Aside:

I will now unabashedly plug a panel (not that I haven’t already) that I’ll be moderating in March at SXSW:

“Blackboards or Backchannels: (Social) Technology in the Classroom of Tomorrow”
Five students will come together to discuss technology in the classroom and the implications of technology to help improve (or utterly destroy) the social elements of education.

</digression>
One of the debates I’ve had over the past year in writing for this blog concerns the essence of note taking. I’ve written in the past about my aversion toward liveblogging and my affinity for accurate notes, however meticulous. Over the past few years, I’ve come to terms with the fact that my notes, when typed or written, culminate in roughly verbatim reproductions. I grasp at words. I ingest language and digest meaning.

My realization: pencil on paper no longer does the trick. As minute as my script has become, this semester I churn out two to three full-length, handwritten pages per class period. Yet I still snatch at my teachers’ dictations, trying to capture the entirety of every phrase. The readability of my notes thence suffers, as my pen dances from left margin to right, without lifting from the page even to spare the spaces between syllables, while I battle between lecture transcription and lecture absorption.

With a typing speed averaging around ninety to one hundred words a minute (thank you, middle school computer classes), I can speedily record my precise notes while assimilating the content. Only in the past year have I carried my laptop to class in order to take notes by means of keyboard. I could use excuses as reasons for the change (save trees, easier to share online, &c.), but it comes down to practicality. To take notes as detailed as I want, the convenience of the keyboard helps me to write quickly and succinctly, while also providing the opportunity to process the presented information more thoroughly. Of course, the keyboard has limitations, restricting the ability to scribble more than words. For example, my methodology is built around a complex system of arrows to point here and there to signify links of meaning and significance.

Forbes recently talked with David Karger, the leader of a project to develop a new system of note taking online:
The study found that “capture speed” was the main reason a worker might choose a Post-it note over a computer program, even those programs specifically designed for these sorts of jottings.
“Even seemingly minor difficulties or annoyances with tools could deter use of a tool,” the study said. It noted that one volunteer subject “would write notes on Post-its and stick them to his cellular phone to transfer into Outlook later rather than enter the data directly into his smart phone, even though the phone supported note synchronization.
“When asked why not enter the note digitally in the first place, he responded, ‘Starting in Outlook forces me to make a type assignment, assign a category, set a deadline, and more; that takes too much work!’ Similarly, paper notebooks were often chosen instead of laptops because they required no time to boot up.”
My opinion is that pen and paper now limit my “capture speed,” especially when I can simply bring up a TextEdit file (advocated by Diana Kimball) and type away.

Of course, note taking on my laptop does not replace the notepad. My desk is garnished with the multicolors of PostIt notes, while my desk houses a dozen different pocket-sized, portable notebooks. Sometimes I even find myself affixing stickies to my computer screen. It’s probably true that the most convenient upgrade to laptop technology would be constant operation without rebooting. For now, the keyboard provides a most efficient method to capture language, while still being able to call the records notes.

So, on to the notes…

—

The Dynamics of Collaborative Innovation: Exploring the tension between knowledge novelty and reuse

Karim Lakhani, Ned Gulley

Karim:

we think collaborative innovation as more modern: open-source/Wikipedia
most major innovations: highly collaborative in history

airplane development: not just Wright brothers, but creation with multiple people
pre-Wright brothers: network of 10 individuals
locus on innovation: moved over to Europe after Wright brothers

collaborative innovation: Meyer’s Analysis

dynamics of collaborative innovation: how people build off of others’ work

Ned:

contest at MathWorks: MATLAB programming contest
usually: smartest person gets the prize
but: not how ideas move/work in the world
contest: notion of borrowing/stealing ideas in contest: create page of code

Competitive Wikipedia
everyone: encouraged to edit articles
if article made worse: thrown away; if better: article edit it kept
would Wikipedia display article editing winner?

MATLAB week-long open collaborative competition for programmers
- entries automatically scored, ranked, displayed immediately
- code author score are visible at all times
- anyone can modify other’s code

leaders –> view entry: person makes new entry and becomes leader

first place: completely objective
good code: gets better optimization score from test lead

really about reputation and interaction with community

what we see in practice:
people: anxious to acknowledge people they took code from

types of changes:
- Big changes (leaps)
I know a much better way to do this, replaces previous code
- Small changes (tweaks)
minor optimization; tweakers don’t need to understand full optimization to improve code

code: improves over time
sometimes: people take best code at certain point in time & make it worse

by inserting new idea after previously solved problem: people swarm on it to work with and improve idea

tough question: how would you value tweakers over leapers
hard to say who really is making the important contributions

systematic variations: tweak bombs: take the entry in the lead, sniff around for secret number replacements to test
changes to the lead entry: fly off like sparks

social signals: sent through entry titles
- scrambled eggs
- rotten eggs
- I didn’t start the fire
- Don’t get obfuscated… follow the light
- You Call This Collaboration? Give Me a Break

motivation:
to participate: opportunity: for personal glory or collaboration?

behavior of successful code:
high rank, time on top, high status author, clarity, elegance, novelty, etc.

tension: not between any two coders
code: wants to propagate
coder: wants to block code propagation

a chicken is only an egg’s way of making another egg
a hacker is only code’s way of making more code

—

Karim:

collaborative innovation: implicit tension between collective and individual:

collective point of view: value contributions that get reused more often
individual view: value being the top amongst peers

social value of contribution (code) = # of times lines of code reused
relative novelty: helps you; too new: others don’t use it/know what to do with it
value of adding new things, after a while: gets too complicated
not much value in borrowing code, but if you use it in the right way it’s very valuable

leaders: borrow > novelty, in this setting

For now, the notes:

—

Designing Culture: The Technological Imagination at Work: Anne Balsamo

—

book: transmedia project

addresses 3 points:

technological innovation: transform what is known to what is possible
technological imagination: engage materiality of world to create conditions for future world making
cultural reproduction: development of new narratives, myths, rituals;

technology, the world, culture: created anew
training of technological imagination: necessary

designers: work scene of technological emergence

ch. 1 – culture in the age of innovation

polemic of book: need to train imaginations to take seriously technological innovations: responsibility of educators across curriculum
how humanities can serve as resources: to engage new technologies

ch. 2 – gendering the technological imagination

always gendered, but we didn’t recognize it as such
biological reproductive technologies: connects to media technologies as premier reproductive technologies of our age: draws from feminist criticism on reproduction

ch. 3 – the performance of innovation

work on future of reading: w/ embryonic technologies

ch. – public interactives and technological literacies
designed to communicate history that is all of ours
future of literacies

ch. – working the paradigm shift
focus on literal labor: participatory culture: call people to the hard work required by the paradigm shift

ch. – the work of the book in a digital age
Q: why are you writing a print-based book?

—

transmedia project: relates to other previous projects:

interactive multimedia documentary (“women of the world talk back”) on women’s rights held by UN in Beijing

practices on new media journalism

museum exhibit: designed to probe how we might read in the future: not abandon but rethink the print-based book

—

we need to do something different to bridge the two cultures
need to create new institutional places: multidisciplinary research/projects

new participants: women, underrepresented participants
new commitments: requires everyone to be learners again
collaborative teams: from early work in feminist organizing
new spaces: where people can work together on technological things

—

distributed research network: in UC Irvine, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago
scholarship in a digital age: will look different: local and distributed
understanding technological infrastructure to support distributed research network

digital research & learning @ McArthur: funded: museums, libraries, schools, recreation, home, after-school
claim: learning is changing in a digital age: eg. learning occurs in distributed environment, not just one local place
think about how museums/libraries will function in distributed learning environment

—

What’s next?

XFR: Take 2
Digital Learning Objects: Open Education
MIxed Reality Learning Environments: Morse’s Law, Nintendo Wii (gesture-based interface)
Thinking with Objects: DIY movement, makers culture movement (making things with your hands; virtual: only simulations of what we used to do with our hands)

—

Q: what has everyone been thinking about futures of museums/libraries

—

Q&A:

Q: what is the future of designing librarians; how do you design professionals to adapt to new changes?

A: information designers: need standardization of metadata; also need people to understand how (meta-)information also has narrative, cultural effectivity; when we get to semantic web: it can’t be stupid

Q: Weinberger: future of paper-based books?

A: many genres of paper-based books that will migrate to the digital space; other genres: that aren’t going to disappear, because of physicality: paper-based: will long outlive human lives: part of case history; have to maintain digital archive
libraries: becoming museums of books that have ‘collections’

Q: Weinberger: in future w/ electronic readers: publishers won’t actually print books: will want to move directly to digital

A: things that are slipping away in a digital age: we will want to preserve

Q: humanities in the future: esp. w/ focus on publication

A: rethink scholarly publication, but I’m not the one to take on such a project;
have to learn to read again
UChicago: thinking about new paradigm of peer-review process for publication
tenure cases for those w/ digital scholarship

Q: printing a book: just output form; talk about crafting in digital environment: you: on laptop, w/ word processor

A: these kind of questions are critical, esp. w/ close reading of electronic text
authoring backwards
designer parallels with author

discussion:
libraries: providing ACCESS to books, etc.; cost of maintaining digital libraries: low, but not zero; decisions will always need to be made about curation
assumption: possibility of a canon: where all the ‘good’ books are

Q: “science fiction: the mythology of the industrial age”

Q: what do you think might be lost?

A: course: history of literacy: ongoing question of why is it important to remember?: disturbing: youth: just-in-time learners/rememberers
we haven’t taught value of remembering
culturally: remembering was more valuable to the other generation: ties to why history is important: ties to “future of the past”

—

digital divide: the other way: economic/social reasons
need to have interdisciplinary places of learning

—

OLPC: plan: have impact on learning
lack in opportunity: how do you give kids high quality education, opportunity to learn

school reform: impossible if done top-down; way it will change: generation of children who come to school w/ different skills/expectations: will change school
these laptops: will be part of manufacturing change

title: “Confessions of a Fundamentalist”
passionate about free/open source software
fundamentalist about: learning itself: what are the best ways to position/plant seeds of learning

constructionism: role for computation as thing to think with; something children should engage with
not just access to knowledge, but appropriation of knowledge
learn through doing; what’s a better tool for doing than a computer
want to engage people in things they’re passionate about

child-centric v. teacher-centric view of education/learning
everyone’s a learner, everyone’s a teacher
humans: expressive & social

proprietary v. free/open source
a = deals with delivery of knowledge
b = trying to move over the standard deviation: users: people who appropriate, rather than just access, knowledge
open source: culture of appropriation: cultural value

service-oriented stuff: not very good
phones: about service, not construction: service model: example: people don’t write programs or essays ON their phone
point: social nature of phones
optimal situation for learning: phones: lacking in other attributes (teaching, learning, expressive)

example: Dynabook, with background
building platform: skewing odds to ~ activity happening
1. build
2. critique/reflect
3. iterate (go back to step 1)

learning: wants to be free
culture around open source –> how do you decide about governance? difference between governance and engagement of community in critical discourse

engaging in collaboration, engaging in critique
tools to do this: lacking in education (maybe not university ed, but definitely in primary ed)

example:
Nigeria: English = official language, but spoken: probably 3rd largest
kids: built spelling dictionary for Igbo

Sugar: primary user experience on OLPC
at core of Sugar: notion of activity
before: run applications; turned “application” into “activity”: enhancement of application: 1) brings notion of sharing/sociability into the open: always present; presence of others is always with you; eg. ability to share document between users, whether online or offline; 2) journal: file system that automatically saves everything you do: never have to save/back up; creating a diary/portfolio of your work; place to watch your progress, have conversation with another about your progress: importance of progress, march through time: important feature of learning; 3) transparency: no ceiling; music: network with other laptops to play music, can compose music, make own instruments
Python: language that underlies Sugar: open

[why cell phones will never replace computers: memory capacity]

example: want to change metrics inside Sugar so that kids can measure in anything, any metric they imagine

David Hilbert: 23 problems of mathematics
23 problems facing people in technology & learning:
- how to make the network work?
- make code that is malleable yet won’t lead to malware
- better tools for localization & internationalization
- power: use a scarce resource better? even if you’re using calories to crank in power, better use them intelligently
- construction in scale
- economics: correlating economic development with learning: hypothesis or fact that learning leads to economic development
- governance
(will be blogged)

—
Q&A:

Q: definition of free
A: not as in beer
comes down to appropriation: example: learn to code by copying code, breaking it down & changing it

Q: small inexpensive laptops: ie. Asus EEE
ultimately: help cause of learning via computers by making hardware more available, or hurt it by losing sight of mission of learning
A: definitely help it; $200 for laptop, versus $10,000/year on education; in developing countries: maybe $200/year on education

Q: cultural implications behind OLPC
A: one item of 23: understand culture vs. construction; constructionism: about people, about how they learn: based on Piaget’s constructivism
teacher: having more fun

Q: resistance — proprietary companies: don’t like idea of open source; how does interaction of proprietary companies and developing nations play out?
A: big social/economic battles in next few decades; people that go with open source: will do better in the long run;

Q: concern: not if enough laptops will be available in 1 week, but how many available in 5 years
A: OLPC: trying to keep the pressure on: so that industry won’t slip back; 5 affordable laptops announced in the last week
if we replace chalkboards with laptops: loss of value

Q: modern edu: these principles aren’t being taught
A: part of education: should be dirt on hands experience
lots of children, but “laptop” is part of OLPC so don’t forget that

Q: what is it that drives discussion: people, community, tools? what assumptions drive the balance and what we can do about it?
A: open source projects: rely on developers but also multiple volunteers; don’t think many are in it for the glory, but think they can make a difference

Q: people seem more willing to work on things and jump into them if they’re not shiny/new; how does design seem to enable more interest in working inside the laptop?
A: thought about it in slightly different way; skins: can replace set with more inviting images; other issue: don’t want things to break, but want people to explore: how do you make environment where you can find that balance?; instead of make it hard to break, make it easy to repair, so that people are willing to take risks and make mistakes

Tim Wu
Yochai Benkler
Terry Fisher

—

YB

1st half of 1990s: telecom networks: demanding economies of scale; if wanted competition from incumbents, needed to allow competitors to share facilities; most controversial: bundling: allow competitors to use physical infrastructure; competition: building facilities ever closer to the home; redundant networks

what would happen w/ cable?

trend 2000: toward open access; a few cable enfranchising authorities; needed to think of it as direct communications;

initial reports: what we want: shift from idea that each pipe is competitive and we need multiple competitors; AOL merger: had to offer access to at least 3 other competitors; during period: shift from competition on each wire, to competition between two wires: moving away from open access

many policies passed between 2001-2008 that need to be revised
1) why can’t we have actual competition in physical infrastructure as the main model?
2) do we need an alternative workaround infrastructure that is public?
3) should we be focused on user-owned infrastructure? (buy device, create own local thing; buy own fiber to connect to public main?)

—

TW

snapshot of where net neutrality is right now:

4 issues of network regulation:

1) payments: whether or not service providers can demand payments for delivering access to their customers
(see picture)
access fee: charge people to reach your customers (Ebay using Verizon to reach AT&T customers)
legislation: says fee can’t be charged

2) what is reasonable network management?
when can carrier delay or block or mess with connection between two parties on Internet for purposes of managing bandwidth?
unilateral approaches: not accepted

3) floating net neutrality norm that is sometimes enforced by FCC; what is form/scheme going to take?
ad hoc –if FCC sees something they’ll do something about it– system
right now: moving toward that
net neutrality: not supposed to transgress, when you do you get fined
common law development of what are acceptable/nonacceptable practices

4) Hollywood; what does Hollywood think of network neutrality? what side are the content industries on?
Hollywood: same situation that Ebay is in: studio: also has to pay?
hesitant about getting engaged with provider

this year: struggle in policy community to get allegiance of content providing community

—

TF

types of network neutrality:
content neutrality
application neutrality: bits are bits idea
sender neutrality: no discrimination between senders
toll free (tim’s #2 point): ISPs charge recipients

if we should allow discrimination:
1. discrimination is efficient
2. market should be making decisions
3. ISPs have freedom of speech rights
4. Internet: never been neutral: historical argument
5. moral argument: layer separation, truth in advertising

if curb discrimination:
1. ISPs: monopolies
2. preserve opportunities for innovation
3. major content providers will cut deals with ISPs
4. preservations of opportunities

[powerpoint graph]
content discrimination: clear
strong: sender neutrality, toll free
most strongly opposed: application neutrality

—

ETC.

options available to most consumers have diminished sharply:
- roughly 50% of consumers in the US have a choice among two broadband providers
- roughly 25% have access to only one provider
- roughly 25% don’t yet have access to any broadband providers
next few years: looking at monopoly/duopoly

• private networks should create virtual private networks, not use public Internet

• possibility of corporations paying piece of consumer fee to bring price down, and Internet companies can make up for it by advertising more, etc.

• if there is no competition, that’s fine; supposedly having a market but regulating it into a duopoly that is the problem; market or no market, choose!
• ultimately: only resource we have owned by nobody is feasible, we just haven’t built it

[11:12am] t55e: sc1olist: just noticed wiki page for the Digital Natives session
[11:12am] t55e: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/berkmanat10/Digital_Natives
[11:12am] daithi: so, where is everyone for these sessions?
…
[11:13am] alexleavitt: Digital Natives win.
…
[11:16am] daithi: digital natives is about 75% Macs!
[11:16am] sc1olist: Well, we *are* digital natives…
[11:16am] sc1olist: A discerning population, to be sure.
…
[11:16am] sc1olist: Digital connoisseurs, if you will. Ha
…
[11:30am] daithi: over in natives, Urs Gasser is explaining the context, through a discussion of layers, but after that all the action will be at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/digitalnativeberkman10
…
[11:34am] EricaG: I love the mixed IRC & twitter chat from multiple rooms at once. Makes it almost possible to go to everything :D.
…
[11:34am] sc1olist: (digital natives) Welcome to academia, everybody.
…
[11:34am] sc1olist: what’s the twitter tag tracker for berkman again?
[11:34am] dwitzel_: using the question tool in the Digital Natives session – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/digitalnativeberkman10
[11:34am] dwitzel_: #berkman
…
[11:35am] EricaG: berkmanat10 is the universal tag for everything but twitter.
…
[11:35am] EricaG: twitter tag is #berkman since it’s shorter and enables both twemes and hashtags to track
[11:35am] daithi: i’m trying to get as much down as I can at http://www.lexferenda.com/16052008/native/
…
[11:44am] jeckman: somebody in the last breakout called me an adult, by which I think he meant I was old
[11:45am] daithi: are you? Apparently the digital native cut-off point is 1980.
[11:45am] jeckman: because I was Born before the internet. Not a native by a decade, fwiw
…
[11:45am] jeckman: though I have been on the net since 1989
[11:46am] dwitzel_: jbeckman, i think you can still get a digital green card
[11:46am] jeckman: <- (digital immigrant)
…
[11:46am] dwitzel_: illegal immigrant?
[11:47am] EricaG: I’m in the cusp. Most people won’t claim me in GenX, but I’m a coupe years older than the official “digital native.” [1978]
…
[11:51am] fonchik: naturalized digital citizens?
…
[11:52am] daithi: John Palfrey wonders whether classrooms should be wired/online during class. What do ye think?
…
[11:53am] jeckman: @jessamyn Which means technically I was born before the internet (1970)
[11:54am] jeckman: And yes, classrooms should be wired during class
…
[11:54am] sc1olist: (digital natives) So far, no mention of it being useful in class to find context to what’s happening/discussed. Or that people take notes on laptops.
[11:55am] daithi: or IRC it
[11:55am] saraw1: exactly. i don’t know why professors are so threatened by it.
[11:55am] ltsui: connectivity is great for looking up things in wikipedia during class
[11:55am] saraw1: besides, what constitutes participation? Can you participate without talking? I think yes
[11:55am] sc1olist: @ltsui Exactly. ESSENTIAL in history, particularly at the graduate level.
…
[11:56am] EricaG: jassamyn, it’s so time for revolt. these aren’t supposed to be lectures.
[11:56am] jessamyn: speaking of IRCing it, does anyone have a link for THIS Scott MCloud (do I have that right?)? I keep finding the cartoonist
[11:56am] dwitzel_: shouldn’t your twitter feed count for “participation”
[11:56am] saraw1: i was in school before we had any computers in the classroom. i knew then how to feign participation/interest
[11:56am] saraw1: dwetzel-I should say so!!!!
[11:57am] jessamyn: I am trapped by my own politeness
[11:57am] fonchik: I came to college with an electric typewriter
[11:57am] saraw1: the computer has nothing to do with whether you are participating or not, nor BTW does speaking in class
…
[11:58am] sc1olist: @saraw1: I disagree on the latter, but the former is quite true. In fact, it often helps give people the confidence to talk.
…
[11:58am] alexleavitt: I don’t see why IRC shouldn’t be implemented in classroom, or at least seminar, discussion
…
[11:59am] saraw1: why does speaking in class count as participation while being silently involved does not? it’s discrimination against introverts
[11:59am] alexleavitt: http://alexleavitt.com/2008/05/16/berkman10-irc-and-the-dialogue-of-education/
[11:59am] saraw1: besides, note that there is such a thing as saying something just to say it. e.g. content-free participation
…
[12:00pm] alexleavitt: most of my English teachers have counted class participation simply through attendance; class participation grades just seem to be part of the old system that needs to change
[12:00pm] daithi: @sara: it can raise interesting gender/class/social/ethnic/disability issues too, i.e. multiple options for participation can be an anti-exclusion device
[12:00pm] sc1olist: @saraw1: It’s not that it doesn’t, it’s that it’s an important part of the training that school provides–the confidence to vocalize opinions and defend them. THere’s an argument to be made for it, that’s all. Don’t completely disagree with you.
[12:00pm] saraw1: absolutely.
[12:01pm] sc1olist: @saraw1: BTW, it’s discriminatory to teach math to people who are inherently worse at quantitative methodlogy?
[12:01pm] EricaG: it’s annoying that participation measurement favors people who speak before they think over people who save their thoughts & produce analysis later, or wait to speak til they have something new or useful to say
[12:01pm] jessamyn: I have a general feeling that we measure the wrong things, in libraries this happens, no suprise in education too
[12:01pm] sc1olist: @EricaG: Yes and no. I think we don’t give professors enough credit for suggesting participation is simply quantity.
[12:01pm] saraw1: No, it is that the definition of what constitutes participation is too narrow and variable
[12:01pm] ltsui: ericag: isn’t that why we also have response papers, final papers, exams etc? i can imagine blogging (live or not) also being part of participation.
…
[12:02pm] saraw1: it’s not objective—and i don’t know that there is any correlation between someone’s arbitrary definition of participation and learning–which is, after all, the point of education
[12:02pm] EricaG: @sc1olist I remember being in classes where the number of times you spoke up was part of your participation grade, or where you could only actually get a chance to speak if you raised your hand ridiculously early
…
[12:02pm] alexleavitt: so, are we going to define participation by who writes in a collaborative Google doc?
…
[12:03pm] sc1olist: @EricaG: Yeah, that’s insane. And not productive for learning.
…
[12:04pm] saraw1: no, until it can be shown to be objectively assessed in a fair, consistent way—and until it can be shown to have any correlation w/educational outcomes, it is not worth grading
…
[12:04pm] sc1olist: @saraw1: And the same goes for paper grading? Becuase that can’t be done in a fully objective way.
…
[12:05pm] ltsui: saraw1: i do think learning to speak in public (incl classroom) should be part of an education
[12:05pm] sc1olist: @saraw1: Do you really believe that one’s ability to defend their ideas verbally is not correlated to educational outcome, or, in another word, IS itself an outcome (since it’s so directly useful in life almost regardless of the field?)
[12:06pm] alexleavitt: @Itsui: I entirely disagree. Public speaking should be a requirement in every educational institution.
[12:06pm] sc1olist: @alex: agreed.
[12:06pm] alexleavitt: @myself: don’t add in “not”s to people’s comments
[12:06pm] fonchik: Could someone in the Digital Natives session explain this discussion (someone just tweeted it) “teaching with twitter rocks”
[12:06pm] saraw1: you are reading my objection to participation grades way, way too broadly and btw discrediting the point i am trying to make by way of hyperbole
[12:07pm] ltsui: @alexleavitt: i was saying learning to speak publicly is necessary. i dont think we are disagreeing
[12:07pm] alexleavitt: @fonchik: We’re talking about using laptops in classrooms.
…
[12:07pm] EricaG: i agree people need to learn how to defend their ideas and speak confidently and extemporaneously. but that can be done by having people make presnetations and take questions, having debates, etc. rather than trying to pretend you’re measuring it quantitatively
[12:07pm] daithi: Someone said that they were encouraging students to use twitter in class, and JohnPalfrey asked who else did, and there was some murmurs
…
[12:07pm] alexleavitt: @Itsui. Re: alexleavitt: @myself
[12:07pm] saraw1: learning to speak in public and learning per se are two different things
[12:07pm] fonchik: @daithi thanks!
[12:08pm] sc1olist: @saraw: basically, the question is if we’re teaching knowledge in some existential sense, which I think is what you’re getting at with “learning” (correct me if I’m wrong) or useful skills that could be tought (learned) in school.
[12:08pm] alexleavitt: The interesting thing about using twitter during some type of lecture is that with the limitation of input, the results usually end up highlighting important, favorite, or interesting quotations (just look at the Berkman twitter feed)
[12:10pm] alexleavitt: BTW, for anyone inside or outside the Digital Natives discussion, this YouTube video is a must watch: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o (A Vision of Students Today, Michael Wesch, Kentucky State University)
[12:10pm] saraw1: i want to go back to daithi’s comments about gender/race/native language/cultural differences re-comfort w/public speaking.
…
[12:10pm] daithi: si?
[12:11pm] sc1olist: @digitalnatives talk: How is having one’s head buried in a laptop different from in a notebook? Aren’t the people who have their heads buried in laptops simple the close notetakers of the present? Same typology.
…
[12:11pm] fonchik: @ericag is this IRC getting archived somewhere somehow?
[12:11pm] saraw1: with which i completely agree. btw, I have no trouble speaking up when i have something to say.
[12:11pm] EricaG: No
[12:11pm] alexleavitt: This discussion will be copypasta-ed to my blog.
[12:11pm] • MooingLemur can provide a log.
[12:11pm] EricaG: cool
[12:11pm] daithi: i’ll give a bit more context on what i meant, look for example about the debate on dyslexia and separating out core learning outcomes (and tapering assessment to the outcomes)
[12:12pm] daithi: to avoid assessing something that’s not part of the outcomes
…
[12:12pm] saraw1: but I do have a child who is brilliant but very shy. she gets 100%’s on most of her exams, knows the material cold, but gets b’s and c’s for not speaking up enough
[12:12pm] daithi: for class participation, the pedagogical question is what are you trying to communicate and measure
[12:12pm] alexleavitt: webuse.org/papers
[12:13pm] saraw1: exactly (daithi)
…
[12:14pm] saraw1: but, because she is shy, she gets b’s and c’s for not speaking enough. oh, btw, i would love to see a study measuring how often teachers called on kids with different demographic characteristics
…
[12:15pm] dwitzel_: i have save a sizeable chunk of the IRC. can share somewhere
[12:15pm] sc1olist: me2
…
[12:18pm] daithi: Palfrey (DigitalNatives) recommends the MacArthur/MIT Press series on digital media and learning
[12:19pm] daithi: the link is http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/browse.asp?btype=6&serid=170, on screen in the classroom
…
[12:23pm] dwitzel_: who is talking?
[12:23pm] dwitzel_: what university?
[12:24pm] dwitzel_: thx @alex
[12:24pm] dwitzel_: sorry — who is talking in digital natives breakout
[12:25pm] daithi: http://www.fir.unisg.ch/org/fir/web.nsf/c2d5250e0954edd3c12568e40027f306/fe9db20511dda0edc1256ae1002c64ff!OpenDocument
[12:25pm] daithi: Herbert Burkert (also http://www.herbert-burkert.net)

FROM WORDPRESS TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
with Christian Lander of
Stuff White People Like
Saturday 26 April 2008, 1:30 pm

Dude, how STUFF WHITE PEOPLE LIKE went from just another blog to over 20 million page views in 3 months. What happened?

——
Christian’s introduction follows.
——
Christian apologized for being a white privileged male.

“Stuff White People Like” was started and the first post published on January 18th of 2008. It is his second blog. His first blog revolved around rating video games which he received for free, starting with NCAA Football 2007 for the X-Box.

The site started when he and his friend Myles were watching The Wire. Myles said that he didn’t trust white people who didn’t watch The Wire. They thought, What about the white people that aren’t watching The Wire? What are they up to? The duo kept listing things and thought it was funny.

Christian went online, typed in and registered the URL at WordPress, and started writing. He only expected it to be read by Myles and maybe two or three friends in Toronto, their hometown.

Nine or ten posts later, Christian’s friend Shawn needed to find a project for a book design layout. The two decided that Christian would set a goal of fifty posts, after which they would put the entries into a book and self-publish in Victoria for the project. To reach that goal, Christian wrote quickly. Traffic started to pick up, reaching maybe 300 hits in one day. Once the website was forwarded to more friends, Christian received up to 1000 hits per day.

Christian heard that a friend had received up to $34 a month using Google ads on his blog. You can’t use these ads on an ordinary WordPress blog, so Christian bought a domain and hosting and then proceeded to install everything on the WordPress server. He registered a .com and .org (because white people as an organization is funny) and added the Google ads, expecting to receive about $40 per month in revenue.

Christian said that as soon as the URL changed from ~.wordpress.com to a regular .com address, the site went from 1000 to over 30,000 hits in one day. The traffic bogged down the website and it went down. People emailed Christian wondering when his blog would be back online (they kept reading his WordPress blog, which was still up).

Talking to the web hosts, Christian figured out that it would be too much money to host independently (and he hadn’t even received his first check from Google!). He decided to move the blog back to WordPress, which would handle the traffic. Apparently, the spike in traffic flow was caused by Comedy Central and Good Magazine (Al Gore’s son’s blog for his magazine) linking to Christian’s website on the same day it was registered.

Once more people heard about Stuff White People Like, more media got hold of the hype. When post #34 (about NPR) was published, NPR interviewed Christian (he biked to the studio). After the website’s publicity on the radio station, SWPL got even more hits.

SWPL was featured in the New York Magazine approval matrix, where it was marked as “low-brow” and “brilliant.” The LA Times and other newspapers picked up the show, as did radio shows. By then, Christian was still working full time.

The media wasn’t behind all of the hype. As people started mentioning that the site read like a book, the idea of publishing one started to mature. Christian said that LOLcats, though funny, would not make a simple transition from the Web to a book. Eventually, WSPL got enough attention that Christian hired a literary agent and there’s a book deal for a publication release this July.

After the news about the book deal was made public, the backlash arrived. Christian said he hates negative responses, which he received from New Republic, Slate.com, and Gawker. He mentioned it is strange being attacked, because the popularity was completely unexpected. He referred to Friday’s LOLcat panel, where it was said that digital authors have to ignore the hatemail, which can be tough. Christian found more dissenters in the comments section of his blog.

He stated that the problem with racism originated from the horrible comments, which were then attributed to the content of the blog. He said that the same thing happens on YouTube, where in just ten posts hateful arguments can easily crop up.

Regarding the website’s statistics, Christian said that it took only thirty days to reach 1 million page views, and then only thirty-three days total (three days later) to reach 2 million page views. Now, the website has received up to 24 million hits in three months. Christian has been able to leave his job (he gets enough money from Google) to pursue the completion of the book.

——
The Q&A session with the audience follows.
——

Q: What is your biographical information? It’s not clear that you are white.

A: I am. One reader wrote four pages about how he thought I might be Asian. A T-shirt I wore in a picture featured on the website conjured thoughts of me being Jewish. I was born and raised in Toronto, and graduated from McGill University. I tried freelance writing in Montreal, then went to graduate school at the University of Arizona for film. I attempted academic writing and a PhD program at Indiana University, but really hated it after two years, so I moved to Los Angeles for an industry job.

Q: How much of the site describes the generic white person, and how much describes you yourself?

A: Almost all of the website describes me. It’s hard to fix on how pretentious I really am, such as how much I really talk about biking in real life. I think that the post about outdoor gear is least like me.

Q: There are many different ways to be white, so do you think that SWPL is focused on any subgroup of white people, or multiple groups?

A: It’s easy to tell this is some group. Today people are trying to find a term to describe the current generation of 25 to 35 year olds. Society needs a new “yuppie” term. What I’m writing about is in the same mentality, that there is a subset of white people who are left-leaning and want to be patted on the back for it.

Q: What would someone who is white and super poor say about the website?

A: Squidbillies is one of my favorite shows. I have received positive feedback from conservatives, who think that SWPL has done a good job poking fun at those people who poked fun at conservatives.

Q: What do you think of the derivatives of your blog? Are they accurate?

A: The ones I’m aware of are “Stuff x People Like”: Asian, educated Black, White parents, gay, Hill, dirtbags, White trash, gay parents, Mexicans. His favorite is “White Stuff People Like,” such as flour, sugar, or drywall. When I started SWPL, I considered it would be hilarious if there were spinoff sites. Like LOLcats, I have to let all of the bad responses go. A lot of the spinoffs are not very funny, because they simply try to catalogue items and it doesn’t come off well. As long as SWPL isn’t directly attached to the spinoffs, then I am fine with them.

Q: A lot of people who read the blog think they’re being made fun of. Why do people like that? Is it unique to white people to enjoy being made fun of?

A: “How many derogatory terms for white people do you know of?” Cracker and honkey are examples, but the response is humored. The key is to not be purposefully hurtful; I have not meant to insight any racial hatred. It’s OK if you can enjoy it. Poking fun at stuff I believe, like about a dumb bicycle, in a non-hurtful or non-demeaning way is fine.

Q: The website has persistent fame that keeps coming back, without people passing around the URL and forgetting about it. How much is attributed to a specific angle or topic, and how much is attributed to the initial push to put content up really quickly?

A: I never thought it’d be big. The one thing that amazed me was how many people feel they’re being described. Most people live being told to think that you’re unique. Writing about that ideal, it was amazing to see how many people are really exactly the same, in spite of also being “unique.”

Q: Would that change if the blog had been written at a normal pace?

A: I’m not really sure.

Q: To leave the horrible comments section in… is there a benefit to having comments enabled?

A: Yes, a comment that a guy made about in my Prius post. I like to give people the chance to participate and talk to each other. Everyone needs a form and a place to write somewhere.

Q: What is the number one thing white people like?

A: Barack Obama.

Q: ROFLcon has been about the relationships between big media and Internet media and their conflict and collaboration. What is your opinion of the alternate media and how it works versus digital media like blogging? Will changing to the other media (ie. the SWPL book) affect the site?

A: In terms of big media, I always wanted to be a journalist. I did internships with radio, magazines, and newspapers, and was always impressed at how big media moved so quickly. With NPR, the show had me interviewed really soon. For Wired and Comedy Central, they try to be on the cutting edge and move quicker than expected. They are listening and paying attention. The book has changed the writing for the site because there’s more being written for the book.

Q: What is your view of alternate media? Where do white people go to get new media?

A: The site that sent the most people to SWPL was Stumble Upon. Another was the blog for the Atlantic by Andrew Sullivan. The section called White People in the News got traffic from the New York Times.

Q: A lot of posts that come up are about white racism. Is there a guilt about that racism, because it’s not on purpose? What do you think about the backlash against it, that white people are being outed as racist?

A: White guilt is a large focus of the website.

Q: The comments on racism are about white people not changing it. Is there backlash from people seeing they’re “racist” and not wanting to be?

A: Most of the backlash hasn’t really been about racial stuff, which is really interesting considering what the site is. The interesting question about race is that I think a lot of people don’t know what to do about it. People believe that if they eat in the right restaurants and give to the right causes, that they’re doing the right thing. Blackpeopleloveus.com is a great site at pointing those things out.

Q: The friend at EA (Myles) who co-conceived the site…

A: He wrote six posts.

Q: How much was he involved?

A: He wrote some content in the book. His writing style is different: more anger and hatred is portrayed.

Q: The focus seems to be communities on the Internet. Where do you live on the Internet? Where do you frequent?

A: Digg and Facebook. The Facebook group for the website got a whole bunch of members. For Wikipedia, Myles and I tried to update the page to link to their profiles, but there were problems. Some nerdy forms of entertainment from my childhood were video games.

Q: Have you been contacted by anyone else to hear more?

A: A few people. SWPL would make a good mockumentary, but it wouldn’t translate well to a film like the story behind One Red Paper Clip.

Q: Race was a big issue at the keynote yesterday, but white people are a big group. How can you subdivide race? Is there a class issue here? You said earlier you were “privileged.”

A: It’s entirely about class, and that’s pretty much obvious whether or not it’s stated. For a long time, white people wanted to believe they were classified as working class or really rich WASPS. The class issue is about the second generation of upper middle class whites, and the growing gap between the upper and the lower middle class. It’s mainstream that a lot of stuff about opportunities and privileges belong to the upper middle class. A belief is that whites can do whatever they want, that being white is not a luxury that everyone has. Being upper class comes with the freedom to do what you want without having to seriously worry about money, to know that you always have a safety net there. It’s really all about freedom.

Q: Is the website changing anything, or just entertaining people, to get people to look at themselves and reconsider their behavior?

A: I don’t want people to actually change, but I don’t like things the way they are. When it’s wrapped up in humor, it’s easier to talk about race. With the election as it is, it’s also an interesting time to discuss race. People are talking about it because of the website. In academic life, people do a lot of talking and not a lot of doing. My only goal was to produce a lot of laughing.

Q: What are the differences between white Canadians and white Americans?

A: White left-leaning Canadians are exactly the same in every single way. Americans, though, pronounce the last latter of the alphabet wrong (it’s “zed”). “English” is the name of the language, so if there’s a dispute, the experts of the language are in England. Also, a wool hat is never a beanie (they have propellers) but a “took.”

Q: Now that you’re moving from the blog to a book, is there any different way you think about writing?

A: The main difference is linking, because you simply can’t do that in a book. In his post on dogs, I mentioned a few things and linked to other funny websites. With the book, that comic element is removed. However, the site is written in a serialized book format, so it is not unique to the book.

Q: What is the usefulness of the comments section? What constitutes selling out? Since it was intended just for you at first, is there a point where you were trying to pull in an audience with certain topics rather than just write things?

A: No, I didn’t want to write to get more people reading, because that would be more controversial. Anything written has to be funny to me first. Referring to Jay, the Tron Guy, when you can detect if someone is trying to do something to be famous, then it becomes really obvious and unenjoyable to watch or read. My stance has never changed, even when a reader sent in a margarita machine in hopes that I would write a post about it.

Q: Regarding the editorial process, have you ever had to go back and reconsider if what you wrote was true?

A: It hasn’t happened yet. But white people like grammar so much that in fifteen minutes I will receive emails full of corrections to grammar and punctuation.

Q: Based on the critiques, how do you respond to very negative comments? For example, do you serve up softball questions or use metaquestions? Do critics misunderstand the website? How do you address these people when they say you’re going easy on Whites?

A: I don’t want to hear the word “meta” again, since I heard it too much in graduate English classes. For the critics, it’s strange when I create something that means another thing to other people. It’s implied that the writer needs to have responsibility. For me, that responsibility is to be funny to myself. It can be tough to do that, but I just can’t listen to the haters.

Q: What is the whitest part of LA?

A: Santa Monica. I can’t stand it.

Q: What’s your favorite meme?

A: LOLcats. I love them because they always make me laugh.

Q: How did you decide to write in the style you did? Could you change it?

A: I wish I had thought it out more at the beginning. I considered the funniest way to go about writing it, then just started composing, and everything grew on its own. I don’t remember making a conscious decision. It’s funny how it all worked out. The strange little decisions are the ones that make the big impacts.

Q: Do you ever think you’ll run out of things to write about?

A: No, but I might. Organic bakeries are opening up all the time. Boston has provided a lot of good ideas.

Q: Why do white people like the things they like?

A: “That’s a deep question…”

Q: “Why do I like the same things that you like?”

A: I don’t have an answer and wish I had a clearer understanding. When I answer the question of what is funny, then everything is answered. I’m not there yet, but I’m close.

Q: Has the website turned into more of a job with a planned out schedule? Or is it still just made of ideas that pop up? Has SWPL become your new job?

A: There’s a very tight deadline for finishing the book, so the real focus at the moment is getting that done. I don’t view the site as regularly scheduled like the others. Everything’s done by me and put up when I’m ready and when I think it’s funny. There will always be tons of new content for LOLcats, but SWPL won’t be around forever.

I continue to wonder now whether or not documenting lectures in this way imitates some sort of plagiarism, or bluntly is a pen-and-paper piracy. I don’t open and close my lecture notes with quotation marks, nor have I ever written the date, time, and name of the presenter as an excuse for a citation.

Recently, when I have attended lectures relevant to the content on my blog, I’ve lugged my laptop to the event and furiously banged out notes via keyboard. In the past few posts, I’ve simply copy and pasted the sketchy outlines directly from my text editor, sans paraphrasing or formatting. However, I doubt many, if not all, members of my audience cannot extract even a basic meaning from these digital (fingers, not technology) excreta. They’re in my own note-taking language, so I don’t blame anyone.

But how do I reformat the notes and then publish them? As I mentioned before, most of the notes I take are fairly verbatim from the presentation. If I translate from notes to prose, and I feel the need to write in a style that includes the first person (“I”), does such a strategy not only plagiarize but also possibly infer misquotations? I decided to call the results of my note-taking methods “notescriptions,” a bastardization of “note” and “transcription” (the latter used because I am sooo close to transcribing word-for-word). So, from a journalistic perspective, I can only hope that no reader will attack me for transcribing, paraphrasing, or simply “notescribing.” I do not intend to misquote in the least. Yet if a reader considers my published notes an attempt at literal faithfulness, then I’ll certainly feel the blow. I recently finished listening to a podcast from MIT’s Communications Forum of a lecture entitled The Emergence of Citizens’ Media, in which one speaker, commenting on the aspiration of newspapers to remain ahead of digital journalism, stated that print journalism must strive not for the truth, but for accuracy. Certainly, as a blogger (read: journalist), I must endeavor for precision. But I’m not recording audio. I’m not video taping. I publish my notes so that people can gain a better sense of the event I attended, the lecture that I sat in on, the generalities of the debate that I am trying to discuss in any of my blogged articles.

My point in direct terms:
I will publish my notes (or, “notescriptions”). They will contain a significant amount of verbatim language. Please do not view the notes as complete and literal transcriptions, nor quote from them as such. Please do regard them as comprehensive (though not perfect) window into a lecture (or any other event) you may have not attended.

In terms of this post… I took more extensive notes at the event and will post them below. At the moment, I’m still ambivalent over the issue of liveblogging. I recently came across some liveblogging over on a post on Sam Jackson’s blog (about the college admissions process and his experiences at Yale), and I am still irritated with the compositional style. For now, I’ll be “note-ing,” I suppose. And by that, I mean I’ll simply copy and paste my unformatted, transcribed notes, unedited from the time written. I suppose it would be easier on you readers if I were to organize my note structure so that you could derive the maximal message from these briskly-typed words and erratic punctuation. If I agree with myself in the near future, I will. For now, my notes…

Notes from “RIAA Presentation w/Q&A” at Boston University

(G) Mitch Glazier – Executive Vice President, Government and Industry Relations
(L) Jonathan Lamy – Senior Vice President, Communications
(P) a professor at the College of Communications (whose name I didn’t record)
(Q) questions from the audience

G: music industry: in place in history of great transition: have to implement enforcement program against individuals (unexpected, didn’t ‘want’ to do it); position: if have to do it, done in way that’s fair/effective

worked on: judiciary committee: has jurisdiction over intellectual property issues; about same time: Napster commercialized; misimpression: enforcement is what we do; 3-5% of time spent on enforcement;

RIAA: tradegroup: represents major record companies and labels; federal/state/artist/industry relations; only a few artists make the money that people associate with top artists; creators: make little money, rights they have to make this amount: important; advocating for those rights: then becomes important
also run Gold/Platinum Record program
on lobbying side: tradework: to make sure artists have access in new markets, work against piracy of American products abroad

L: job: put happy face on unpleasant task; how we got to where we are today in terms of lawsuits: we didn’t want to do it, reluctant: came to point 2002/04: industry had lost 1/3 of revenue, had to lay off thousands of people; pursued Napster/Kazaa, some success: piracy still prevalent; penetrated public consciousness
also: educate: younger kids; try to offer music in legal ways: 3-4 years ago: crit: industry: not moving fast enough; now: untrue; marketplace will only work if distanced from methods to get music for free;

G: record company: used to be marketing/distribution company; now: not distribution company (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft); record companies: good news: more people innovating, RIAA: can only license them to do it; licensing: can’t control it; biggest complaints: not against music or record companies; used to be: intellectual property: used to be niche piece of law, now: comm/IP law: blended together; business models that work in legal standpoint: must be created
in standpoint: must find new business models while keeping law
effects of lumpy period: lawsuits

Q: why aren’t going after companies (ie. Kazaa) instead of individuals:

L: we are: lawsuit against Napster: successful; Kazaa: settled; Grokster: went to Supreme Court in 2006: court ruled in RIAA favor: BearShare/eDonkey, etc: worked out deals; lawsuit: pending for Limewire;
answers: 1) it is preference for what want to do

G: users: who are actually stealing; right/wrong: based in individuals; pulling down estimated $10 mill/month; users: benefitting as time goes on; going after services: absolutely necessary: but not going to solve problem by itself
any other industry in US: if had lost 1/3 industry in 5 year period: would have been widespread panic

Q: fair/efffective/reasonable: damages: can exceed $750/song; legitimate purchases of media: when downloaded: not intentional act; fair to be punishing them? tendency of individual to share; where is the incentive for the RIAA to seek a new business model; overall question: why make media?

L: not money making exercise: lose money in lawsuits; how to manage program w/ effective deterents but with sense of reasonableness about it; allow people to settle; up to $4/5k if case goes far; minimum under law: $750 per infringement: will use that amount even if user has thousands of songs;

G: do want deterrents; this IS theft: we and artists view this as theft; coming up w/ reasonable way to enforce: kind of anomaly; have to respect fact that people are in certain income bracket/demographic; when RIAA goes looking on public networks: don’t know who person is, just have number; if have lawsuit: against number; may know if at university or organization or commercial organization (.uni, .org, .com); don’t know who in household could download it, just IP at a computer;
tactic: send letters to universities before have to deal with IP addresses: to settle before we have to approach you directly

Q: don’t always specify damages: $220,000 situated by jury in Jamie ~ case

L: RIAA: didn’t ask for specific amount, left it up to the jurors

G: watch interviews w/ jurors

Q: jurors didn’t just come up with a number

L: judge gave them range under law, jury decided based on variety factors

P: bad experience with jury duty: don’t entrust your case to a court jury

Q: look at statistics for piracy; bulk: occurs overseas; what is RIAA doing to pursue these interests?; why haven’t seen same sort of enforcement in sp. China?

G: time spent in China; IFPI in London: part of big national group; ARIA: RIAA equivalent in Asia; spend so much time through lobbying and trade pressure: to put intellectual property provisions in government

L: RIAA/U.S. just sued China, we’re threatened trade sanctions; China: focused on image; huge: censorship issues; dealing with market where only 2% of artists can be shown; benefit of US: intellectual property engine: produce most information that people want; problem: rest of the world: the user, US: the owner; short-term: when trying to bolster economy: doing it on counterfeiting: works; long-term: will fail

Q: lawsuits: not moneymaking exercise; do you make money off of lawsuits, where does money go?

L: back into program

Q: not given back to artists

G: doesn’t even pay for program

Q: large sums of money made/lost: whatever profit goes back into simply RIAA or record labels

L: not profit, helps pay for program, doesn’t cover cost of program

G: program: not self funded; RIAA: subsidizes the program

Q: how do companies generate revenue? ie. Limewire

G: changed business model; a lot of people pay Limewire $29 for use of limewire client with no advertising; used to sell upgraded version: no advertising, no software client (aka spyware client); spyware: bugs, privacy issues, also responsible for crashing computers; Limewire: new business decision: instead of making money simply through advertising, switched to offering ad-free version for a fee; millions: pay $29 to exchange files w/ other people w/o burden of advertising; now how they mostly make their money; past: banners, spyware, & alternate version; now: from $29 program

Q: give us timeline of how to find someone illegally downloading, send out notification, when it gets to person, when people go to court

L: daily basis: online investigative team: anonymous sweep: can’t target any university or particular person; once evidence is collected: ie user uploading # of songs: after weeks: new wave of prelawsuit letters: will be included in that wave; entity: will show IP: letters sent to IT person at university: forwarded on to student or faculty: given 20 days to contact RIAA and hopefully resolve problem: from when letter is sent (not received); encourage university to forward letters: why deprive student opportunity to settle?; if not heard from, RIAA goes on john doe front: look at IP, try to subpoena university to find person’s identity; if letter is still ignored: will file named complaint: filed in federal court that says you’re sued;

Q: when would the settlement be off the table?

L: original settlement: 20 days to contact; after next letter: original settlement is off the table; costs more money to go to court

Q: why 20 day period?

G: have to pick period: talked to universities: what’s process, how long is reasonable to be forwarded

Q: IT guy: student doesn’t even start clock; time period in past: 30 days starts after student gets letters; BU needs time to
last set of letters: came with 20 day period w/ no explanation; wanted to push back to 30 days: needed time to find student, contact parents/lawyer, etc; can time period change back to 30? because once period is gone, settlement is off the table; w/ short window: doesn’t give student enough time to consider settling
how long does it take at BU? — goes through IT, general council office, dean of students office (who sends out actual letters); students receive letters; emails/phone calls exchanged for technical & legal questions; BU: tries to do it as fast as possible; 2-4 days before student even hears

L: wants contact information for BU IT guy

Q: “worst company”; angered people; lost fans for musicians; what is endgame? where will you be in 10 years?

G: multiply new marketing strategies & business models by 10 or 100: so many new ways to approach situation; endgame: business models that come from consumer demand, that match technological capabilities that mirror those available in the market; working with licensing & distribution partners: necessary;

L: before began litigation: P2P traffic: growing; now: flatter: partly reflection of RIAA’s action; now: public awareness of what you can/can’t do; legal marketplace: grown: 2/3 years ago: revenue streams: zero, now: 25%; legal marketplace: given footing to succeed; had nothing happened: P2P piracy: more significant; people: not buying based on perception of RIAA

Q: detection methods: not stated by partners

G: how to discover violations: P2P open network: advertising infringement to rest of world; would they explicitly state their methods? crawler technologies;

Q: education: most people not education about copyright law, even lawyers: not educated; how will consumer know if website is properly licensed? how many people know how to share their songs, etc legally?

G: P2P: legal technology; not that itself, but if you’re abusing technology to achieve end; media & even academic articles: question: whether or not business model of these companies: “legal”? surveys done by RIAA: people said: looks like it was legitimate; general confusion about if OK to take files/someone else’s work; consumers: duped; [section 106/107 of copyright act]

P: question of whether P2P was legal: debate: substantial non-infringing use? judges: 3 said yes, 3 said no, 3 said maybe;

L: no dispute over law that is clear; we’re enforcing our rights based on law; what we’re bringing lawsuits about is clear-cut: pure old copyright law; no court: has rejected any cases

G: 1995: intellectual property treaties; US: signed onto treaty: demand that countries signed: making available right; US: took pronounced position: don’t need to amend laws because have already right of publication; publication/distribution: synonymous?

Q: clarification: how you determine if you were actually infringing; ie. wireless routers; UMG v. Lindor

L: not interested in suing someone not liable for their actions; want to determine actual infringer

G: also don’t want to provide game map for beating the system; ultimately: important to enforce rights against the correct person

Q: digital marketplace correcting itself; cooperation with users; DRM & the future of linking to music

G: most of linked sites now: licensed sites; future of digital marketplace: will exist of many sites/services by small innovators and others who achieve licensing & who work to distribute with creators in an official way;
record companies: own the copyrights
notice of takedown: website or service is free from liability, until receive notice: then lose immunity & can be taken down for liability

Because of academic and extracurricular duties though, I had to skip out on all of the events Friday and Sunday (and, to be honest, Saturday morning, because I overslept). However, I did attend two very interesting panels on 1) Chinese religion versus secularization, and 2) comic and animation culture in Asia, presented by Professor John Lent. I was drawn to Lent presentation and it proved to be worthwhile. He went over a broad range of animation and its history in Asia, surprisingly with little inclusion of Japanese animation, instead focusing more on Western, Central, and Southern Asian comics.

I really want to the conference next year and dedicate a good amount of my time toward… being present. I think I’ll also try to prepare two white papers, because a lot of students presented small talks, panels, and discussion seminars based on personal research.

Last Thursday (10 April), I biked myself breathless after work over to MIT’s Bartos Theater to attend a panel discussion, hosted by the MIT Communications Forum, between Yochai Benkler and Cass Sunstein (heralded also by Henry Jenkins) entitled Our World Digitized: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The talk focused mainly on the positive and negative consequences of the digital age when global and communal populations converge in Web 2.0.

I really liked the panel, although it began with a very philosophically-styled debate between Benkler and Sunstein. Also, the former is much more suited to talk to an audience (sorry, Sunstein, but you’re such a lawyer, and hence sound like one). Sunstein seemed to focus more on the “bad” and Benkler the “good,” but both agreed on the positive connectivity present in the WIkipedia system. The main concern, said Sunstein, will be group polarization: a clustering of like-minded individuals that will further a predisposition or agenda (eg. Democrats and, say, pro-choice) so much so that it becomes violent and harmful. However, both agreed that the Internet will run its course based around two schemes: clustering and, the virtue, curiosity.

At both events, I dragged along my clunky PowerBook G4 to take notes (I might add quickly that most of Mac laptop users at both events were using the modernized MacBooks and it makes me a bit envious). Instead of notes, though, I considered liveblogging both events.

Liveblogging basically means to type and publish during the event. From what I’ve read, the purpose has been to beat other journalists to the digital press. The blogger does not simply play the role of transcriber, but should feel free to comment on subtleties of the event (eg. the speaker walking up to the podium) and to include an immediate subjective analysis.

I want to highlight the key word in my description of “liveblogging”: immediate. Again, the purpose appears to be to publish an account of the event as soon as possible, to gain the most attention from the reading audience. However, many nuisances crop up in relation to liveblogging’s immediate nature.

I believe the first difficulty to approach is how to define the relationship of journalism, or the role that journalism plays, to the general public. The blogger’s primary concern is one of objectivism. The journalist acts as intermediary between the incident and the audience, and at most times provides an objective reaction in layman’s terms. Basically, the journalist recounts to the public, word for word (or, that is the ideal situation). However, the journalist should strive for objectivism, to allow for his or her audience to overlay reaction, opinion, and subjectivism on its own.

I don’t think that liveblogging satisfies the necessity of objectivism. Blogging, inherently, consists of some element of the subjective. Ultimately, opinion and reaction fuel what is known as the Web’s blogosphere, to create a continual dialogue amongst users. Also, the second by second time limited environments in which these writers work do not allow for any sort of instantaneous judgments. Liveblogging eliminates the need to step back from the event, consider the content, and proceed to analyze.

Where does that leave me? For one, I had no need to beat anyone to the chase; so, really, what was the point of liveblogging? Essentially I just took notes, plain and simple. An interesting experiment: noteblogging. No grammatical priorities, no authorial input. Only what the writer took away from the event.

Well, I definitely take exhaustive notes. I’ll post both events’ at the conclusion of this post. But in conclusion: liveblogging is fairly worthless. I’ve read a few over the past week and honestly the sacrifice of style to make a deadline isn’t worth it.

Print & Film Cartoons: Nearing the Vanguard of East Asian Popular Culture
John Lent

International Journal of Comic Art

Q: why should animation & comics be studied academically?

Comics: ‘national book’ Philippines (komiks)

Jap manga: selling in billions every year; why do we have audiences for these media?

Stereotype; academic snobbery to not study comic/animation media

Trends seen in Asian comics/animation in last 20 years

Japan: 1.5/2 billion comic books sold; 45% of printed material in country
dozens of magazine prints that circulate 1 million copies / week

comics/animation: as economic export

Japanese comics: moving into Taiwan/Korea 30/40 years ago, pirated versions

Reaction against Japanese comics abroad
Cartoonists: quit drawing because of double standard: National Compilation and Translation Institute; gov’t (ie. censorship): letting in Japanese comics, clamping down on Taiwanese comics
Origami Fighters: artists: claimed not influenced by manga: not violent enough, no nudity/sex

South Korea: censorship of Jap comics; Jap cultural products banned from S.K.
1992: interviewed head of ethics commission: how can you censor something that’s not supposed to be here in the first place?
Jap manga: republished by local publishers: anything that identified ~ as Japanese: removed/edited (ie. Japanese –> Korean background)
1994: group campaigning against Japanese comic books; upset: Jap comics have such influence in their country; influence = taking away from Korean market;

Korean comics: hard to see difference between Jap/Korean comic books
characters in Korean comics: softer, more emotional (Westerner wouldn’t pick up on ~)

Hong Kong comic book industry: thriving in ’90s

Japanese comics: impact on SE Asia:
too many people look at negative side of influence
Jap comics: revived comic book industry
US: comic book industry in trouble
influx of Jap comics: helped revive it
modern: everyone drawing everything in same style, same content

Indonesia: reasons why own comics didn’t do well: economics (cheaper to import Jap comics than create own, local comic had very narrow repetoire while Jap comics covered so many stories/characters, Indonesia: social issues that were taboo that couldn’t touch even in comics)

Malaysia/Singapore: not comic book tradition until manga imported, same for animation on television
Lot: made own popular comic in Malaysia: based on own childhood in Malaysian country: keeps traditions alive in own comic books

Sri Lankan comics

Impact of Jap comics throughout Asia

Next: growth, changing status of industries in Asia
new companies
globalization
commercialization (merchandise)

governments: getting involved: to expand markets (not just interested in domestic market)
South Korea: 1994: gov’t: realized most important/profitable cultural export: animation; produced much of America’s animation
gov’t: ’94/’95: pumped a lot of money into animation
Seoul International Comics & Animation Festival ’95
set up Cartoon Network on TV
feature length films
started to expand education in animation/comics
’93/’94: 1 or 2 year technical animation colleges; within 5-7 years: number grown to 150 universities, tech colleges, even 6 high school (full animation/comic art departments)
gov’t: changed status of industry: had many tax breaks

Gila Gila 1978: 1st of humor magazines in Malaysia, then boom followed for these magazines; Gila Gila: top circulated magazine in area (more even than women’s magazines)

Singapore: number of types of comic book publishers
independent companies
companies that obtain rights from outside
publishers with own publication programs/directions to produce original titles (eg. Asiapac Books)
internet publishers

Philippines: 1 of strongest traditions of comics in Asia ’60s/’70s: of 150/160 movie titles published / year, 50% of movies animated
many artists: wanted money, better market: worked in US for DC/Marvel comics

Taiwan: modern industry: in some trouble now; 8 major companies down to 6; staff numbers cut
businessmen: looking for short term gains: so won’t pump money into comic industry
comic artists: not making deadlines, slowing down production

India: moving up in industry: Branson (Virgin): helped Indians start up lines of comics (eg. uses Indian characters/content; global collaboration between international film makers to find stories; seek talent among all creative fields to help create comic book stories)

worldwide: comics/animation: suffer from lack of good stories (also relates to film arena)

why do companies go into animation?
survival strategies:
not just thinking about comic books
expect to make money from lines of merchandise
exist just to recreate japanese comics or import them directly
also could be: wishes to have characters/stories adapted to film, video games, etc.

comics of Asia: multitude: genres, sizes, &c.
normal size, pocket size: for people to transport (eg. during traffic)

comics: reinvented themselves through Internet
webcomics
use on mobile phones (eg. buy pornographic/racy comic in private)
graphic novel: taken off in last decade, esp. in US
other genres: Korea: educational comics (used to study for exams) [Japanese: become them, eg. economic simplified in comics version]
underground comics

4) more recognition/prestige given to animators/comic artists in Asia

5) role of women
years ago: only in Japan as cartoonists
now: even in Pakistan: popular female artist
images of women: changing as well (past: put into demeaning roles)

in China: 2 golden ages of animation; 2nd: ended in 1988
positive aspect: had time and money to produce whatever needed

ended w/ animation: tadpoles searching for mother frog, watercolor animation
Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_6zK6Y0uUGk
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=t3oAOvfrBf8

Our World Digitized: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Yochai Benkler (B), Cass Sunstein (S), Henry Jenkins (J), [audience (Q)]

S: grade for internet: C-; “brilliant insight & cruelty”
later says: harsh: against realistic ideal;
if you have freedom of choice; can select options liked best, can go home;

B: what is the degree of engagement?
production of common experience: in old mass media: through gov’t/ advertisements –> dependencies
what is an elite? democracy: better now: greater number of people (millions) that can affect agenda w/o dying out

J: digital enclave:
babble hypothesis: are we in danger of excessive fragmentation?

B: most productive tool to map discourse on net: link analysis (who links to whom, what shape does the network take); looking at data: not seeing ‘daily me’ but structured public sphere; shallow network; really what we have: reproduction of mass media: small number of sites being used/looked at;
what we have: google news, social networks, filtering systems, clusters of communities of interests; more fragmented than mass media: yes; better environment to discuss: yes; more communities to obsess: yes; not a utopia, but fragmentation: not imminent

S: group polarization: bring like-minded people together: more in line w/ each other than before meeting in group; Internet operating in this fashion: does not create valid ‘democracy’
linking practices: D/R: cross-linking between each other to high degree: purpose?: to criticize other side
sites cluster, individuals cluster

B: How should we feel about the net as a platform for the public sphere?
practical purposes for politics, for one
What is the arc of culture that is bringing us to the degree of polarization that splits parties (ie. ’94 election) –> NOT the net, alternative cultural models have to exist
how we are in our conversation when we talk politics: we hang out with friends, when w/ people whose views are on other side: might skirt issues; we talk w/ people with whom with agree; arguments: are definition of who we are
we largely cluster & talk w/ each other: say how right we are, how wrong they are, occasionally listen to the other side

S: Jane Jacobs: serendipity of cities: person/building/~ that stuns you: something foreign to your preexisting experience; in cities: surprise of city: will alter you: what you’re interested in, what you care about, your aesthetics, your political views
- if people find someone who agrees with them: find them smarter/more likeable
- judgment: depends on what our norms are

YouTube: exemplification of great American city
negative: how many people keep looking over and over of online media in aversion of ~ candidate
empirical hypothesis: will go online to find information that reinforces own judgments

J: Wikipedia: what is says about civil society & collaborative production of knowledge

S: participation: not as huge as portrayed, but: occurs among everyone
can’t understand Wiki: w/o understanding that everyone has bits of knowledge that others dont’: comes together in aggregation of information/knowledge
best positive: everyone gets a free encyclopedia
for Wiki to work: norms must be in play: to prevent cruelty/lies to destroy enterprise
hierarchical system on top of collaboration that provides a safeguard

B: no disagreement
first few years: info: largely relevant culturally, then permitted
take issue calling it hierarchy: then Wiki gov’t: democratic, through people who volunteer, of people w/ consensus/agreement
Wiki: so good but so imperfect at the same time
human cooperation/collaboration: Wiki says it’s feasible –> so much so: inconceivable
need new model of cooperation: builds over differences even when some people have more sense of trust

S: vandalism: very high
hierarchical administrators: higher in hierarchy, but mainly: have norms, ie. dignity esp for biographies of people

J: models of citizenship, motivation for participation; educational implications?

B: if you think you can affect the agenda, you walk through the world observing things as arguments rather than simply complaints as people who “can’t do anything” –> kibitzing; better than sitting in front of TV & just cursing
young peoples’ use of media: not political? kids: play: practice things they’ll do as adults; play: not just acquisition of skills; kids: growing up looking for things: attitude of seeking
education: if we begin to use affordances of technology to bring into classroom meaningful projects: teach you how to seek information, build networks

S: along certain access: consumers: choose what we want, hope: we’re not just passive recipients of information
citizen v. consumer: for democratic purposes: norms of consumer: differ greatly from those of citizen
Google: culprit for not defining between citizen/consumer

Q: tools that allow exchange of information affect us? how new tools in future will change exchange, in terms of polarization?

S: people hardwired: 1) cluster w/ like minded others, 2) we’re curious
virtue of internet: potential to work against clustering and toward curiosity

B: basic question between tools we adopt & how we change/adapt
also: humans: very plastic: we’re in constant conversation with what we want and what we’ll adopt

Q: cooperation

B: what makes collaboration successful?

Q: of unexpected results: shared communities: as the grow

S: society: need is greater for degree of common experiences

Q: success of Wiki; other Wikimedia: not as successful

S: LostPedia: ex. of where collaborative production will work: because of intense interest: community that has good norms, intense interest; but: what niche is it fulfilling?
q: why would people want to participate in niche information gathering; to trigger norms of collaboration: have to have sense of ‘giving to people’

B: need subcluster of people who are motivated/passionate of subjective news reporting that is not professional: may not tap well into Internet’s much more objectivity

Q: objectivity; potential for highly polarized space; larger environmental issue: in US: D vs R: binary opposition

S: biparty system: does it necessarily ensure polarization? no; w/ environment of multiple parties: mutual action to form gov’t, but majority: think they are better than other parties; in dual party system: some of other side are better than us, we are better than some of them; not winner take all system: total inferiority of the other, not us versus them

B: two-party system: has eliminated left & right and left the middle standing; in US: everyone close to center in terms of the range; squishes together the program instead of greater polarization

Q: in favor of polarization/clusterization

S: empirical work: supports: if likeminded people listen to same people, will be less active in politics; appreciating it: feel more engaged: but pacifying effect
societies: benefit from 1st order diversity & 2nd as well; 1st order: optimal diversity in 1 area: everyone exposed to multiple points of view; 2nd order: diversity across: ie. economics department across universities: society benefits from greater stock of arguments created by polarization

B: ambition that is more substantiative: whether or not you have commitment to the whole

Q: network space vs. real space: small number of people wield huge range of influence: crosses over into the real world: ie. Anonymous

B: new possibility to act maliciously: more scary: should cause us to think of new set of accordances as a bad thing? no.
fear of the freedom of the net –> freedom of the city: still a bit scary

S: some blogs/sites: permeability/networkedness: very destructive to real people

Q: virtual worlds: where we can see people: how it will affect citizentry?

B: “you really feel like you’re in it”; Second Life: trying to see degree how visual perceptions trigger certain responses

follow up Q: real interactions: face-to-face: changed?

S: doesn’t really matter much; no differences yet