A response to Leigh Blackall: The New Colonialism in OER

In many respects, OER and the Creative Commons licenses help propel US centered ideas of copyright and intellectual property, indirectly inserting such ideas on the back of moral concepts such as sharing, freedom and openness, as though sharing, freedom and openness didn’t exist before, and that the only way to protect such notions is with legal instruments that recognise copyrights in the first place!

This is a partial response that needs more thinking through. I admire Leigh taking this once more around the loop and I find his argument almost compelling. But, the extrapolation across the whole creative commons (CC) is problematic as is the denial that any part of any leopard might change its spots: CC is a big progressive step and there is a lot that is progressive in OER, too. I am not sure that the limited uptake of CC India means that CC is a bad idea everywhere. Nor is OER, even if the Capetown Declaration is flawed, as Stephen Downes has argued [ref to come]. With real struggles to be faced like the Digital Britain initiative, which is overtly colonialist and reactionary, suspecting and projecting covert neocolonialism throughout the broad OER and CC movements renders the struggle unwinnable, alienates allies and is, as Leigh implicitly acknowledges probably irrelevant in many places anyway.

While there may be some parallels with the Bill Gates foundation preserving patent law on the one hand while donating notional billions worth of patented anti-retrovirals with the other (Microsoft has a huge interest in preserving international patent law in other fields), or the Soros Foundation’s interest in civil society, I do not think similarly overt self interests drive OER or CC. Yes, CC and OER do primarily address – and in part remedy beneficially – problematics in “Western” or “Developed” countries where copyright distorts a lot of the field and needs to be radically overhauled. Yes, applying “Western” “developed” polities to “southern” or “emerging” economies is neo-colonial. Even more importantly, yes, the “west” has a lot to learn from the south. The biggest problem with OER and CC is probably that we westerners continue to focus on ourselves and fail to notice the emerging open educational movements and other new economics initiatives from the “undeveloped” world.

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Defining “Creepy Treehouse” #pcthe

In the field of educational technology a creepy treehouse is an institutionally controlled technology/tool that emulates or mimics pre-existing technologies or tools that may already be in use by the learners, or by learners’ peer groups. Though such systems may be seen as innovative or problem-solving to the institution, they may repulse some users who see them as infringement on the sanctity of their peer groups, or as having the potential for institutional violations of their privacy, liberty, ownership, or creativity. Some users may simply object to the influence of the institution.

Just want to post this as much as a reminder to myself as to any other people on the Brookes (or any other) PCTHE: as we branch out to using more social technologies than the VLE, there are risks as well as rewards

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Josie Fraser (@josiefraser) on 3 ways to characterise online identity

There are three main ways we can characterise most peoples online internet and mobile activity and presence. Let me state up front that these distinctions are purposely blunt, but do act as effective and critical distinctions, especially when talking to people about how and why they can manage their online identities.

Josie Fraser characterises these as: personal, professional and organisational. The article is a very useful intro to some of the problems around personal identity management.

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Preliminary Thoughts on Visualising #opened09 #jiscssbr

This was written about visualising the opened09 Open Education conference. But it is more widely useful as an exploration of the affordances of visualisation generally as an aid to understanding. In the Institutional innovation programme I am trying to understand the basic questions underlying visualisation of the programme: people, projects, technologies, themes and how they link. Even before you ask the question, “what does it mean” you have to ask more fundamental questions. In observing that Twitter networks were interesting Tony Hirst first did a manual filter of frequency of posts over time. What are the first questions that give shape to the Institutional Innovation visualisation?

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Personal – Professional – Organisational: three basic online identities

There are three main ways we can characterise most peoples online internet and mobile activity and presence. Let me state up front that these distinctions are purposely blunt, but do act as effective and critical distinctions, especially when talking to people about how and why they can manage their online identities. They’re also very indiscreet, leaky categories, although it is of course possible to find examples of people who’s online identity is confined to or dominated by a single category. Why are these differences important? Because they provide us with the building blocks to talk about and actively reflect on our online activity. How we represent ourselves, and how we are viewed online, is increasingly a part of daily social and economic life. Critically, for people working within social media or supporting digital literacy, they provide a robust framework within which to talk about key issues: privacy, data ownership/mobility, representation and voice.

The three main categories I use then are personal, professional, and organisational.

Personal use might include using dating sites, having a social network account to connect to friends and family, uploading your family photos to a photo-sharing site. Personal use is most likely to be the category where attention to social network service permissions – who is able to see what – is particularly important to users.



Professional
use could include the use of a professional networking site, or the use of a social network, a blog or other website to showcase and record work, develop connections and contribute to national and international professional networks. It includes a public facing CVs, publicly accessible parts of a personal learning environment, or an e-portfolios, conversations across mailing lists or social network services. Typically, these activities are public facing, so the most pertinent issues are typically about voice, representation, reputation and trust,



Organisational
use would involve the employee using tools or platforms on behalf of their employer or in the line of their work duties. For example, an employee may run a blog as part of their role, maintain a social networking profile in order to make information accessible to students and parents, deliver assignments using a Virtual Learning Platform or set up a group account for learners on a video sharing site. Organisational use may be public, promotional and conversational, or operate within walled garden environments, or, indeed, a mixture of the two.

Anonymity & the carnival of the fakesters

Screenshot436

Many of my readers have a fairly ‘meh’ approach to old media – they’ll read the Metro if they find it on their bus/tube seat, they may enjoy the weekend deforestation editions as an excuse to lounge at the weekends – they’re mostly too connected to actually just chew over their toast & stare into the distance – and fill up their recycling boxes. They’ll happily hijack the odd Daily Mail readers poll. They’ll follow their favorite tech writers & journalists in Twitter. Mainly they get their news from their network – which means in practice a mix of online newspapers & services, across a range of sites where people may be paid to research, reflect & write, but mostly aren’t.

Who do I know that reads the Telegraph? Off the top of my head, no one, although there must be a couple of you who have. New Telegraph tech bloggers Paul Carr & Andrew Keen have been link/troll baiting this week with a couple of posts about the undesirability of online anonymity – Carr’s takes massive chunk of Schopenhauer out of  historical, cultural and technological contexts, And Keen’s verges on Brass Eye territory so much (110%, in fact) that all that’s missing is the poll made up of foxes heads on sticks. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that effectively removing internet anonymity, even if that level of authentication was remotely possible, might cause a few more problems for everyone than it solves for a couple of disgruntled tech journalists.

One of (the many) objections to the Ministry of Anonymous but Authenticated Names approach is that one of the best things about the internet has always been the opportunities it provides for play. Mediation through avatar, text, and all the other internet props can obviously be misused, but it also enables a creative exploration of identity, representation, engagement. When I first started hanging out online in the 90s, in the days before meeting up and eventually marrying people you met online was the norm, I just assumed that everyone I met was probably a mustachioed Texan cop or a retired librarian, pretending to be a hot and overly intelligent seventeen year old boy. 

Then blogging took off, and the internet as playground began it’s transformation into the internet as factory. The early insistence on transparency has been adopted by nearly everyone who has a professional stake in their online presence, and what has been variously named the link or reputation economy is critically an economy of trust – trusted connections defined within a dominant aesthetic of a particular kind of authenticity.

While I’m not arguing against the numerous benefits of accountability and responsibility, I do also miss the old internet, and I look for trusted connections with people who haven’t let the factory rob them of their sense of wonder, and even mischievousness.

It’s in this vein I’ve been on a mini-crusade to support the fakesters in my neighborhood, which at the moment is primarily Twitter. ‘Fakester’ is a broad term, covering any account pretending to be someone they aren’t. They could be pretending to be another living or dead actual person, or a fictional or personally created character, or the incarnation of a place, thing, time, organisation etc. So it includes historical, religious and cultural figures, as well as alternative persona, marketing scams and campaigns, God (well, a bunch of them) and the Mars Phoenix, NASA’s celebratory robotic lander.

Following complaints and a proposed lawsuit Twitter recently began to introduce verified accounts for the Twitterati & the popularly impersonated celeb member, “people who deal with impersonation or identity confusion on a regular basis“. However, their Terms of Service only disallow users to impersonate other Twitter users. This doesn’t help Kanye West out much, but it does encourage him to sign up to twitter & I bet it gets the Twitter staff a fair few celeb lunches too. 

Personally, I’m not that interested in following celebs via Twitter, although I can understand that there’s a lot of (potential) money and (actual) publicity at stake. I’ll also be clear that I am obviously not in favor of illegal or malicious impersonation, a topic which I’ve engaged with quite substantially in terms of my work for the UK government on cyberbullying. I’m keener on those more imaginative misuses of twitter, many of which have educational potential and application, but regardless of that, make life more interesting :)

danah boyd wrote a defence of fakesters way back in 2003 – about a hundred years ago in internet terms. Her early work tracked the presence of fakesters on Friendster, drawing attention to the blurring between the authentic-inauthentic-constructed lines fakester accounts throw non-fakester accounts into, the way that fakester accounts challenged social (network service) norms, and the fact that the fakesters were often the most interesting accounts to connect to. 

So who’s faking it on Twitter?

One of the most beloved of the Twitter fakesters has to be @darthvader, self appointed Evil Orphan Annie and geek magnet. Recent #imperialedicts have included “Open more Starbucks” and “Continually raise the price of stamps without warning”. 

@MarsPheonix, NASAs account for a mission to land a robotic craft at the North Pole of Mars was so popular that Wired ran an epitaph contest for the lander

Many fakester accounts basically just publish the text or quotes of the persona they assume. The ultimate fit-for-purpose example of this has got to be @JennyHolzer, the American conceptual artist who is most celebrated for her public displays of aphorism, perfectly suited to her anonomus Twitter account, where HABITUAL CONTEMPT DOESN’T REFLECT A FINER SENSIBILITY and MONOMANIA IS A PREREQUISITE OF SUCCESS.

Jenny Holzer isn’t on Twitter, although if she were I’d like to think she was @fakejennyholzer – shouting SUFFERING IS CAUSED BY ATTACHMENT AND NAIL GUNS and THE CAPS LOCK KEY IS REALLY STUCK ISN’T IT at us. 

One of my favorite fakesters has got to be @palmer_eldritch, a title character from the Philip K. Dick novel. as well as Phil Dick related comment & content, Palmer has recently transformed into a veritable mecanical turk of an auto-bot, selectively re-tweeting related content from around the twitterverse, including “@tanuki0: I’ve read too much Philip K Dick, I’m starting to doubt the nature of reality.” and “@FatherRoderick: Getting ready for Mass. Still very sleepy. Shouldn’t have watched that Blade Runner documentary late last night.”

Sir Bonar Neville-Kingdom, Data Sharing Czar, aka @sirbonar and his Whitehall musings on the surveillance society pretty much leads the field in fakester political satire. “It seems some
hobbyist suffering from Aspergers has done a stunt for the news media
in which he appears to clone a British ID Card” and “
If only we could
achieve total fusion of all possible data, I think we could at last
feel secure. I wonder how much data that is?” are amongst his recent musings. You can also catch a video of him addressing Open Tech 09 on Data Sharing here.

I’m a big theory fan, so I follow a bunch of would be swafty-philosopher fakesters, including @zizekspeaks, who purports to be Hegelian philosopher and Lacanian psychoanalisist Slavoj Zizek. “Interested in Deleuze & Twitter? If so, you’re probably misreading Deleuze.” Is he real or not? Perfectly, for a Lacan follower, it doesn’t really matter


Drapeau: The rise of the goverati — Federal Computer Week

Who are the goverati, you might ask — and are you among them? Goverati is a term I coined a few weeks ago while participating in a Social Media Club DC discussion panel. In essence, the goverati are people familiar with government and how it works and who understand new social technologies. They want to network with one another to foster an increasingly transparent, participatory and collaborative government.

… people like my partner’s cousin’s husband who works at the Treasury and is an avid user of Twitter via his iPhone. I like Drapeau’s take on the citizen as a conversation.

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Ensemble OER feeds: War-6; Peace-1 @scottbw

What is Ensemble?

Ensemble is a service that enbles you to locate RSS feeds that link to Open Educational Resources. You can search for feeds on particular topics, or browse by institutions or by categories, and then download the results in OPML format for use in a feed reader or other application. You can also use the service directly as an API in other applications – just add “.opml” to the end of URLs.

Ensemble is a pilot demo of an Open Educational Resource (OER) aggregator by Scott Wilson (http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/). This demo has feeds from the Open University and Oxford University. Searching for topics there were 6 for “War” and only 1 for “peace”. Hey ho. But the idea is spot on and the name should be registered.

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Sustainable IT In Tertiary Education (SUSTE-IT) report and tools #jiscssbr

The SUSTE-IT project reflects the increasing importance of ICT-related energy and environmental issues, in the [higher education] sector and elsewhere. For example, there is ever growing consumption (and even more rapidly increasing costs) of electricity in data centres, and in computers and peripherals; legislative and other pressures are requiring reductions in ICT-related carbon emissions, and the WEEE Directive is creating new requirements for equipment end-of-life.

The SUSTE-IT report is published and the site is live with carbon footprinting tools to help universities assess – and reduce – the environmental impact of their ever increasing use of information technologies. I only wish the case were made more strongly in what might be called “moral” terms as well as simply legislative and economic terms. I would suggest that it is for universities as repositories of scientific knowledge to lead, not simply be driven by legislation to comply.

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Implications of @benwerd on Twitter DoS and single points of failure

The only model that makes sense is a distributed one: it’s a fundamentally harder problem to bring down a decentralized network, because there isn’t a single point of failure.

Ben’s got it about right  http://bit.ly/zn868). I have been thinking down these lines, too, “mesh networks, distributed databases and natural language processing”:

- More on the mesh

http://my-world.typepad.com/rworld/2007/10/more-on-the-mes.html

- Global justice and the future: Web 3.0 is the mesh

http://my-world.typepad.com/rworld/2007/09/global-justice-.html

In, “Can a PeopleWeb be built on restricted vocabularies?” (http://rworld2.brookesblogs.net/2009/07/12/can-a-peopleweb-be-built-on-restricted-vocabularies-andypowe11/) I suggest, “…the paradigm shift will be in two parts: a move away from restricted vocabularies *and* from centralised to distributed infrastructure.”

But the problem is one of power and control, isn’t it? How will resources be allocated to the development of networks that undermine the business models of all the current service providers?

I wish I had the technical competence to build even one small part of this vision.

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Copyright © 2007 CREATE Support Team. All rights reserved.