Saturday, January 30th, 2010
Mike Wesch talked about how individuals have become the hub of information. Prior to this concepts emergence the mass delivery system for content was the one way current of the television and radio. There was no conversation, no ability to check source or resource materials. We were to trust whole heatedly the content we were being fed was legitimate. Stories could be told and news items delivered. Thus emerged the trusted news anchor, our story teller. Most people may have thought there was little choice as to who narrated their content so they choose the least annoying coupling of personalities amongst the choices. At least that’s how I have approached the choice of my own morning news delivery.
The choice I make is not due to any evaluation of the content being delivered as the message is the same on all of the channels and there is no ability for an individual to evaluate the truthfulness of the content unless they were to grab a newspaper. Perhaps they may seek out further in formation at a library or other reference source. What effort! It seems natural then when someone is presented with the opportunity to gather multi-format content from a single device this would be a natural evolution in the expression and attainment of knowledge.
The choice is now mine as to who filters what I know. This is not to say I am naive to think there is not censorship on internet content but feel there is access to more purposeful content than from television sources. We now not only can have a choice in the content but also who delivers it to us. We get to develop our our more personal level of trust within ourselves and our critical thinking and problem solving skills. We are the ultimate filter. We can make truth accurate. As I see it these are purposeful reasons to immigrate to a digital interaction with information.
The Mad Prophet rant from the 1976 movie “Network” holds significant influence in this reflection. I see the Mad Prophet clip as an early push for new voices to be heard. The context of the speech being given is that an unsuccessful television network is trying to stay on the air and while a news anchor is being fired he decides to announce that he is going to kill himself on the air, early hints of Jerry Springer style t.v. Ratings soar and through several other annoyances the anchor lays down a rant on the evening news (for actual content you’ll have to watch it for yourself). Needless to say the rating soar again and the rhetoric continues. I feel this particular rant captures the irritation some people may feel towards mainstream media sources. It does lean to subtle hints of conspiracy surround by corporate muck but captures a change in perception. The encouragement and subsequent emergence of intellectual critiques by the masses. There is some language not suitable for younger viewers in this clip so parental discretion is advised (man I watch way too many movies).
Monday, January 25th, 2010
This is a really good video about understanding how with the emergence of web 2.0 tool so too has a 2.0 identity risen. Check it out
Monday, January 25th, 2010
Doing some reading and came across the following passage. Thought it fit with some of the discussions I have been apart about the use of technology in the classroom.
Thursday, January 21st, 2010
Discussion Forum on Slightly Shumay
I just got through chatting with a group of 5 students from my 6th grade class on our Slightly Shumay ning site. It was amazing! These students were posting pictures, videos and discussing Haiti, rocks (which we are studying in class now) and other topics as they came up. One student would post something and guide the others check it out. After a brief pause in the discussion forum the students then returned to discuss, some detailed and others with less detail the pictures and videos the others had posted. The students have even started a discussion thread on HAARP as one of the students found a video claiming that HAARP was responsible for the earthquake. Remember these are 6th grade students who now get guidance one on one about how to decide the validity of sources as it relate to real world events. I believe that this is a way in which web 2.0 tools are benefiting the students of today.
Sunday, January 17th, 2010
While doing some class reading I got taken on a 2.0 ride. I was reading and some links and quotes caught my attention. I decided to clip a quote from an article using clipmarks (an amazing web 2.0 tool) and I came upon this article in a feed I am following. Thought it might make some good reading. Enjoy. Are we filtering ourselves into an internet ghetto?
Please feel free to provide your thoughts and any connected articles you may find.
Sunday, January 17th, 2010
Colleague tweeted this article earlier, Science project prompts SD school evacuation . After reading it I had some mixed reactions, especially to some of the comments. I agree there may have been some over-reaction to the device itself but is it not an administrators duty to protect the student population from an unknown threat? There have been school shootings, bomb threats and various threats so to be cautious is important. However, who has the right to call it stupidity or safety? It sometimes seems like when we are over cautious we are called foolish or claim ‘the terrorist’s must be winning b/c we’re doing our jobs’ and keeping school safe. On the other side if we are not cautious enough and we are not taking care of the best interests of our student population and someone gets really hurt there are the ‘well why didn’t you take it seriously’? Some of the counseling comments made in the article did extend past what was called for in dealing with the incident but who can really blame a cautious administrator who is being responsible to his clientele?
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010
David Weinberger’s philosophical understand of the cultural impact web based technologies is having is an impressive historical perspective along with providing a guide in thought as to how the way we organize and interact with our world is changing.
He describes it as lumping and splitting, the act of categorizing materials and ideas. The way in which we categorize our world is an essential part of our understanding of the world. We place many aspects of our lives into categories, segments, and groups in order to reflect on the values we place on these contexts and disseminate their value. The basic act of tagging violates this fundamental thought. If we are to make available a thought or physical object there should be a specific place to find it. But with Tagging you are allowing more paths of queries to find the same end. The more tags an object or thought has the more valuable the content.
In early thought a person who has the idea owns the idea. Perhaps an early form of intellectual property rights advocacy. Individuals have exclusive rights to content and can edit it how they wish. The massive collaboration on the web through RSS feeds and the use of wiki style webpage’s provides editing for the masses runs head on into the ownership of knowledge. When we share the content online we are developing a shared consciousness. The editors of the content are now the owners. We have the power to reorganize. We are now the owners of the content as we to have a say.
Thursday, January 7th, 2010
After a three week hiatus I m back in class with my fellow colleagues in EC&I 830. We had our first chat this evening and it was a really fun get to know each other. Its looking like a lot of the web 2.0 tools I was exposed to during my last class will be utilized here. Keep checking back there will definitely be more to come.