Infocult: Uncanny Informatics

Studying Anonymous and Scientology

An anonymous guest poster at Henry Jenkins' blog argues for academic study of the Anonymous-Scientology campaign.

Academics from cultural studies, media theory, and anthropology might seek to better understand what holds this unique community together. How have they appropriated anime and internet culture into the core of their identity and used it to unify their movement? How do neighbor communities like cosplay and video gaming cross pollinate with Anonymous? How does Anonymous connect with the earlier Internet vs. Scientology effort?

Yes.

Fearing the Facebook study group

Tracking the Facebook study group expulsion story (which I blogged here), I was struck by the amount of fear appearing in media accounts. 
Listen to this passage from the Toronto Star:

The incident has sent shock waves through student ranks, says Kim Neale, 26, the student union's advocacy co-ordinator, who will represent Avenir at the hearing.

"All these students are scared s---less now about using Facebook to talk about schoolwork, when actually it's no different than any study group working together on homework in a library," said Neale.

"That's the worst part; it's creating this culture of fear, where if I post a question about physics homework on my friend's wall (a Facebook bulletin board) and ask if anyone has any ideas how to approach this – and my prof sees this, am I cheating?" said Neale, who has used Facebook study groups herself.

The National Post points to their other stories about fear and Facebook, including a Facebook-posted bomb threat aimed at a children's aid society, and the inevitable specter of al-Qaeda - surveilling Facebook!

Alvin Toffler reboots K-12

Here's an energetic strategy for American K-12, from one of the world's most famous futurists:

[Interviewer] What's the most pressing need in public education right now?

[Alvin Toffler]: Shut down the public education system.

First answer!  We should all be so bold when interviewed.
The subsequent discussion explains:

[Interviewer] That's pretty radical.

[Alvin Toffler] I'm roughly quoting [Microsoft chairman] Bill Gates, who said, "We don't need to reform the system; we need to replace the system."

[I] Why not just readjust what we have in place now? Do we really need to start from the ground up?

[AT]We should be thinking from the ground up. That's different from changing everything. However, we first have to understand how we got the education system that we now have. Teachers are wonderful, and there are hundreds of thousands of them who are creative and terrific, but they are operating in a system that is completely out of time. It is a system designed to produce industrial workers...

The public school system is designed to produce a workforce for an economy that will not be there. And therefore, with all the best intentions in the world, we're stealing the kids' future...

A couple of notes, once readers get over the shock value.  First, Toffler isn't arguing from a technological-determinism stance.  He's speaking of social changes which include technology. This is an important distinction to make in American education, since we still grapple with the techno-determinist charge.

Second, Toffler takes pains to laud workers in the system.  He's not teacher-bashing.

Third, he pushes for customization.  But it seems to be publisher-driven, supply-side.  There isn't much of a sense of network learning in the interview.

I don't like his sports approach myself, but do admit that that would work for a sizable chunk of kids.  Nor am I convinced that charter schools are hotbeds of innovation, but would be willing to hear from those who've been following that movement more closely than I.
 

Web 2.0 and .edu: two divergent views

It's a nice example of how the Web 2.0 and education world is still controversial, or how diverse responses are.  The Chronicle of Higher Education reflects on the Horizon Report*, and reflects darkly:

Colleges Are Reluctant to Adopt New Publication Venues

The article begins:

Academe has been slow to accept new forms of scholarship like blogs, wikis, and video clips, according to a report released last week that examines emerging technology trends in higher education.

Ars Technica picks up on story, and headlines its reflection:

Report: Ivory tower to meet Web 2.0

The article then summarizes the 2007 Horizon Report, working through implications, and considering what education could look like.  Same report, two very different responses.

The Chronicle commits two errors.  The report is actually about the next few years, and not about the current state of affairs.  That's clear throughout the document, from its stated methodology to the timeline explicitly framing the prognostications.  Notice the tense differences between the two commentaries, with the Chronicle referring to the present and recent past, with Ars using the future.

The second error is bibliographic.  "[A] report released last week"?  That's last January, folks, nearly a full year ago.  In a few weeks the next one's coming out, as the Horizon site plainly states.  Alan Levine gently points this out in his comment, so far unreplied-to.   

**full disclosure: I'm on the HR's board.

Twitter storytelling

Today's example of Web 2.0 storytelling comes from an American high school class, which is writing and publishing a collaborative tale via Twitter and wiki.  According to their teacher and the Google Docs description,

Each student will use the same Twitter account to contribute their 140 (or less) characters. Each contribution will be copied and pasted into this Google doc as the story unfolds.

Eight tweets as of this blog post.

Twitter for narrative came up in this blog back in March.

(via Will Richardson)

Teaching towards the invisible world

This article about technology in an American public school system offers a telling quote about fearsome cyberspace:

“First-graders podcasting? My goodness, that’s amazing; I feel like I’ve had a good day if I can turn my computer on and answer my e-mail,” [Mike Prater, Waynesville’s assistant superintendent for curriculum] said.

Prater said educational methods and workplace expectations have greatly changed since he was a student, and even during the last five to 10 years. Some of the few constants are that students will still have to be able to read, write, have math skills and be good citizens, Prater said.

“It is often said that we are preparing our students for a world we cannot see,” Prater said.

That reveals a whole stratum of fears about technology and learning, starting with the openness gaping beyond institutions and disciplinarity.  It also draws on an old Gothic trick, which is to get the reader (or viewer, or listener) to generate their own fears, by not specifying the fearsome thing in detail.

That's the shadowy double of the Invisible College, too.

(thanks to Peter Naegele!)

Launchball: nice science games

Launchball is a very nicely done science game.  Or a series of science games, actually, each loading quickly in a web browser.  It plays quickly, each level either showing you a single principle, or posing a good engineering problem.

It's similar to Armadillo Run in that each game requires you to assemble pieces in a static situation, then set the mechanism into motion.

(thanks to Saramin)

Learning by urban mystery

Players move through a city, learning its history by tracking down and connecting clues.  This is a Quebec City "urban adventure," created by Avacture.  It sounds like a trip, a fine non-digital augmented reality, and an example of spatial storytelling:

...at 8 rue du Tresor, where you watch a video (in French, with English subtitles) and learn that, apparently, French explorer Samuel de Champlain carried a treasure with him when he travelled to Quebec. It's hidden in Quebec City and protected by Champlain's social club, the Order of Good Time.

The last surviving member of the Order passed the secret to a stranger (you), while an archaeologist stumbled across the prophecy. What you learn by unravelling clues will help the archaeologist uncover the treasure. But first, you must beat the bad guys – a secret organization called the Argus – who have locked up the archaeologist in a secret tunnel.

The clues (in English or French) reveal the whereabouts of that tunnel. First you solve the five keys, historic locations or monuments of historic figures accompanied by famous phrases or inscriptions. These phrases reveal the location of the locks and guide you to famous sites – post offices, towers, Freemason symbols on buildings.

You're given a guidebook, map and clues to help you on your way.

(via Clickable Culture)

RSS as Glu, or the open web versus the CMS

RSS as Glu makes a clear, elegant, and economical distinction between teaching and learning in course management systems, and doing to on the open Web (2.0).  In fact, it's less about RSS in particular as Web 2.0 in general (cited are blogs, wikis, and RSS aggregators). 

It's by Alexander Hayes.

(via George Siemens)

The Chronicle fears Second Life, continued

The Chronicle of Higher Education takes another whack at Second Life.  Michael Bugeja wants readers to think about liability and ethical issues, primarily.  It's good advice, as one legal education blog observes.  The author is also concerned about the nature of virtual worlds, insofar as they impact teaching and learning.  It's a fascinating article, at least in terms of fearsome cyberspace writing, and for considering how the Chronicle approaches technology. 

Notice the level of critique offered in lines like this:

somehow, the allure of technology is such that virtual worlds seduce us with instantaneous eye candy of the ego.

Instant gratification, egotism, visual allure - classic technology criticism.  Yet the article won't acknowledge that anyone else has ever written, posted, or presented on this topic.  Indeed, besides noting a Linden Labs blotter report, the author doesn't recognize the very public, very accessible debate about Second Life content that has been raging for a couple of years.  He doesn't even note the Chronicle's own coverage (for example here, here, here).  Instead what appears is this odd assumption that there's no criticism of Second Life, nor of technology in general: "When it comes to technology, we in academe usually only see the positives." 

This is a typical move for some academics, and for the Chronicle, not bothering to acknowledge a generation of cyber critique.  Technology affects us... "somehow".  Perhaps some reading into web studies or even technology criticism as a whole is in order.  Halfway through the piece, Bugeja almost touches on Dibbell's classic, widely-read 1993 essay about virtuality, sex, bodies, and power... then shies away, describing himself as a lone critical voice. 

In the 1990s, when I was a faculty member at Ohio University, I taught... I disagreed... I argued that journalists had a duty to warn society...
Controversy will occur, although many of us do not seem to be anticipating any in this realm. That perplexes me.

Indeed it must.  Towards the end of the article, the author asks faculty to invite "experts on cyberlaw, new media, technology, gaming, harassment, ethics, and other related disciplines" to participate in "a public forum and/or a faculty meeting".  One must wonder why the author doesn't get a head start by reading those experts' published thoughts, especially when publishing in academia's news journal of record.  One can infer from this description of one of Bugeja's books that he knows some of the literature - why leave out any mention here?  Why the lonely, heroic stance, especially when celebrating the virtues of networking in the article's conclusion?

A similar ignorance is tacitly allowed when it comes to researching the technology itself.  Anyone familiar with Second Life should catch this passage from the article's opening: "About nine million avatars reportedly interact on this digital landscape..." Nine million?  The classic Second Life numbers problem appears.  The author has swallowed that old, old fiction whole, without a glance at the controversy around it.  That number doesn't even appear on the Second Life homepage any longer (which reports "Online Now: 42,182" as of this writing). 

Bugeja locates the source of his knowledge with a quick adverb: "reportedly."  No direct Second Life experience appears in the article, surprisingly, nor any explicit reference to anyone who has written on the subject.  Reportage, criticism, reflection are set aside, and something close to urban legend put on the page instead.

But which technology is actually Bugeja's target?  The article is putatively about Second Life (not virtual environments more generally), yet touches on Web 2.0 platforms in order to draw more general lessons.  For example, when discussing objectionable video content, Bugeja references YouTube, warning "us" (presumably instructors) to consider letting students leave the room (does he think students don't watch videos out of class?), then goes on:

We also should prepare students for mature content over which we have little control, especially when requiring classes to visit virtual worlds whose avatars enjoy anonymity in anything-goes environments.

How is this different from requiring classes to surf the web, in either 2.0 or 1.0 modes?   A broader anxiety about digital materials in the open web might be the target here, rather than simply Second Life.  Once again, there's no sense that any other person has written about these issues (the American Library Association started thinking about digital information fluency in the 1980s).

The main point of the piece, that campuses think hard about Second Life's legal implications, is a good one.  And it's damning that the Lindens haven't answered Bugeja's attempts at communication - I recommend getting inworld and looking for Pathfinder Linden.

Previous posts on the Chronicle and fearsome virtual environments: on Facebook, pro Gorman, egomania online.  And Second Life: September, July, June.

PS: I know the Chronicle doesn't hyperlink very much, but why not link to Bugeja's homepage?

(via Stephen Downes)