Wikis are an interesting tool for sharing information with others. The primary difference from a blog is that users don't just comment on the original post, but they can edit it. This has virtue, if your desire is to build a shared deposit of information with a community to verify and correct that information. It's drawback is that it is harder to trace the development of the conversation and compare the views of one person with another. It can be cumbersome to sort through the history for changes and differing points of view.
There is some controversy about the value of wikis, like Wikipedia, as sources for student research. One study in 2005 by Nature magazine claimed that Encyclopedia Britannica's accuracy was better, but not vastly better, than Wikipedia, but that study has been criticized by other researchers. The competing arguments are really philosophical in nature. One side argues that work produced and edited by scholars who are experts in their fields is more accurate. The other side argues that information which is written and edited by a sufficiently large community is self correcting. The first side does not take into account the ways in which a larger community might enrich our knowledge by sharing their differing perspectives. The second side rarely discuss the sources from which the community draws its knowledge in the first place, or how they are to arbitrate a difference of opinion.
The fluid nature of Wikipedia has also been criticized, because it can fall victim to the bias of its authors and political competition, notwithstanding its public policies of neutrality. Wikipedia has actually developed an arbitration process for dealing with serial editing, where people with competing views keep editing an article, one after the other, to reflect their personal views. In the last presidential election, partisans from both parties were found editing the entries about the opposing side's candidate in unflattering, and purportedly untrue, ways. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that not all contributors to sites like Wikipedia cite their sources, as regular encyclopedias do, so it is more difficult to verify the accuracy of the information presented.
One positive result of the dialogue about the nature and value of wikis in general and Wikipedia in particular is that it highlights the subjective side of knowledge in general. While we talk about the "facts" (remember the TV detective who used to say things like, "just the facts, Maam"), we know that facts can be interpreted, organized and presented according to our personal prejudices and ideologies. Most historians, for example, recognize that "objectivity" is beyond our reach, as we interpret the past according to our own culture, ethnicity, gender, religous tradition, etc.
One of the individual Wikis I explored is called MuslimWiki. What interested me most was the fact that it openly admits its partiality. It states that the wiki takes a pro-Islamic view and postings which are anti-Islamic are not allowed. This is a refreshing honesty, since I--with an admittedly cynical air--believe that many wikis are hosted by groups that ensure the information posted does not conflict with their views. When you read blogs and other websites by groups like Evangelical Christians and Atheist groups, you often find comments by the "opposition," sometimes nasty comments. But I explored some wikis on these topics that lacked that element. Makes me wonder . . .
Monday, March 15, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Thing 16
Widgets . . . Gadgets . . .
. . . "by any other name would smell as sweet"
It is easy to add gadgets to the blog directly from Blogger. These gadgets display on every page. Unfortunately, widgets from the web can only be embedded in a single post. Both can be accomplished easily, however. The process seems straightforward and trouble free.
You'll find one of my favorite old-time games, Tetris, at the bottom of the page, and here is a bit of history for you.
. . . "by any other name would smell as sweet"
It is easy to add gadgets to the blog directly from Blogger. These gadgets display on every page. Unfortunately, widgets from the web can only be embedded in a single post. Both can be accomplished easily, however. The process seems straightforward and trouble free.
You'll find one of my favorite old-time games, Tetris, at the bottom of the page, and here is a bit of history for you.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wordle--The Beatitudes
I've been wanting to complete and post this for a couple days, but I was having trouble with Java. Problem solved. Here it is.
The Beatitudes as created on http://www.wordle.net/
The Beatitudes as created on http://www.wordle.net/
Thing 15
Screencasting is an interesting way to capture action on your computer screen and use or share it. Here's a little screencast I made:
This program is easy to use and could have multiple applications for personal and professional projects. Of course the temptation to latch on to copyrighted material is great. This program makes it easy to capture anything you can do on your computer. I confess I experimented and was able to capture video streams and other materials which are, of course, designed not to be downloaded.
There is a constant tension between what can be done with computers and what should be done. There is a tension between what is possible and what is legal. As Michael Wesch remarked in his video, "The Anthropology of the Internet, which I recently blogged about, questions of ownership, copyright, etc. will have to be rethought as the web becomes more interactive, and programs like screencast make it virtually impossible to protect materials from being reused by others.
This program is easy to use and could have multiple applications for personal and professional projects. Of course the temptation to latch on to copyrighted material is great. This program makes it easy to capture anything you can do on your computer. I confess I experimented and was able to capture video streams and other materials which are, of course, designed not to be downloaded.
There is a constant tension between what can be done with computers and what should be done. There is a tension between what is possible and what is legal. As Michael Wesch remarked in his video, "The Anthropology of the Internet, which I recently blogged about, questions of ownership, copyright, etc. will have to be rethought as the web becomes more interactive, and programs like screencast make it virtually impossible to protect materials from being reused by others.
Thing 14
Voice Thread is a cool tool. I like the way it is built around sharing images and our thoughts about those images. In some ways it is an iconic program for digital natives, since it invokes visual and verbal literacy, rather than simply textual literacy. I have no proof, but I would guess that the folks who type their comments are older than the folks who record their comments. This program also has the virtue of being simple to use.
I could see using this program in my professional life for prayer services, rather than in classroom settings. I found an example of the Stations of the Cross created by an elementary teacher and her students, with homemade drawings and personal voice overs. The format allowed the students to integrate the symbolic dimensions of faith with modern technology. I think it is a terrific tool for engaging students in their faith on a personal level and allowing them to express the results in a medium that is comfortable for them.
I could see using this program in my professional life for prayer services, rather than in classroom settings. I found an example of the Stations of the Cross created by an elementary teacher and her students, with homemade drawings and personal voice overs. The format allowed the students to integrate the symbolic dimensions of faith with modern technology. I think it is a terrific tool for engaging students in their faith on a personal level and allowing them to express the results in a medium that is comfortable for them.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Anthropology of YouTube
Well, I'm glad I took up the suggested task of watching the video, Anthropology of YouTube (on YouTube, of course). It was well worth the time spent. I was unaware that the creator, Michael
Wesch, was the same man who made the Web 2.0 video we watched for Thing 1, until he mentioned it in his presentation. His work is thought provoking, asking more questions than it can possible answer. His philosophical reflections on the nature of culture and identity in light of new media are thoughtful, if sometimes stretched to the point of incredulity or at least over dramatized.
Several points in the video really struck me. The first is the notion of context collapse, the idea that whatever is posted to the internet can (and probably will) be interpreted and misinterpreted outside of its original context. When you recording yourself and others, you never know where that will end up. The Star Wars kid is the poster child for context collapse, I suppose. The kind of negative publicity given to the words and actions of political figures, movie stars, etc. can now be directed at ordinary people through mediums like YouTube.
A second interesting point was the collapse of the distinction between public and private space and time. User generated content is often created in private spaces, even people's bedrooms, but then broadcast on the internet, making our most intimate spaces accessible to the global village. Through Vlogs and the like, people are simultaneously alone and connected.
Another interesting dimension of YouTube that Wesch remarks on is the nature of the commentary (which could have been directed at the commentary on other forms of new media as well). He notes that the distance and anonymity of participating in web communities decreases social anxiety, allowing people to express themselves in ways they might other censor, which also leads to a public platform for expressing hatred. Anyone who has ever witnessed the work of trolls on a forum knows exactly what he is talking about. This is a trend I find particularly disturbing.
One question I would raise with Professor Wesch is his use of the term collaboration. Typically, we think of collaboration in terms of a mutually voluntary effort. Yet he speaks of collaboration among people who are not aware that collaboration is occuring. When you post something to the web, you know it is possible that someone else will take your work and alter or "remix' it to create something new. Can the original contributer really be said to be collaborating in that effort, however? That is like saying that Shakespeare is collaborating in my video if I quote from his plays. I'm not sure borrowing another's work without their knowledge makes them a collaborator in a meaningful sense, even with the increased possibilities for sharing ideas, pictures, videos, etc. on the internet.
Wesch, was the same man who made the Web 2.0 video we watched for Thing 1, until he mentioned it in his presentation. His work is thought provoking, asking more questions than it can possible answer. His philosophical reflections on the nature of culture and identity in light of new media are thoughtful, if sometimes stretched to the point of incredulity or at least over dramatized.
Several points in the video really struck me. The first is the notion of context collapse, the idea that whatever is posted to the internet can (and probably will) be interpreted and misinterpreted outside of its original context. When you recording yourself and others, you never know where that will end up. The Star Wars kid is the poster child for context collapse, I suppose. The kind of negative publicity given to the words and actions of political figures, movie stars, etc. can now be directed at ordinary people through mediums like YouTube.
A second interesting point was the collapse of the distinction between public and private space and time. User generated content is often created in private spaces, even people's bedrooms, but then broadcast on the internet, making our most intimate spaces accessible to the global village. Through Vlogs and the like, people are simultaneously alone and connected.
Another interesting dimension of YouTube that Wesch remarks on is the nature of the commentary (which could have been directed at the commentary on other forms of new media as well). He notes that the distance and anonymity of participating in web communities decreases social anxiety, allowing people to express themselves in ways they might other censor, which also leads to a public platform for expressing hatred. Anyone who has ever witnessed the work of trolls on a forum knows exactly what he is talking about. This is a trend I find particularly disturbing.
One question I would raise with Professor Wesch is his use of the term collaboration. Typically, we think of collaboration in terms of a mutually voluntary effort. Yet he speaks of collaboration among people who are not aware that collaboration is occuring. When you post something to the web, you know it is possible that someone else will take your work and alter or "remix' it to create something new. Can the original contributer really be said to be collaborating in that effort, however? That is like saying that Shakespeare is collaborating in my video if I quote from his plays. I'm not sure borrowing another's work without their knowledge makes them a collaborator in a meaningful sense, even with the increased possibilities for sharing ideas, pictures, videos, etc. on the internet.
Thing 13
I love YouTube. I've used it forever. I have found many videos on Youtube that I was able to use for class. It is easy to search for just the right videos. I also use YouTube to follow global events. The benefit of watching raw video footage and international newscasts and commentaries is an invaluable benefit of YouTube. On a more prosaic level, I occasionally watch a TV show I have missed on YouTube.
While I use Discovery Streaming occasionally, there are not many videos on that site that are useful for my classes. The selection is exponentially smaller and many of the videos feel dated. While one has to screen the videos on YouTube carefully, I can often find videos reflecting themes of justice, prayer, spirituality, etc. which are excellent for prayer services or class. Videos produced by other young people have a contemporary feel and relevancy to my students. They allow them to see what is possible and expose them to new ways of constructing and sharing information. My students enjoy the way music is incorporated into video.
The video embedded below was created by a high school student. He shared what he had learned in his social justice class in a cartoon format. I think my students would revel in such a project.
While working on this Thing, I signed up for a YouTube account. Perhaps I will post a video myself!
While I use Discovery Streaming occasionally, there are not many videos on that site that are useful for my classes. The selection is exponentially smaller and many of the videos feel dated. While one has to screen the videos on YouTube carefully, I can often find videos reflecting themes of justice, prayer, spirituality, etc. which are excellent for prayer services or class. Videos produced by other young people have a contemporary feel and relevancy to my students. They allow them to see what is possible and expose them to new ways of constructing and sharing information. My students enjoy the way music is incorporated into video.
The video embedded below was created by a high school student. He shared what he had learned in his social justice class in a cartoon format. I think my students would revel in such a project.
While working on this Thing, I signed up for a YouTube account. Perhaps I will post a video myself!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)