self-published fan sites. It made me question how seriously Wikipedia editors and administrators take the site's official policies, and whether my article would have received a higher rating had I been more liberal in my attributes. Ultimately, in my perspective, this places the reliability of Wikipedia articles, whether about living persons or other subjects, back in the dubious place from which I'd hoped this project would at least partially rescue it. I will continue to use the site, as a reader and sometime-editor, but I am disappointed it does not live up to its own credibility standards, which I believe will continue to hurt it in the public eye.

--[[User:Erin Golden|Erin Golden]] 09:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)